The first logical way the American-invented cognitive game of Scrabble settles the score against radical hereditarians in the racial (Black-White) IQ gap debate is through a two step process: how do white female players compare to white male players in top-level elite Scrabble? Since many mainstream cognitive psychologists tell us that white women (like white men) have much higher tested intelligence than blacks, whether you measure this as “general intelligence” or you just limit it to visuospatial intelligence or mathematical ability, we should expect white women to perform better than black men in any activity that depends on these abilities (since a slight deficiency in such abilities is also the reason white women perform lower than white men, according to the same hereditarians). What we have in Scrabble is an emphatic refutation of this hereditarian expectation of Black cognitive under-performance, especially when the full picture of African achievement in such mental games is examined, as I attempt to do in this article. I also refute any suggestions that such games are insufficient for this analysis.
When I oppose “hereditarians,” I am really concerned with only one specific aspect that many self-described hereditarians seem to share: their intriguingly confident belief that they have already found some kind of proof for a genetic cognitive gap between racial groups that has a certain magnitude and direction, which consequently explains scholastic and IQ test score differences among different ethnic groups. I will call this the “racial hypothesis” in this article, even though it is officially called the “genetic hypothesis,” because I do not want to leave the impression that I reject any genetically transmitted differences in mental (or any other) ability between any two populations. (I have previously theorized that the American black-white IQ gap could simply be a reflection of a high incidence of functionally mild neurological disorders among native black Americans, which tend to affect many more males than females: such a gender IQ gap reversal is less acute in black Caribbeans than black Americans, and absent in Africans, which could suggest that the disorder may have been inherited from mating with similarly affected poor whites during the time of slavery; it has nothing to do with race or evolution per se.)
Although I am therefore also skeptical about a radical global “environmental hypothesis” as the universal explanation for every single time there are any significant performance differences between populations or genders, I think that it should be obvious that the drastically inferior environment of Africa, especially the learning or educational environment (the training factor), is a sufficient explanation for any inferior intellectual performance or IQ of Africans living in Africa (which is why African school children born in Western countries perform as well as white European children, if not better). This article tests that proposition by examining the performance of Sub-Saharan Africans on contests that are much less hindered by the artificial lack of educational (training) resources while simultaneously requiring the application of high natural cognitive resources.
In the past, the paucity of women at the very top of cognitive games like chess has been attributed to common blame-game concepts like “stereotype threat” (men expected them to fail) or sexism (men wanted them to fail); the same environmental reasons given for black American under-performance on scholastic tests, when you just replace ‘sexism’ with ‘racism’ and ‘men’ with ‘whites’. This has supposedly led to the low female participation and motivation. The game of Scrabble perfectly refutes the “stereotype threat” or sexism theories for female under-performance because most people, including women, have always assumed that Scrabble is mainly just a spelling game, an activity where girls in fact appear to have a slight advantage on average. It is only in recent years, as the world of competitive Scrabble expertise has developed, that observers have noted the surprising abundance of math majors compared to language or literature majors at the top by far, and the gender disparity that this entails.
In fact, the college majors found for top Scrabble masters in the US and Canada can be predicted from a chart of average IQ and gender ratios for college subject majors; the most common professions of the top players are precisely the ones from the highest IQ segments:
Source: Randal Olson blog
In 2014, some cognitive researchers compared expert Scrabble players with top students at elite American colleges and found a significant cognitive advantage for the Scrabble experts; the students had SAT scores above 1400 (which approximately translates to an IQ above 143 138 for the students; and the Scrabble experts performed above such high-IQ students on all cognitive tests given).
This is not too far from what one insightful anonymous commenter independently calculated as the average IQ of the top ten American Scrabble players in comparison to other nations’ top 10 (as a comment on an article by hereditarian Professor James Thompson that was responding to my earlier comments on the subject):
I observe (from the table above) that the top 8 nations on this list (above Singapore) have all produced at least one world champion or finalist, and no one else has. Apparently, your top ten team has to have an average IQ of at least 135 to have a good probability of containing a world champion brain, perhaps from the IQ 150 plus range.
To confirm the conclusion that top Scrabble players are highly intelligent individuals with exceptional mathematical talents, I looked at some academic backgrounds of the top players in Western countries (where the developed educational environment supports a much higher academic achievement correlation with such abilities). I indeed found that a disproportionately large number of the very top players have a background in math or computer science and not much in language or literature, especially as the organized competitiveness of the game has grown over the years. Economists are also quite well-represented, probably due to its heavier math component compared to the other social sciences.
The highest rated American Scrabble player, David Wiegand, was a math major in college, and he comes from an incredibly mathematical family pedigree. His father and mother are highly distinguished math professors, as were his maternal grandparents and even his great-grandparents!
The surprise 2016 North American Scrabble winner, David Gibson, who won the championship again after winning it twenty-two years earlier, is also a math professor.
Joe Edley, the first person to win the American national championship three times, majored in mathematics and philosophy. Even Mack Meller, the youngest top Scrabble expert in the US, also just happened to win the national championship for the mathematical game, KenKen. Meller has been a student of a super-selective gifted program by Stanford University.
Mack Meller, 16, became the youngest Scrabble expert in the world in 2011 at age 11.
Outside the US, the highest rated Canadian player, Adam Logan, a former world champion, is also a mathematician. He received his first degree in mathematics from Princeton and his PhD from Harvard. He was a two-time Putnam Fellow – the most distinguished mathematical achievement for undergraduate students in North American universities.
Craig Beevers, a former world champion British player and one of the highest rated players in the world, is not a mathematician, but that’s only because he dropped out of his math program at university. His story reveals a profound level of natural giftedness in math: he could solve long multiplication problems in his head when he was still too young to start school!
Although there are more women than men who play Scrabble, the game is dominated more and more by men as you go higher in level of expertise. Girls in schools are initially attracted to the game because they have a strong ability in spelling. Spelling bee contests have been won more by girls than boys (46 to 41, respectively, as of 2013). Although girls do well in school Scrabble, the highest awards even at that level go to boys, and this disparity continues all the way to adult club level play, especially the World Championship level.
Women make up as high as 45% of qualifiers to the North American Scrabble championships. This just so happens to be the same gender distribution for majoring in mathematics itself in the US. But in the division of the highest rated players, there are only about 5% women, a pattern that is similar to gender imbalance as you go higher in mathematical achievement.
I also looked at the current (2016) WESPA ratings of the top elite players in the world and could identify only 5 names that were clearly female out of the top 100 players, which is only a bit better than chess (there were 2 female chess players in the top 100 in 2015, including the retired Judit Polgar; at the time of this writing in 2016, there is zero), despite the much larger participation of women in Scrabble. No woman has yet won the World Championship of Scrabble, one woman has won the highest award in mathematics (the Field’s Medal) and one woman has won the North American Scrabble championship (the late Rita Norr, a computer scientist, in 1987).
This rising gender disparity as you go higher in expert Scrabble is a big win for the hereditarian corner of the gender-and-intelligence debate, as it is very difficult for any of the environmentalist models to explain this consistent pattern in all cognitive games or professions, especially given the high participation rates of women in Scrabble. However, as we have seen many times in this research, a big win for the hereditarian side comes with a hidden pact with the devil: a victory in the gender-and-intelligence debate logically implies a decisive loss in the race-and-intelligence debate (you truly can’t have your cake and eat it in this world). How is it that black Africans, who (on average) are supposed to be about 30 IQ points below white women and supposedly have lower visuospatial or mathematical intelligence and even lower variance in their intelligence distribution, can achieve what has been accepted as statistically impossible for white women – outperforming white men – due to their slight cognitive disadvantage against white males?
| Total | Top 100 | Top 200 | |
| Nigeria | 51 | 24 | 40 |
| US | 71 | 19 | 29 |
| UK | 139 | 11 | 27 |
Top three nations with elite Scrabble players on the WESPA ratings list. Nigeria is on top, despite constant travel visa rejections to play in world tournaments.
Besides Nigeria, countries like Kenya, Ghana and Uganda also contribute players to the world top 100.
An even more astonishing picture of African performance unfolds when we look beyond the English-speaking African countries.
In 2015, Nigel Richards, an English-speaking professional Scrabble player from New Zealand, confirmed his reputation as perhaps the greatest Scrabble player in history by winning the French World Scrabble Championship, after memorizing the French dictionary in nine weeks. His goal in 2015 was apparently to hold both the English and French world championships simultaneously. He was robbed of his full glory by the Nigerian Wellington Jighere in the English version, but managed to pull off a more phenomenal victory in the language he does not speak!
Nigel Richards is said to have an authentic photographic memory.
What caught my eye in all the frenzied media reports was the name of the person Richards defeated in the finals (I was fully expecting a French name): Schelick Rekawe. An African (from Gabon) had reached the finals of the French world championships? How?
When I looked into the history of the French Scrabble World Championships, I was stunned to find that Francophone African countries have been even more dominant in French Scrabble, and over a longer period, than Nigerians have become in English Scrabble, despite a very active expert Scrabble club culture in France and other native French-speaking countries.
The full list of the top players in the 2015 French Scrabble championship that Richards won gives a clear picture of this African dominance:
2015 French World Championships final standings. Source: French Wikipedia
A look at Gabon’s demographics makes the Scrabble achievement of Gabon impossible to explain under the present racial hypothesis.
Gabon has a population of 1.7 million and a reported national IQ of 64.
If the world champion needs an IQ of just 140 (it should probably be higher than that, given the level of gender disparity at the very top), then there is statistically no one in Gabon who should ever come anywhere close to the world championship. Three made it to the top 10 in 2015.
Note that the strongest version of the genetic hypothesis is contradicted even before you do the math: the very existence of such high interest in a mathematical game can not be predicted from a genetic theory that claims heritability of (cognitive or other) human interests, if it is indeed true that Africans have the lowest genetic endowment in mathematical (or even verbal) ability.
Is French Scrabble perhaps less mathematical than English Scrabble? Not at all. The very fact that someone could successfully cross from English Scrabble to French Scrabble (Nigel Richards) should indicate that it requires similar cognitive skills. But I still looked at some profiles of the top French Scrabble players in Europe just to make sure, and found clear signs to confirm this. For example, the French Wikipedia entry on France’s best player (the last French player to keep the French World Championship from Africans, and the only one to have won it twice) says:
Christian Coustillas, professeur agrégé et génie des mathématiques, est un joueur français de Scrabble.
I do not know any French, but I can bet that there is the word ‘mathematics’ somewhere in there and perhaps even an academic career in it!
In 2016, Nigel Richards returned to defend his World Championship title and this time the Africans vowed to keep the crown from him. Like the year before Richards stole the French championship, the two finalists in 2016 were both Africans again; Richards was fourth, behind three Africans. The French math professor and former world champion, Christian Coustillas, could not make it to the top ten as more Africans dominated the chart:
2016 French World Championships final standings. 8 /10 positions are African. Source: French Wikipedia
Notice that the names of the 2016 top Gabonese players are different from the ones in 2015, which defies the probability projections from their population and national IQ even further. Senegal (population 13 million, IQ 76), which has probably had the most success at the world championships historically, achieved this with a literacy rate of only 40%!
Something Special about Scrabble for Africans Perhaps?
The man who won the French World Scrabble championship in 2014, Julien Affaton from Benin, also happens to be a top master draughts (checkers) player in his country. This should immediately suggest that whatever he is using to win his Scrabble games probably has something in common with what is needed to be a master in checkers, because it is highly improbable to be that exceptional in two different areas that require unrelated skills.
The question can then be asked: if this is true, then why aren’t Africans also very good in checkers at the world level, just as they are with Scrabble? Isn’t checkers an even more natural field for Africans since it is cheaper to make a checkers set?
Baba Sy breaking world record for simultaneous draughts play.
Back in 1960, a draughts expert from France was visiting the French colony of Senegal when he decided to watch some of the street games in poor communities after the French settlers had introduced the game to the black natives. He could not believe the accuracy and speed of their calculations, despite their lack of exposure to theory, and he decided to expose one of the stronger players to his homeland of France where there was a strong checkers club culture among the mathematically-inclined elites. To the utter shock of everyone in France, the young Senegalese player, Baba Sy, defeated every single expert in France and instantly achieved national fame by becoming the national champion of France!
France had once been the most dominant nation in the world of international draughts, before the Netherlands (briefly) and then the Soviet Union (permanently) took this honor from them through the latter’s state-sponsored program of monetarily professionalizing chess and checkers careers. With the phenomenal rise of Baba Sy, the French thought they had the chance of recapturing the World Championship from the Soviets by using this brilliant talent from one of their colonies.
Baba Sy participated in the 1960 World Championship tournament and shocked the Soviets by coming second in the world, in a variant of draughts he had just been introduced to that was different from his Senegalese one. Sy was not convinced that there was a human who was better than him at any form of checkers, so he decided to challenge the world champion in a more decisive one-on-one World Championship match instead of an open tournament of cumulative points against different players. But by the time this match was supposed to happen, Baba Sy had gained enough mastery of this standard variant to convincingly demolish the best of the Soviets, including their reigning champion and best match play genius at the time, Iser Kuperman. This made the Soviet government reluctant to allow the official World Championship match to take place, apparently for fear of the international embarrassment this title loss would cause, given their heavy investment in the game (they had the same fears over Bobby Fischer in chess). On the day of the match, the Soviet champion simply did not show up, and thus began a long contentious diplomatic standoff between the governments of the Soviet Union and Senegal, as the world of international draughts hotly debated who the rightful champion of the world was for many years. It was only fully resolved posthumously for Baba Sy.
List of Draughts World Champions. Source: Wikipedia
Again, a person like Sy should not exist outside the realm of science fiction if the racial hypothesis is correct. In 1960, Senegal’s population was 3 million, and IQ 76. The population of France was 47 million, and the population of Russia was 120 million, with national IQs of 98 and 97, respectively.
It should be impossible for a Senegalese champion to beat just the high school champions of either France or the Soviet Union. The reason we have never seen a child become world champion in checkers or Scrabble (or anything) is probably because their brains are not fully developed (brain development continues to 25 years of age); and yet the racial hypothesis tells us that the fully developed African brains are on average the mental age equivalent of the white 12 year olds. So why do (the smartest of) Africans produce world champion level players and the smartest of the white 12 year olds (or even the much more “superior” 18/19 year olds) never do?
Baba Sy was not some freakish anomaly in African draughts. Former African colonies of France have continued to offer the biggest challenge to Russia’s traditional dominance of the game, even though, like Scrabble players, most of them still have little access to international tournaments to raise their ratings (the fact that many of them come from lower income communities even by African standards makes it harder for them to obtain travel visas.) In 2015, Jean Marc Ndjofang, a Cameroonian player who has migrated to Europe, managed to qualify as the challenger to the Russian world champion (by defeating everyone else, including other Russians), and only came short of ending the iron grip of the Russians on the world title through a tie-break, as the two failed to beat each other after seven games of normal classical match play.
The 2015 World Champion, Alexander Georgiev, in a heated tournament game against the Vice-World Champion, Jean Ndjofang.
Americans play a different variant of draughts called English checkers or American checkers; the different variants mainly differ on the number of squares on the board. Although the game is mostly popular with children in the US, there is a whole world of professional checkers players who also have a clear endowment in mathematical ability. Thus, the most famous world champion in the history of American checkers was a distinguished math professor, Marion Tinsley. (There are now two variants of Anglo-American checkers: the normal Go-As-You-Play or GAYP and one called 3-move, in which the first three moves are pre-chosen, to prevent memorized opening plays that increase probabilities of draws).
After Tinsley’s indomitable reign, the most dominant English-checkers player in the world became the appropriately named Ron King, who won American championships and 12 world championships. At the height of his dominance, Ron King faced the biggest challenge of his career from an unknown player named Lubabalo Kondlo. King was able to retain the title after a grueling match that was later made into a documentary. Kondlo happens to be a black man from a very poor area in South Africa. Ron King is also black, from Barbados, and he is known as the Muhammad Ali of checkers for his “trash talking.” At the height of his career, King entered the Guinness Book of World Records for playing an unbelievable 350 simultaneous games and winning them all!
Ron King successfully defended his World Championship against strong Russian players who had shifted to the Anglo-Saxon checkers, including Alexander Moiseyev, a grandmaster in three variants of the game. Moiseyev, a computer programmer, finally snatched the crown from King in the 3-move variant in 2003.
Incredibly, Ron King held on to the World Championship of the GAYP variant until 2014, when he forfeited it to an Italian grandmaster, Sergio Scarpetta, when he failed to show up for the last four games of the World Championship match. South Africa’s Kondlo has continued his quest for the world title; he qualified again to play the World Championship match in 2015 in 3-move checkers (after defeating a strong field including Scarpetta), but lost the match to the world champion, Italian Michele Borghetti.
Canada also has its variant of checkers. The 2015 Canadian Champion is a Senegalese immigrant, Souleymane Keita. He defended his title against (a-Russian-immigrant-sounding name) Vladimir Lubarsky.
In summary, a player from sub-Saharan Africa was the finalist or world champion of 2015, in International Draughts, American checkers, Canadian checkers, English Scrabble and French Scrabble.
Why aren’t Africans also dominant in chess?
The simple reason seems to be that, unlike Scrabble and Checkers, master level chess requires access to a very large body of ever-growing literature in chess theory (even ignoring the difficulty of making homemade chess pieces); it’s no longer possible to teach yourself grand master level chess, without memorizing these long chess openings. Africans do not have this access to chess materials (which now includes computer programs) for the same reason that they have no access to mathematics text books and other educational materials in schools or public (I would be surprised if even 1 percent of Africans have ever seen the word “library” on a building anywhere; they simply don’t exist). Chess has become more resource-demanding than any school subject.
Fischer himself decried the increasingly heavy reliance of top-level chess on familiarity with professionally analyzed theoretical opening lines that the Soviet chess machine engendered (Fischer had to learn Russian just to keep up with the countless Russian opening analyses), and he ultimately invented a variant of chess (called Fischer Random chess) that basically rearranges the pieces at the start of a game. But standard chess continues to be the most popular in the world and Africans continue facing a training deficit for as long as there are no books there.
Thus when the New York Times reported on the incredible Grandmaster achievement of an amateur Zambian chess player in 2007, their article was revealingly titled “Zambian with Little Training Stands Poised to Make History.” (By contrast, re women in chess, a 1992 book about the best chess playing female trio in history, was skeptically titled “The Polgar Sisters: Genius or Training?”).
The resource disadvantage of Africa in chess still does not mean, as some racial hypothesis bloggers seem to constantly suggest, that African chess teams relatively perform at a level that “confirms” their low national IQ scores. On the contrary, Zambia has a stronger national chess team than either Japan or South Korea, for example. Thus, Zambia (population 15 million, national IQ 78) quite easily defeated South Korea (population 50 million, national IQ 106) last time they met at the Chess Olympiads, with the former not even featuring its grandmaster. (China, on the other hand, is now an East Asian chess powerhouse, although it should be mentioned that they achieved this through a semi-Soviet-style professionalization program dubbed “Big Dragon Project”, initiated by an Asian billionaire in collaboration with Chinese officials, with the explicit aim of raising East Asian chess performance).
South Africa’s first chess grandmaster, Kenny Solomon.
Even within some historically multiracial countries, you can find some hints of anomalies to the racial hypothesis: South Africa has produced only one chess grandmaster in its history, and he happens to come from the black community. The fact that the black population of South Africa is larger shouldn’t really matter; after all, the top swimmers in South Africa are all white (for likely genetic reasons), and the fastest runners in white majority multiracial societies are black.
The vast majority of observations that have led to the conclusions of the racial hypothesis are based on the intellectual performance of blacks in America, where a historical IQ gap of one standard deviation seems to be intractable.
Indeed the game of expert Scrabble itself appears to confirm the ethnic conclusions of Jensen et al within America because black Americans perform (on Scrabble) exactly as predicted by IQ data. Top black American experts generally perform lower than white American women at the top expert level.
The best male native black American Scrabble player, Marlon Hill, has apparently made it his open mission to beat whites at Scrabble, a story that has not escaped Rush Limbaugh‘s amusement. He has so far failed to convincingly establish his racial “superiority.” His rating does not appear on the top 1000 players of the world (WESPA) or even on the top 100 rated players in North America (NASPA). (By contrast, Marlon Hill’s old training partner, Sammy Okosagah, a Nigerian immigrant, has been ranked as high as number one in North America at his peak in 2004, and was one of the highest performing American duo, with David Weigand, at the 2013 World Championships when he came third in the world.)
Lisa Odom, the highest ranked native Black American player.
Quite surprisingly, there are some signs that the well-known gender reversal of intelligence that has been observed in black Americans may be slightly confirmed in Scrabble. A female black expert, Lisa Odom, does not appear on the recent international WESPA ratings list (although she has qualified in the past to play at the world championships) but she appears on the North American top 100 NASPA list. She is presently 59th on that list (it changes frequently), which makes her not only the highest ranked native black American, but also one of the highest ranked women of any race in North America. (Incidentally, the third highest ranked player on the entire North American list at the time of this writing is a Kenyan immigrant, Patrick Gitonga Nderitu, who is ranked just above the Stanford wonderkid, Mack Meller.)
One simple informal test of the “g-loadedness” or cognitive intensity of any intellectual field is the presence of Jewish over-representation at the very top of the game, so to speak. This rule seems to work for the game of Scrabble.
One of the highest rated Scrabble players in the world, second only to the great Nigel Richards in official rating at the time of this writing, is an Australian player named David Eldar. Eldar attended a special school called King David High School, whose Wikipedia description sounds like it was exclusively formed to serve the Australian Jewish community. Ashkenazi Jews are only 0.5% of that country. Although Eldar has not yet won the world championship, the odds are highly in his favor, as the second highest rated player in the world.
Someone who has won the World Championship is Joel Sherman, who is one of only three Americans to have held the coveted title. Even without digging further for more Jews on the long list of highly rated players in North America, these examples are already sufficient to establish Jewish statistical over-representation on Scrabble super-achievement. And we have a strong reason to believe that there are even more. In a 2005 interview where he was asked to confirm his Jewish roots after he appeared on a list of Jewish sports figures, Sherman disclosed:
… Several other North American Scrabble ®Champs have been Jewish and they’re not listed, presumably because the Wikipedia contributor who compiled that list found my Jewishness mentioned in “Word Freak” and the same info is not readily available about them. I won’t “out” them because I don’t know how they would feel to share that listing as well. My own feeling is ambivalent: it’s nice to be noted, but I’d rather my born religion was not the criterion for my inclusion, as I have been an atheist since even before my Bar Mitzvah…
Seven years before Sherman’s statement, a 1998 New York Times report on computers playing Scrabble against human experts, contained a revealing sentence in the long article: “The leading Scrabble players, many of whom are Jewish, …”
The over-representation of Ashkenazi Jews at the top of such cognitively demanding games might also put in doubt any suggestions of steep declines in real Jewish IQ in the 20th century.
The game of checkers does not escape this Jewish rule (no pun intended). I found that the greatest checkers match player in the Soviet Union at the height of Soviet sponsorship of the game, the man the Soviets were apparently shielding from Senegal’s Baba Sy, Iser Kuperman, was Jewish. This means that the two Russians who held the World Championship in chess and checkers at this time of Soviet dominance were both Jewish (the great Mikhail Botvinik was the chess world champion at this time in the early 1960s).
It is said that this ambitious Soviet promotion and glorification of chess and checkers was originally instituted by Stalin to keep the most intelligent elites of his country, especially the Jews, occupied with something that would keep them from meddling in politics (in more recent years, Gary Kasparov, an Ashkenazi Jew, has indeed become quite troublesome for the Russian government after retiring from chess). It was of course also later used for propaganda purposes to convey the intellectual “superiority” of the Soviet system internally and internationally.
Jewish brilliance has not left the world of checkers to this day. Alexander Moiseyev, the Russian who ended the World Championship reign (in 3-move American checkers) of the Barbadian Ron King, is of Jewish descent. (The 2015 finalist against Senegalese Souleymane Keita in Canadian checkers, Vladimir Lubarsky, is also almost certainly Jewish.)
The bottom line is that if the cognitive hierarchy under the racial hypothesis was true, there should be no single popular intellectual activity in the world in which Africans and Ashkenazi Jews are both over-represented at the top (just as there is no single world athletic activity requiring high speed, in which the slowest populations and the fastest populations are both over-represented at the top). Scrabble and Checkers are in violation of that logical axiom.
Jewish over-representation at the top of such games (checkers, scrabble, chess, etc) also puts in doubt any conclusions that the male advantage over females has to do specifically with visuospatial abilities, as Jews are not exceptional in that regard. It would seem that the advantage has to just do with general intelligence.
National School Scrabble championships, source: Wikipedia
East Asians have the reputation of being good at math in school and college, but their dominance does not extend to the highest award in math (the Field’s Medal), so it is not an anomaly for Scrabble that they are not over-represented at the world championships (especially those born in English-speaking nations). The question still is: why aren’t they good at Scrabble in school, since they are so conspicuously good in math at that stage? Does their failure at this stage pose a problem for Scrabble as a math game?
Actually, they do quite as well at Scrabble as they do in school mathematics.
It appears that there has been an East Asian name among the winners of the highly competitive National School Scrabble Championships in four of the last six years! (They are only 6% of the US population). Notice that only one female name has appeared (Aune Mitchell, 2007) even at this stage. I did not investigate the Jewishness of the other names, but it would not be surprising if there were a few.
First team to win National Scrabble School Championship twice, Andy Hoang and Erik Salgado
Source: Inside Higher Education, 2015
SAT math scores by gender and ethnicity in 2015. Source: AEI
“For expert players, the game requires the simultaneous interplay of verbal, visuospatial, and mathematical abilities under speeded conditions. There are no other games that require the simultaneous, rapid use of all of these abilities.” Halpern and Wai, The World of Competitive Scrabble, Psychology Today.
Spearman’s hypothesis, an idea used by Arthur Jensen to demonstrate the biological nature of the black-white performance gap, predicts that the gap should expand the more you use a test that relies on more raw brain power or ‘g’. Scrabble involves much more mental manipulations than the simpler well-known “WordSum” Vocabulary test and the latter shows a wide gap between blacks and whites (in America). This gap does indeed appear to grow even further when you replace WordSum test with Scrabble, but only when you limit “black” to native black Americans. The gap appears to reduce and even reverse when you introduce black Africans, which is an anomaly for the racial hypothesis. The fact that we are talking about the most elite players should actually make it even more impossible for this to happen since the black-white gap should be even more conspicuous (in favor of whites) at higher ends of cognitive performance.
In the same vein, the game of draughts (especially its speeded up form, called “blitz draughts”) is much more g-loaded than a simple “Reaction Time” test that is used by cognitive psychologists to test natural brain power differences by comparing how long it takes one to react to certain simple stimuli. Blitz draughts does not only demand your quick reaction to the move of your opponent, it includes the added mental challenge of calculating your reaction move based on assessing a constantly changing position. Besides playing the World Championship match in the slow classical draughts, an African player reached the top two slots of the super-elite world championships in blitz draughts for both 2015 and 2016.
If Africans are doing well on these games because of some special environmental reason, then that contradicts the genetic racial hypothesis. If Africans in Africa are outperforming others due to some environmental reason, then black American performance on Scrabble can also be raised by environmental methods; if black American Scrabble performance can be raised to equal whites, then black American math performance can also be raised by environmental intervention. If it can’t, then the fallacy of the hereditarian position has been to assume that native black Americans are cognitively representative of blacks everywhere.
The global racial hypothesis is therefore not just contradicted by these findings, it is logically refuted. Under this hypothesis, there should not be even one single cognitive field where the top blacks are equal or more over-represented than the top whites, especially when white participation in such fields is elite enough to result in a wide gender performance gap in favor of males even with relatively high numbers of female participants. The additional presence of Jewish over-representation at the top of a field should only reinforce the impossibility of black dominance or equality under that hypothesis. You have the opposite empirical result in Scrabble and checkers since you get increasing African over-representation with rising cognitive selectivity, suggesting a reversal of the gap, if anything.
The falsifiable part of the racial hypothesis is duly falsified.
- Downie, J. (2011). Why are Most Scrabble Champions Male? New Republic
- Fatsis, S. (2002). Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the World of Competitive Scrabble Players. Penguin.
- Frydman, M., Lynn, R. (1992). The general intelligence and spatial abilities of gifted young Belgian chess players British Journal of Psychology. Vol. 83. issue 2. p 233-385
- Halpern, D., Wai, J. (2007) The World of Competitive Scrabble: Novice and Expert Differences in Visuospatial and Verbal Abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2007, vol.13 no.2 79-94
- Lynn, Richard (1994). “Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved”.Personality and Individual Differences. 17 (2): 257–71
- Pinker, S. (2009). The sexual paradox: Men, women and the real gender gap. Simon and Schuster.
- Rukmini Callimachi (2008). For some Africans, Scrabble more than just a Game. USA Today
- Steven Moss (August 6, 2014). I’ve Got a Word for Scrabble Champions: Mathematicians The Guardian
- Tierney, J. (2005). The Urge to Win. New York Times
- Toma M., Halpern D. F., and Berger D. E. (2014), Cognitive Abilities of Elite Nationally Ranked SCRABBLE and Crossword Experts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 28, pages 727–737
- Ugander, J. (2016). What do Games tell us about human intelligence? On measuring human intelligence from comparisons. Medium.com
- Williams, J. (2015). Word Nerd: Dispatches from the Games, Grammar, and Geek Underground. Liveright.
Do you have any evidence that smart white guys waste time on this crap?
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so.
6300 words on this non-issue. I sense someone's need to publish something that means nothing more than what we already know about Scrabble -- people with large vocabularies, if they draw the right tiles, score higher than people with smaller vocabularies.
Soon, those looking for publishing credits will be turning out reams of research on World of Warcraft geniuses.
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so."
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don't you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/#comment-1629143
“ctrl f” bell curve “0 results”
what an astoundingly contentless article. How can the author pretend to know anything about the intelligence distribution when he thinks that a black man defeating white scrabble players in any way refutes IQ statistics?
* There is a minority of population in Gabon with a IQ significantly higher than whole population.
* scrabble top players are equivalent to 1SD (115) meaning still 3.6SD for Gabons (equivalent of 154 for whites)
* popularity of scrabble is DRASTICALLY (i.e. something like ten thousands more) higher in Gabon than in France.
Making homemade chess pieces is extremely easy.Even marked scraps of paper will do.
The folded board had the 8x8 chess board layout on one side, and the 3x3x3 Morris board on the other side.
Perhaps a copy of the German board game "Schach - Dame und Mühle" used by the Wehrmacht during WW2.
A wooden Chess set was/is not required.
Kasparov is half-Armenian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov
ron
i got bad news for you.you forgot to consider that africans have been playing board games for 1000′s of years.the tradition was already there.
http://goafrica.about.com/od/peopleandculture/tp/African-Games-Games-Played-In-Africa.htm
Clutching at straws? The evidence for an African-European difference in average intelligence is so overwhelming at this point, these oddball anecdotes are pointless. Read the Jensen-Rushton review article and try to refute even one tenth of the accumulated evidence — good luck.
Congratulations for this wonderful, well-reasoned and empirical analysis. Conclusive? I cannot tell and expect to enjoy a wonderful and informative debate. Convincing? For me, a definite yes!
Troll: Hippopotamusdrome
“Africans do not have this access to chess materials (which now includes computer programs)”
Utter rubbish, the emergence of these programs actually makes it easier than ever for anyone to learn this if they so wanted, one will find plenty of pirated DVDs on sale when one travels Africa, so getting pirated chess software is not that hard if there was a demand.
If the latent talent for chess existed then it would not take very long for a chess prodigy to be spotted (this article mentions this happening for checkers), a black man contending for world championship would send the liberals to seventh heaven, they would sell both their kidneys and their homes to throw money at any such black man.
if you took out time to understand and even appreciate the challenges that structured education face in most African countries, you can begin to understand why this gaps exist as you have come to conclude.
It is really nothing genetic or hereditary as Nigerian born Wellington Jighere with very negligible global exposure and non existent state support and recognition emerged World Scrabble Champion (WESPA) for 2015. I speak with you as someone that has closely watched development since he returned from Perth, Australia.
There really is not much of an environment to better explore the huge potential of this games. there is no attempt by the state to encourage these games in schools. If Scrabble or other Board games received even a fraction of the attention it has come to be associated with in Europe etc, i am almost certain that your views will undergo a reversal in no time.
Bottom line is lack of support for this games, the genetic superiority/inferiority is only but a hoax. it is difficult to measure achievement in humans, especially when they come from backgrounds that promote Superiority/Inferiority. The next half a century will be a real test for these hypotheses as they do not yet constitute a theory.
The urgency for growth and development will shift towards Africa for very obvious reasons. even a quarter of a century sustained interest in these or any game will give you a clearer picture. buying pirated CD's and not having the right environment to articulate and consolidate mental development does very little and doe not tell the whole story.
Wellington Jighere 2015 World Scrabble Champion will do well with any support you can put together to aid the support of his Foundation aimed at supporting young minds across Africa. HE DOES NOT YET STILL ENJOY ANY KIND OF SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGEMENT FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GOVERMENT DESPITE ALL OUR BEST EFFORT.
Best regards
kingsley Chinda Esq
Thank you, Chandy. I have to say that no one ever has written such convincing papers against hereditarian hypothesis – yours are the first one which deal a heavy blow to my confidence in that hypothesis. I hope the hereditarians will write an answer as soon as posisible.
Heh. You are a cartoon of cherry picking.
On a more practical note, you don’t see where your mistake is?
This article is an emphatic refutation of something…
Thanks to both the author and UR for this. It’s the only article I’ve seen here that deals with the topic in an intelligent manner, tho I confess to not having read them all!
Nobody said that there are no blacks in the right tail of the bell curve, but that the median IQ is lower than the median IQ of all other races. I doubt that the pool of scrabble players is a representative sample of the population.
Given that Nigeria has a population of 173 million (expected to grow to 440 million by the end of the century) it is not surprising that they will have a decent number of very smart people, but not as many as you would find among 173 million Ashkenazim.
Or whites.
Very good. Now the West can rest assured that Africa, the Caribbean, and all other Black areas are fully capable of engaging and solving their own problems without Western help. The West’s only duty is to completely disengage so that Black native intelligence can flourish and build superior civilizations.
Success in higher mathematics is often correlated with a high verbal intelligence; high end scrabble players the same.
Looking at just success in scrabble or checkers narrows the kind of society building intelligence we are looking at in these pages. Heck, by some measures, chimpanzees are smarter than humans.
We are pretty much barraged with anecdotes about high achieving individual Blacks. There seems to be missing the cooperative spark for building and maintaining an industrial infrastructure.
Is it possible that within these African countries there are different sub-species? I understand that in east Africa it's a specific tribe that produces the champion distance runners, not the east African population generally. Perhaps the same is true for brain sports.
And there are Ethiopian Jews. They may not get much respect currently in Israel, but they may be far above the general black population in Africa. I taught an Ethiopian young woman here in USA in a class, and she was the academic talent of the class which included at least half white people. She had nothing in common intellectually with what we see with dreary consistency in African Americans. It didn't require any special cultural understanding or indoctrination on my part, no "sensitivity" etc. She spoke excellent English and comported herself simply as a member of good society, in manner and in thinking. And she got top grades on tests. I don't know if she was Jewish, but she was an intelligent woman by regular standards who was black.
African Americans were selected a few hundred years ago for incompetence in battle (they lost within Africa and were captured to be sold to slave traders) but physical strength. They cannot be expected to excel in military and strategic skills, which are pretty much the basis of a well respected IQ test which used to be called the ASVAB.
Universities know that they can find talented black students from Africa. When our top universities fill their racial quotas, quite a few of the blacks are such foreign students. The "SAT score gap" would be even greater if they had to fill the whole quota with African Americans.
So, from where does the question ‘where be all the white wimmen?’ come?
CHANDA put so many word’s to make a foolish comparison. I have a very simple question for her: “How come so many White and Jew criminals received far more Nobel Peace prizes as compared to Black folks? NONE – because Barack Obama is only 50% Black due to his White mother.
That means, Blacks have low IQ because they’re not murderous or war criminals!!
Let me quote Eric Margolis from his book, “War at the Top of the World”.
“When Indian were enjoying a great civilization under Mughal rule – London was a city of 15,000 unwashed people.”
David Brooks in his January 12 Op-Ed column ”The Tel Aviv Cluster’ in the New York Times boasted many Jewish achievements considering they make-up only 0.2% of world’s population. He claimed that 54% of world chess champions, 27% of the Nobel physics laureates and 31% of the medicine laureates are Jewish. David Brooks also adds that though Jews make only 2% of United States population – 21% of Ivy League student bodies, 26% of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37% of Academy Award winning directors, 38% of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists and 51% of Pulitzer Prize winners for non-fiction are Jewish. I, too, find them very laudable. But then David Brooks come out of his Hasbara (propaganda) liter-box by equating these Jewish achievement with Israeli achievements – as if the great majority of 12.7 million world Jewish population lives inside Jewish occupied Palestine. ….
https://rehmat1.com/2010/01/21/jewish-or-israeli-achievements/
The Pakis must be brilliant people too.
After all, you're a nuclear engineer.
Sherm
Sorry. Much like a Jeopardy contestant, Scrabble relies on rote retention skills. A good memory makes for a good scrabble player. Not a genius.
I mean, I do not think this is a "refutation" of hereditarian hypothesis, but Chandy gives reasoned argument and I do not see here refutation of his refutation.
So to a great extent do the study of medicine and law. And even if you've memorised the dictionary, you still have to shuffle the letters (on table or in head) to see what words they make., and I presume there's a time limit.
Interesting piece.
Perhaps blacks in Africa have even more free time on their hands relative to their American counterparts.OMG! We could make one hell of a dent in black criminality her in the states by giving out scrabble boards.
No measurement or discussion of statistical significance. The article is mostly hand waving. Science is broken today. A proper sampling of each population group for any attribute could be taken and distribution curves developed. Studies like this should use a theoretical statistician to set up the study sampling plan and to review the statistical analysis.
Mental games correlated with intelligence, ”they” are partial expression of intelligence, but generally mental games (included the most complete of all, IQ tests) are just like sports, recreative at best. How perfectly transferable is the strategic agility/ability of the chest players into the real-world contexts**
How well succesfull would the top olympic sprinter in the real world context**
Sports, usually have atomized natures where people learn to do quite narrow tasks.
Real world contexts are usually very complex, with many perspectives, many different knowledges interacting one each other to produce the big picture and with broad tasks or challenges.
Intelligence and any other aspects of behavior is not just their physical features, like brain sizes, and obviously it’s not the results in the cognitive sports such Scrubble.
You’re all the time dispising one of the fundamental rules of Hbd: the exceptions prove the rule.
In just one sentence you’re in fatal contradiction: ” i’m not radical hereditarian, but my main theory is politically correctly hereditarian: ‘defective redneck genes’ make afro-americans dumber”.
Scrabble or scrubble.. whatever
6,300 words and not a single mention that I can see about relative interest in Scrabble.
The reason that East Asians – almost all Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese – dominate go is that it is their most popular game.
Russians and Russian Jews dominated chess not so much through raw IQ but because far more Russians play chess than Anglos.
Which polls confirm:
From what I have seen, Scrabble is largely considered to be a children’s game in the US and Britain.
I have never seen it played at all in Russia. There is simply no pool from which Russia could draw Scrabble winners.
Without knowing anything about Scrabble’s relative popularity in Africa no further legitimate conclusions about anything can be drawn.
Checkers are of limited interest to mind games aficianados because it is a relatively dull and completely solved. So I suspect you will actually get some range restriction effect at the top end (which would also likely discourage ultra-competitive mind sportsmen from seriously competing in it).
So, let's take your example of chess and Russia. Suppose African countries started playing chess seriously (as seriously as Russia) and they defeated Russia. Would you say that you can't draw any conclusions from this because there are many other white countries that do not play chess as much as Russia?I'm not sure you actually read the article or bothered to go to some of the sources. Or you prefer to rely on your own "from what I have seen" research? (Even just the professions of the players would not be predictable if what you say is true.)Another statement that sounds like you never bothered to read the article. It covers the period before checkers was allegedly "completely solved." The Ashkenazi Jewish "interest" factor has to also be factored into your claim.
Others are making similar points, so let me just say something that I assumed was already well understood from the literature/logic on this issue: genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument). The people of India will probably not produce the fastest runner in the world even if the entire country becomes passionate about running and half of Jamaica (a relatively tiny population) is forbidden by law to stop doing any running.
Also, as someone else has pointed out here, the same people claiming relative interest differences rejected that argument when it came to IQ tests.
Scrabble like spelling bees are memory games. They do not show logic, reasoning, problem solving or math abilities.
It's far more challenging than spelling bees though.
The more the game progresses, the more one needs to be 'creative' in memory.
You don't really know anything about scrabble do you? What on earth makes you thing you're in a position to make such an ignorant pronouncement?
Its funny that folks think IQ and board games have any relationship yes even chess
Pretty much everyone wants some money so IQ correlates very well with national income levels (and with income + job prestige for individuals).
Science and culture in general is something that many people want and appreciate as well so there is a good correlation between national scientific and artistic output and national IQ as well (though very generally speaking Europeans overperform and East Asians underperform relative to their intelligence).
Once you get down to individual sciences and artistic endevours you start seeing some of the effects of national idiosyncracies, e.g. the French seem to have been more relatively prominent in mathematics than in other spheres.
Once you get down to board games these specific effects begin to dominate, especially as you go down from the most universal game (chess) to ever more and more specific games. If the entire Viking world were to be all resurrected draugr-style they would presumably account for all Hnefatafl champions, at least for the first one or two years anyway. Doubt Chisala would be using it as evidence for Nordic supremacy however.
I think it's intelligence and cooperation.
I'd wager a cooperative community with medium IQ will do better than a nasty society with high IQ. Even among smarter blacks, I see personality and emotional traits that are overly egotistical, self-centered, unreflective, and abrasive.
It's like a cooperative sports team with good players will beat an uncooperative team with great players(with each playing for personal glory than good of the team).
Black problem isn't just IQ. It has to do with psychopathy. Obama is someone who did NOTHING in his life but manipulate gullible whites by pretending to be manipulated by Jewish elites.
Blacks know how to shout but not to listen.
Blacks know how to judge but not to take criticism.
Jesse-Jacksonism is rife among blacks.
I mean how pomp-ass can you get?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jessejacks117365.html
Sheeeeeeiiit, it be rhyming and shit.
Farrakhan and Sharpton seem reasonably smart, but they are pathological to the core.
Granted, ultra-cooperative Japanese have their own pathologies: Servilititis, the sheer cowardice to blurt out what needs to be said. But there are exceptions.
https://youtu.be/RRVLqUpHDJE?t=1m25s
I know quality is more important than quantity, but still.
Also, what happened to Jayman?
This article is goofy. Of course the genetic hypothesis is based in evolution, specifically in selection.
Suppose this generation of Africans with at least 130 IQ all had ten children, and those with IQ below 130 IQ had none. Please speculate for us, dear Chandry, what the children’s average IQ might be. Hint: it won’t be 70.
That means, Blacks have low IQ because they're not murderous or war criminals!!
Let me quote Eric Margolis from his book, "War at the Top of the World".
"When Indian were enjoying a great civilization under Mughal rule - London was a city of 15,000 unwashed people."
David Brooks in his January 12 Op-Ed column ”The Tel Aviv Cluster’ in the New York Times boasted many Jewish achievements considering they make-up only 0.2% of world’s population. He claimed that 54% of world chess champions, 27% of the Nobel physics laureates and 31% of the medicine laureates are Jewish. David Brooks also adds that though Jews make only 2% of United States population – 21% of Ivy League student bodies, 26% of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37% of Academy Award winning directors, 38% of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists and 51% of Pulitzer Prize winners for non-fiction are Jewish. I, too, find them very laudable. But then David Brooks come out of his Hasbara (propaganda) liter-box by equating these Jewish achievement with Israeli achievements – as if the great majority of 12.7 million world Jewish population lives inside Jewish occupied Palestine. ....
https://rehmat1.com/2010/01/21/jewish-or-israeli-achievements/
Hey Homer
The Pakis must be brilliant people too.
After all, you’re a nuclear engineer.
Sherm
In its March-April 2010 issue, the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists', a magazine founded by Russian-born American Jewish biophysicist Eugene Rabinowitch), reported that “741 pounds of highly enriched uranium suitable for weapons production disappeared from NUMEC while Zionist Jew Zalman Shapiro was president and was likely diverted into the Israeli nuclear weapons program”......
https://rehmat1.com/2011/01/10/us-award-for-stealing-bomb-grade-uranium-for-israel/
The Igbo of Nigeria (Biafrans), are noted for their intelligence and commercial acumen relative to other groups in West Africa. Tribal origin of the Africans might be interesting.
Scrabble seems to be the odd man out of the three games due to its random factor in selecting new tiles.
I was a pretty good Scrabble player in my day, but I’d sometime lose because my tile set at one point would be five Es, an O and a Q.
The darker interpretation of Souq comes from contemporary Europe, courtesy of the Merkel Jugend and their analogs in the now-dispersed Jungle of Calais. You might say that the Merkel et al policies really wanted to make Europe souq ;) Or if you prefer, Europe could really souq if the elites had their way.
Badum-bum, Je suis ici toute la semaine, donne ton serveur un pourboire.
Well, it’s called self-help, and I think it should denied to no-one.
It’s everyone’s right to not see the aspects of reality that wound their ego.
Would it be better if it wasn’t public, and regularly featured here?
Maybe. But then, this kind of self-help comes into effect when it’s public.
If others hear your hopes and accept them it’s easier for you to believe them a reality.
These people didn’t even reach the cognitive level needed to formulate written languages and grammars. Writing, and grammar were imposed to them from the outside, to the degree they can be imposed on them (and I think they shouldn’t, by the way).
“I eat apple yesterday”, “I go beach tomorrow”.
Hope all is well (although the repetition of these articles seems to indicate it is not).
Why then correlation with majors usually associated with higher “g”, as noted by Chandy Chisala? It does not seem like only good memory is in play here.
I mean, I do not think this is a “refutation” of hereditarian hypothesis, but Chandy gives reasoned argument and I do not see here refutation of his refutation.
I'm 4 sd's up in IQ and don't do so.
I play Scrabble with the relatives at Christmas time, and tire of it quickly. Bridge is a better game. Much ado is made about chess requiring genius, but Fischer was a dysfunctional sociopath, and he has a lot of chess-playing company in that regard.
6300 words on this non-issue. I sense someone’s need to publish something that means nothing more than what we already know about Scrabble — people with large vocabularies, if they draw the right tiles, score higher than people with smaller vocabularies.
Soon, those looking for publishing credits will be turning out reams of research on World of Warcraft geniuses.
what an astoundingly contentless article. How can the author pretend to know anything about the intelligence distribution when he thinks that a black man defeating white scrabble players in any way refutes IQ statistics?
It seems that you have either not read or understood the article. Gabon has 1.7m and several finalists; and Gabon supposedly has IQ of 64. Moreover, it is constantly suggested that means for blacks are narrower, so let’s say 14 instead of white 15. So top players in Gabon would have 5.4SD (equivalent of 181 in whites). The probability that there would be even one top level player in Gabon is almost zero, unless:
* There is a minority of population in Gabon with a IQ significantly higher than whole population.
* scrabble top players are equivalent to 1SD (115) meaning still 3.6SD for Gabons (equivalent of 154 for whites)
* popularity of scrabble is DRASTICALLY (i.e. something like ten thousands more) higher in Gabon than in France.
This discussion was a pleasure to read. So often we are offered articles in the mainstream press where hereditary or racial factors are excluded from the outset, out of ideological willfulness. And the alternative is frequently equally dogmatic racialism. Here is an example of what I have long maintained is the only honest way to get at the truth: a careful, thoughtful look at the facts, with no hypothesis disallowed unless it is disproved. Questions of sexual or racial/ethnic differences cannot be settled a priori; they are, as exemplified here, necessarily a matter for empirical study.
70 potential scrabble champions were shot to death in Chicago in the month of October alone….and another 350 potential scrabble champions wounded. Can the scrabble community long survive this monthly loss of scrabble talent?
Back to basics. Somebody please answer my simple question:
Are all bell curves shaped the same?
If there are two populations of similar size. And the median IQ (at 100) of Population I equates to X out of Y questions solved correctly in a battery of culture-neutral IQ tests … and Population II’s median IQ 100 equates to (X – 33%)/Y correctly answered questions … then if you push the transparent graph paper with Pop II’s bell curve over to the right until their medians are in the same place … will the rest of the curves be congruent from tip to tip, yes or no?
If the answer is, yes they should be, then if you shift the second curve back, the farthest reaches of its right-hand side will again peter out long before the first curve’s right-hand tail does. There won’t be any individuals in Pop. II with results equivalent to those scored by, say, 145 IQ individuals in Pop. I. If I understand this article, however, such individuals do exist in low-median-IQ populations such as Gabon, contrary to expectations.
(If you reject Scrabble as a proxy for intelligence, pick something else. Perhaps medals at Math Olympiads, which some contestants from Sub-Saharan Africa have won.)
A result contrary to expectations suggest that there is something wrong in the underlying assumptions. What is it?
Somebody on the north end of the comment bloc already pointed out that medians and averages don't mean there are not individuals to the right of the median, 3SDs out, etc. There are. That's what statistics consistently observes. However, the median and the average are what they are.
Human intelligence is not a random function. It will also vary depending on non-random factors such as environment, training, education, culture and, yes, racial composition. If you plot the actual measured IQs of racial groups such as Whites, Blacks or Asians, you have to keep in mind that each of those groups is composed of sub-groups. "Whites" are a collection of people like Swedes, Italians, Anglos, Poles, etc., each of which are genetically slightly different. "Blacks" are a collection of different sub-groups, Caribbean, Nigerian, East African, and in the US with a mixture of Whites in their genetics. Similar with "Asians".
Furthermore, IQ has biological limitation. You can only get so dumb before you are no longer testable. The human brain isn't capable of achieving an IQ of 1000, so the left and right points can't extend out indefinitely.
To your Question, one of the best examples I have seen of what actual "Bell" curves looks like is this plot of real test results from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm
Note a few things, such as the fact that the curves are not perfect bells, and are not symmetrical. For Blacks there was significant trail out to the right so that at the extreme right the frequency of Blacks begins to approach that for Whites.
Perhaps even more significantly, if you measure the test score values and run calculations on them, the standard deviations are NOT the 15 points that would be valid for a true Gaussian distribution bell curve.
For this particular study the measured results are:
Average IQ: Whites 103.3 Blacks 87.5
Median IQ: Whites 103 Blacks 86
1 Standard Deviation: Whites 10.2 Blacks 9.4
As far as I know, the evidence is that a Gaussian distribution fits population IQ data better than any other. I'm no expert on this topic.
If I understand you, you are not denying that:
1.) Genes influence IQ;
2.) Differences in IQ can be explained (partially) in terms of genetic differences;
3.) Ethnic groups have different aptitudes viz. IQ, which is partially a result of genetic differences between ethnic groups.
Instead, you are attacking something like the contention that classifications based on continental-racial groups are reflective of different genetic potentials for IQ, e.g. contending that whatever genetic factors contribute to IQ will have more variance within continental racial groups than between continental racial groups. [But perhaps more variance between ethnic groups than between members within an ethnic group. . . especially if part of the drive to create ethnic identity is about preserving a high IQ caste.]
In other words, you are rejecting Lynn’s hypothesis, but not HBD in general. Further, I assume you would agree that African-Americans have an IQ approximately 1 S.D. than Whites, and so much of the racial inequality between these groups is explained by different aptitudes and probably different genetic aptitudes, not white racism.
If so, this causes me to wonder if African Immigrants will seek to distinguish themselves ethnically from African-Americans in the future, or whether the color line will hold? [And what will we call them?] It is clear to me the ethnic interests of high IQ ethnic groups will always be in conflict with lower IQ ethnic groups, if the plight of the Nigerian Ibo is any judge.
Go fix India.
The Pakis must be brilliant people too.
After all, you're a nuclear engineer.
Sherm
Yes – Sharon…… Who would know better than a KIKE that Pakistani scientists are brilliant. After all they produced Islamic Bomb without stealing bomb-grade uranium from the United States.
In its March-April 2010 issue, the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’, a magazine founded by Russian-born American Jewish biophysicist Eugene Rabinowitch), reported that “741 pounds of highly enriched uranium suitable for weapons production disappeared from NUMEC while Zionist Jew Zalman Shapiro was president and was likely diverted into the Israeli nuclear weapons program”……
https://rehmat1.com/2011/01/10/us-award-for-stealing-bomb-grade-uranium-for-israel/
Are all bell curves shaped the same?
If there are two populations of similar size. And the median IQ (at 100) of Population I equates to X out of Y questions solved correctly in a battery of culture-neutral IQ tests ... and Population II's median IQ 100 equates to (X - 33%)/Y correctly answered questions ... then if you push the transparent graph paper with Pop II's bell curve over to the right until their medians are in the same place ... will the rest of the curves be congruent from tip to tip, yes or no?
If the answer is, yes they should be, then if you shift the second curve back, the farthest reaches of its right-hand side will again peter out long before the first curve's right-hand tail does. There won't be any individuals in Pop. II with results equivalent to those scored by, say, 145 IQ individuals in Pop. I. If I understand this article, however, such individuals do exist in low-median-IQ populations such as Gabon, contrary to expectations.
(If you reject Scrabble as a proxy for intelligence, pick something else. Perhaps medals at Math Olympiads, which some contestants from Sub-Saharan Africa have won.)
A result contrary to expectations suggest that there is something wrong in the underlying assumptions. What is it?
Geometrically speaking, they will be, in mathematics parlance, “similar”. Congruence requires a point-by-point exact equivalence.
Somebody on the north end of the comment bloc already pointed out that medians and averages don’t mean there are not individuals to the right of the median, 3SDs out, etc. There are. That’s what statistics consistently observes. However, the median and the average are what they are.
szopen in comment #46 does a good job of expressing what's on my mind in logical and orderly fashion.
Alright, let us say Chanda is right.
There are tons of black geniuses.
I only suggest they apply their brilliance to science and medicine than to scrabble or scribbige.
Science and culture in general is something that many people want and appreciate as well so there is a good correlation between national scientific and artistic output and national IQ as well (though very generally speaking Europeans overperform and East Asians underperform relative to their intelligence).
Once you get down to individual sciences and artistic endevours you start seeing some of the effects of national idiosyncracies, e.g. the French seem to have been more relatively prominent in mathematics than in other spheres.
Once you get down to board games these specific effects begin to dominate, especially as you go down from the most universal game (chess) to ever more and more specific games. If the entire Viking world were to be all resurrected draugr-style they would presumably account for all Hnefatafl champions, at least for the first one or two years anyway. Doubt Chisala would be using it as evidence for Nordic supremacy however.
How come you write no new articles anymore ?
“Scrabble Spells Doom for the Racial Hypothesis of Intelligence” article spells doom for any respect for the author or any belief that s/he understands either statistics or logical argument. If the author truly is drawn from the extreme right-hand tail of the Negro intelligence distribution then there is no hope for the survival of much of that race in a modern society.
At this point I think I’ll ignore any further nonsense by this person.
“Scrabble like spelling bees are memory games. They do not show logic, reasoning, problem solving or math abilities.”
It’s far more challenging than spelling bees though.
The more the game progresses, the more one needs to be ‘creative’ in memory.
Here is one of Chandy’s argument. First, the rough calculations:
1SD above the mean = 0.15 (1 in 6.5) (IQ 115)
1.5 SD – 0.0668
2SD = 0.0228 (1 in 43.8) (IQ 130)
2.5SD = 0.0062 (1 in 150.9) (IQ 137.5)
3SD = 0.0013 (1 in 750) (IQ 145)
3.5SD = 0.0002 (1 in 5000) (IQ 152.5)
4SD = 0.000031 (1 in 32000) (IQ 160)
5SD = 0.000000286 (1 in 350.000) (IQ 175)
5.5SD = 0.000000019 (1 in 5.000.000) (IQ 182.5)
5.78SD = 0.000 000 00373 (more or less 1 in 300.000.000)
Now, scrabble is weakly correlated with IQ, though specific skills are at play. Assume being top scrabble player is 3SD above the mean for white players. For Gabon, that would be 145-64=81. Assume SD for blacks is 14, because usually it is claimed blacks have lower SD. Then they would have to be 5.78 above their mean and would mean roughly one top player per 300 million of people. Gabon population is 1.7 mln and few top players.
If top scrabble players would be 2sd above the mean, for gabon that would mean 4.7SD above Gabon mean, meaning there would be something like five people in Gabon eligible for being a top players, three of which made it to the final 10.
To attack Chandy’s argument, you must show either:
* Top scrabble player are not particularly intelligent (say 1SD above the mean – meaning 3.6SD for Gabon, i.e. 1 in 5000, meaning 340 potential top players in Gabon. And no way there is no correlation between IQ and scrabble)
* Gabon’s IQ mean is higher than 64
* There is a subpopulation in Gabon with mean much higher than 64.
For example, with scrabble “iq” for top players being say 115, and Gabon subpopulation IQ mean 85, you have almost 40.000 potential top players in Gabon (compared to millions in France). But then, you would have to only then explain why scrabble attracts more players in Gabon than in France.
It doesn't. It's just an argument that people in Gabon are smarter than some people think. It's not an argument that their intelligence isn't genetic.
No one attempting much of a response.
And take all the Indians in the US along to help out. And while you’re at it, take all the smart Negros to Africa and have them fix Africa.
Thanks for the pointer to the interesting Scrabble article. I’m in the (apparent) minority here who think Scrabble actually has some correlation with IQ.
That said, regarding:
The page you linked was a GRE conversion table: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx
The most recent SAT conversion table there is at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
and indicates that a 1400 SAT score approximately translates to a 138 IQ (SD 15).
One interesting snippet from the Scrabble paper indicates crossword experts performed better on SAT verbal than Scrabble experts:
Here is more complete SAT information for the three categories:
IMHO there is a major problem with that paper’s SAT analysis though. The ages of the experts are given as:
The 1995 SAT recentering was 19 years before that 2014 paper so the crossover affected many of the experts given that taking the SAT in 1995 implies age ~36 at the time of the paper (right around the mean age of the experts). The paper indicates that the SAT scores were self reported with no mention of an adjustment for recentering. That lowers the apparent SAT scores for the experts older than 36 relative to those younger and the current students. At the 1400 level the difference is ~70 points: https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-composites
In addition, the difference is larger in the verbal than in the math: https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual
I'm 4 sd's up in IQ and don't do so.
“Do you have any evidence that smart white guys waste time on this crap?
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so.”
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don’t you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
But don't be disheartened, just because you have a low IQ doesn't mean you can't be very happy and successful in life. Not everyone can run a 4 minute mile, it doesn't mean you can't go out and enjoy a run.
In England in the mid 60's your future state in government schools was decided by a test called the "11 plus" It determined if you went to the "Grammar School" or a school that was basically to prepare you for a Trade- called Secondary Modern schools. In Liverpool at the time you listed your preferred schools and they filled them from the top down. I came in top of my 130 kid class and got into my number one school.
Three years later we moved to a different city and I was retested. And retested, and retested. I got into my number one school.
After a turbulent teens, I went to a temp agency who routinely performed (then legal) IQ tests, I was looking for a laboring job to get fit again, they sent me to do critical path analysis for a telephone company's rebuild of a network. I joined a major American bank as a temp and was a Vice President 5 years later. I was offered promotions in Zurich and NYC, I foolishly took the latter.
I met a guy who pursuaded me to do the Mensa thing, did it twice- once in Brooklyn, I think, Once in Philly, I scored 163 and 162. My pal beat me by 2 points, both times.
I'm not sure of much but am certain of the 4 sd.
Science and culture in general is something that many people want and appreciate as well so there is a good correlation between national scientific and artistic output and national IQ as well (though very generally speaking Europeans overperform and East Asians underperform relative to their intelligence).
Once you get down to individual sciences and artistic endevours you start seeing some of the effects of national idiosyncracies, e.g. the French seem to have been more relatively prominent in mathematics than in other spheres.
Once you get down to board games these specific effects begin to dominate, especially as you go down from the most universal game (chess) to ever more and more specific games. If the entire Viking world were to be all resurrected draugr-style they would presumably account for all Hnefatafl champions, at least for the first one or two years anyway. Doubt Chisala would be using it as evidence for Nordic supremacy however.
“Pretty much everyone wants some money so IQ correlates very well with national income levels (and with income + job prestige for individuals).”
I think it’s intelligence and cooperation.
I’d wager a cooperative community with medium IQ will do better than a nasty society with high IQ. Even among smarter blacks, I see personality and emotional traits that are overly egotistical, self-centered, unreflective, and abrasive.
It’s like a cooperative sports team with good players will beat an uncooperative team with great players(with each playing for personal glory than good of the team).
Black problem isn’t just IQ. It has to do with psychopathy. Obama is someone who did NOTHING in his life but manipulate gullible whites by pretending to be manipulated by Jewish elites.
Blacks know how to shout but not to listen.
Blacks know how to judge but not to take criticism.
Jesse-Jacksonism is rife among blacks.
I mean how pomp-ass can you get?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jessejacks117365.html
Sheeeeeeiiit, it be rhyming and shit.
Farrakhan and Sharpton seem reasonably smart, but they are pathological to the core.
Granted, ultra-cooperative Japanese have their own pathologies: Servilititis, the sheer cowardice to blurt out what needs to be said. But there are exceptions.
You know, I would love for this to be true: for their to be no genetic basis for a difference in IQ by race. Why? Because that would mean that the observed difference is due to correctable factors.
Despite the article, there clearly is a difference, at least in whatever it is we measure. If the author’s hypothesis is correct, that it is not genetic, then is it a testing error? Something that will be corrected with improved education? A cultural problem? A health or nutrition problem? We have only to figure it out, and we can potentially uplift an entire continent.
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so."
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don't you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
An argument typical and familiar of the 120s IQ guys.
Hey Chanda, great article. There are several possible answers to a seeming contradiction. But the best is to dismiss the problem altogether by pointing out that IQ testing is BS.
IQ numbers cited for various African countries are pretty much meaningless. How did these numbers were arrived at? How many people , say in Gabon were tested? What kind of tests were applied? Were there culturally appropriate?
IQ tests results are just results of some test. Perhaps they correlate with the actual intelligence. Scoring high on IQ test is not necessarily a sign of high intelligence. There are many mediocre people who are IQ-testing obsessed, particularly in atlt-right circles. Some of them score high because they train a lot. Some of these geeks engage in solving IQ tests and puzzles more frequently than in masturbation. These are the ones who like to boast of their IQ’s and express it in multiples of SD. It is alt-right virtue signaling.
I’d love to see that. That’d be great.
I think it's intelligence and cooperation.
I'd wager a cooperative community with medium IQ will do better than a nasty society with high IQ. Even among smarter blacks, I see personality and emotional traits that are overly egotistical, self-centered, unreflective, and abrasive.
It's like a cooperative sports team with good players will beat an uncooperative team with great players(with each playing for personal glory than good of the team).
Black problem isn't just IQ. It has to do with psychopathy. Obama is someone who did NOTHING in his life but manipulate gullible whites by pretending to be manipulated by Jewish elites.
Blacks know how to shout but not to listen.
Blacks know how to judge but not to take criticism.
Jesse-Jacksonism is rife among blacks.
I mean how pomp-ass can you get?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jessejacks117365.html
Sheeeeeeiiit, it be rhyming and shit.
Farrakhan and Sharpton seem reasonably smart, but they are pathological to the core.
Granted, ultra-cooperative Japanese have their own pathologies: Servilititis, the sheer cowardice to blurt out what needs to be said. But there are exceptions.
https://youtu.be/RRVLqUpHDJE?t=1m25s
I am going to confess my ignorance here. Is that Youtube clip about the Japanese not wanting to insult the boss by ordering something different from him, or is it about not wanting to admit that they cannot understand the menu , or is it about not wanting to to be impolite to the waiter in making an elaborate order ?
IQ numbers cited for various African countries are pretty much meaningless. How did these numbers were arrived at? How many people , say in Gabon were tested? What kind of tests were applied? Were there culturally appropriate?
IQ tests results are just results of some test. Perhaps they correlate with the actual intelligence. Scoring high on IQ test is not necessarily a sign of high intelligence. There are many mediocre people who are IQ-testing obsessed, particularly in atlt-right circles. Some of them score high because they train a lot. Some of these geeks engage in solving IQ tests and puzzles more frequently than in masturbation. These are the ones who like to boast of their IQ's and express it in multiples of SD. It is alt-right virtue signaling.
You are wrong. Go and read some primer on IQ testing instead of repeating BS which was refuted literally decades ago.
“or is it about not wanting to admit that they cannot understand the menu”
It’s his little moment of rebel glory. A lowly flunky who is more cultured and refined than the big-shots who only know money and corporate culture but treat him like a dog.
He’s supposed to stick to his lowly place, but he put them in their place.
Somebody on the north end of the comment bloc already pointed out that medians and averages don't mean there are not individuals to the right of the median, 3SDs out, etc. There are. That's what statistics consistently observes. However, the median and the average are what they are.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, but your post did not really answer my question, perhaps because I expressed myself poorly.
szopen in comment #46 does a good job of expressing what’s on my mind in logical and orderly fashion.
Scrabble’s seems culturally biased ”to the” black africans…
just saying…
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so."
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don't you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
There is no such thing as “IQ-test smart”. There is no better predictor of future success in life than “g” extracted from IQ test. Training for IQ test may raise test results but not “g”. IN other words, you have no idea about IQ testing and yet you try to participate in a discussion, contributing nothing except showing your ignorance.
The reason that East Asians - almost all Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese - dominate go is that it is their most popular game.
Russians and Russian Jews dominated chess not so much through raw IQ but because far more Russians play chess than Anglos.
Which polls confirm:From what I have seen, Scrabble is largely considered to be a children's game in the US and Britain.
I have never seen it played at all in Russia. There is simply no pool from which Russia could draw Scrabble winners.
Without knowing anything about Scrabble's relative popularity in Africa no further legitimate conclusions about anything can be drawn.
Checkers are of limited interest to mind games aficianados because it is a relatively dull and completely solved. So I suspect you will actually get some range restriction effect at the top end (which would also likely discourage ultra-competitive mind sportsmen from seriously competing in it).
I really doubt that 15% of the US population has played chess in their LIFETIME, let alone the previous 12 months
I was a pretty good Scrabble player in my day, but I'd sometime lose because my tile set at one point would be five Es, an O and a Q.
Along those tile lines, recall that a perennial favorite Scrabble word is Souq (an Arab marketplace), noted for the point value of the letter Q and the potential for a triple letter or even triple word score.
The darker interpretation of Souq comes from contemporary Europe, courtesy of the Merkel Jugend and their analogs in the now-dispersed Jungle of Calais. You might say that the Merkel et al policies really wanted to make Europe souq
Or if you prefer, Europe could really souq if the elites had their way.
Badum-bum, Je suis ici toute la semaine, donne ton serveur un pourboire.
The reason that East Asians - almost all Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese - dominate go is that it is their most popular game.
Russians and Russian Jews dominated chess not so much through raw IQ but because far more Russians play chess than Anglos.
Which polls confirm:From what I have seen, Scrabble is largely considered to be a children's game in the US and Britain.
I have never seen it played at all in Russia. There is simply no pool from which Russia could draw Scrabble winners.
Without knowing anything about Scrabble's relative popularity in Africa no further legitimate conclusions about anything can be drawn.
Checkers are of limited interest to mind games aficianados because it is a relatively dull and completely solved. So I suspect you will actually get some range restriction effect at the top end (which would also likely discourage ultra-competitive mind sportsmen from seriously competing in it).
I wonder, Anatoly, if you are willing to apply this idea of selective interest more broadly? Logically, it should be applied to everything, even IQ tests themselves! It is surely plausible that groups differ in how seriously they take these tests. But no!
Indeed, until we can measure “selective interest” (sometimes called motivation), how can we really know about group differences….
But it’s wonderful, Anatoly, how well your mind works when defending a cherished theory…
Chanda, thank you for posting these articles! Anyone with a brain has long known that the standard IQ narrative, the strong hereditary theoy, simply doesn’t hold up…
There are so many holes and in incongruitues in it someone really needs to compile a list…
So you're saying that Africans just aren't motivated to do well on these tests and that's why they score lower? If so why do tests given to even College populations - who, presumably, are motivated to do well on a cognitive test - test similarly low on IQ (Rushton recorded this).
Why if the disparity is merely due to different motivation does the same indifference Africans show towards cognitive testing seem to apply equally to their diligence in building a functional civilization?
Could their lack of motivation be a reflection of a general indolence that could be correlated with intelligence? Isn't a component of the psychological make-up of driven people a certain anxiety and dissatisfaction with the world?
Also, how does one train a population of a a billion people to 'give a damn'?
Finally, have you seen the documentary Empire of Dust? I was watching it the other day and it struck me that this lack of interest applies to things much broader than just cognitive testing. We're dealing with something much deeper.
Science and culture in general is something that many people want and appreciate as well so there is a good correlation between national scientific and artistic output and national IQ as well (though very generally speaking Europeans overperform and East Asians underperform relative to their intelligence).
Once you get down to individual sciences and artistic endevours you start seeing some of the effects of national idiosyncracies, e.g. the French seem to have been more relatively prominent in mathematics than in other spheres.
Once you get down to board games these specific effects begin to dominate, especially as you go down from the most universal game (chess) to ever more and more specific games. If the entire Viking world were to be all resurrected draugr-style they would presumably account for all Hnefatafl champions, at least for the first one or two years anyway. Doubt Chisala would be using it as evidence for Nordic supremacy however.
I’ve have been waiting for another AK article FOR EVER.
I know quality is more important than quantity, but still.
Also, what happened to Jayman?
Zopen is worst that i imagined…
jeezz
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-shared-additional-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign-identified-her-tipster/
Ah, in the grand tradition of black education.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cheating-trial-20140907-story.html#page=1
Just like the Atlanta case. Now, some people went to jail for slipping answers to students.
Brazile’s cheat sheet for Hillary is surely more grievous since we are talking of real power here.
Will actions be taken for this unethical, possibly even illegal, act?
This is what ails the black community. Higher or lower IQ, there is more psychopathy.
Interesting observations but fails to understand what an IQ test is, why they were developed, how they were used or how irrelevant his study is to an IQ test. Basically they were designed and used to predict a persons success in a culturally western school or employment situation. They do so remarkably well, in fact so well that they can no longer be used because they have a diparate impact on blacks.
As a predictive tool for modern societies it is great, because success depends on a blend of motivation and priorities and values, as well as sheer smarts. The IQ is clearly an indistinguishable blend of all these things.
But over time the IQ test has come to mean simply intelligence - not least because we don't know how to reliably and effectively measure motivation and values, at least not with any precision.
In the end, there is a desire to see IQ as far more than what it is, and no amount of logic or evidence will change that.
There is also a tendency to see things in this simplistic reductive way, which is unlikely to change soon and is a feature of certain kinds of mentalities.
Judging from the comments, it doesn’t look like evidence makes much difference in the racist world-view. In these racist blogs on the internet, it appears that White racism is so ingrained, especially against Africans and African Americans, that reasoning from empirical data is just throwing peanuts at a thick carapace, especially of Educated professionals (?) who get high scores on intelligence tests. The Elitism tends to form a shell around the racism, and respecting non-White groupings appears to fracture the racist identity.
Americans tend to identify with power rather than the people ruled by power, a common tendency among earth people. US power has conducted a three century extermination of Indian Americans and the enslavement of African Americans, stealing the homes and homelands from the former, and the labor and freedom from the latter. I would guess that it would be necessary to emplace an anti-racist power system in the US before it is possible to attack US racism effectively.
Especially as the majority of births in this country is of non-White infants and the US is turning into a non-White country like most of the others. This is apparently frightening US-Americans, especially the Educated classes, so ideological denial, historical amnesia, and power delusion appears to be the norm in the racist blogs.
That is what has been taught in the universities since about 1970, almost 2 generations now. That is what educated people believe. In America, the more educated you are the more you hate and despise your fellow Whites and the more determined you are to replace them with non White.
The author reminds me of one of those para-normal researchers, ignoring the preponderance of evidence (or non-evidence) to bring up the seemingly infrequent counter-evidence that he feels supports his very grand claim. I don’t even bother reading his columns anymore, because it’s obvious that he’s on a hunt for a preferred result rather than exhibiting a genuine curiosity about his field of study. It all seems to be a vehicle for something else.
It’s disappointing to see some of the comments here as there is evidence of a kind of ideological block reminiscent even of the SJWs on the other side. I have a few comments from micro to macro:
Firstly of course scrabble is a high ‘g’ loaded game. Just google analyses of championship scrabble matches to see the logical convolutions of thought involved in high level scrabble – involving analyses of the probability of the opponent holding certain letters and the probability of them knowing certain words, leading to complex strategic choices of where to place your letters. In addition, vocabulary is highly correlated with ‘g’ anyway as HBD’ers usually point out themselves.
Secondly, despite the hand waving by some commenters here I don’t see a refutation of the author’s key claim (made more convincingly here than in previous articles) that countries like Gabon (if the stated average IQ for that country is correct) should not produce as many champion level players in a highly ‘g’ loaded activity.
Thirdly many commenters, rather bizarrely, given their love of HBD, seem to be engaged in shifting the goal posts on what ‘intelligence’ is to refer to empirical facts about GDP, etc rather than intellectual potential. I thought the whole point of HBD was a rigorous mono-causal relation between ‘g’ and outcomes like wealth -so you can’t start measuring ‘g’ using wealth itself as a measure!
Fourthly, and more generally, any contemporary conservative political and social theory cannot be based on a mono-causal theory, which HBD is. Mono-causal theories are almost always wrong when they try to explain ‘open fields’ like civilizational success. There are simply too many variables and too much interaction between units. Tying your ideological fortune to HBD is potentially disastrous because any banal empirical refutation of HBD will threaten the whole edifice. I happen to think conservative political thought has a future but HBD can only be a small part of that.
g is really a meaningless construct arrived via a circular reasoning. Circular reasoning and reification are two deadly sins IQ pseudo-science is guilty of. For this reason it is a pseudo-science.
.
The author's argument appears to be: "how can the average IQ of people in Gabon be so low when they have so many scrabble champions?". Obviously no attempt has been made to evaluate the scrabble-playing ability of EVERY person in Gabon vs the scrabble-playing ability of EVERY person in the US for example.
.
Supposing that was done (hypothetically), you might discover that the AVERAGE American was much BETTER at playing scrabble than the average person in Gabon. You might also discover legions of White, scrabble-geniuses with heretofore undreamed of levels of ability. Generally speaking young men in the US are more interested in chasing women than playing nerd games.
.
Three other considerations:
1) It is likely that the genetic diversity of Africans is far GREATER than the genetic diversity of Europeans, and MUCH MUCH greater than the genetic diversity of African Americans. This would follow since Europe was originally colonized by people who moved out of Africa and through the middle east - i.e. a small fraction of the total number of people who REMAINED in Africa. The African-American population derives from a relatively small number of slaves who were imported from a small area in West Africa. It can be expected therefore that the standard deviation of almost any factor, including IQ, would be greater in Africa than in Europe or amongst the African-American population.
2) It's harder to make money in Africa than in Europe or the US. Any person who showed any ability in ANY area would be encouraged to work hard to pursue that goal because they don't have many options. For all we know Gabon may be littered with failed scrabble-players who are now reduced to herding goats, while failed scrabble-players in the US go back to programming computers.
3) Idiot savants. "A person who is considered to be mentally handicapped but displays brilliance in a specific area, especially one involving memory."
.
It isn't uncommon for people who are functionally retarded to excel in certain very limited areas. Interestingly that kind of ability is often seen in inbred populations - precisely the kind of popualtions that are seen in sub-saharan africa:
.
“This latter form of marriage [mother’s brother’s daughter] is common in Africa and in patrilineal societies generally. Often, in Africa, it goes along with marriage to the wife’s brother’s daughter. A man either marries his wife’s brother’s daughter or passes the privilege on to his son (at least this is one way of looking at it). In many societies it is simply a straightforward privilege to marry the mother’s brother’s daughter.”
Indeed.
As a predictive tool for modern societies it is great, because success depends on a blend of motivation and priorities and values, as well as sheer smarts. The IQ is clearly an indistinguishable blend of all these things.
But over time the IQ test has come to mean simply intelligence – not least because we don’t know how to reliably and effectively measure motivation and values, at least not with any precision.
In the end, there is a desire to see IQ as far more than what it is, and no amount of logic or evidence will change that.
There is also a tendency to see things in this simplistic reductive way, which is unlikely to change soon and is a feature of certain kinds of mentalities.
Are all bell curves shaped the same?
If there are two populations of similar size. And the median IQ (at 100) of Population I equates to X out of Y questions solved correctly in a battery of culture-neutral IQ tests ... and Population II's median IQ 100 equates to (X - 33%)/Y correctly answered questions ... then if you push the transparent graph paper with Pop II's bell curve over to the right until their medians are in the same place ... will the rest of the curves be congruent from tip to tip, yes or no?
If the answer is, yes they should be, then if you shift the second curve back, the farthest reaches of its right-hand side will again peter out long before the first curve's right-hand tail does. There won't be any individuals in Pop. II with results equivalent to those scored by, say, 145 IQ individuals in Pop. I. If I understand this article, however, such individuals do exist in low-median-IQ populations such as Gabon, contrary to expectations.
(If you reject Scrabble as a proxy for intelligence, pick something else. Perhaps medals at Math Olympiads, which some contestants from Sub-Saharan Africa have won.)
A result contrary to expectations suggest that there is something wrong in the underlying assumptions. What is it?
The “bell curve” for intelligence is an over-simplification which is used because it approximates the results of testing very large population sizes, and it allows simplified calculations. It is mathematically a Gaussian distribution, which is the distribution of values you would get for a purely random process. For example if you drop ball bearings from a height, the random fluctuations in the release action and air motion on the way down will cause the bearings to hit the ground at slightly different points. If you plot the distances of each impact from the average along one axis you will get a classical Gaussian distribution.
Human intelligence is not a random function. It will also vary depending on non-random factors such as environment, training, education, culture and, yes, racial composition. If you plot the actual measured IQs of racial groups such as Whites, Blacks or Asians, you have to keep in mind that each of those groups is composed of sub-groups. “Whites” are a collection of people like Swedes, Italians, Anglos, Poles, etc., each of which are genetically slightly different. “Blacks” are a collection of different sub-groups, Caribbean, Nigerian, East African, and in the US with a mixture of Whites in their genetics. Similar with “Asians”.
Furthermore, IQ has biological limitation. You can only get so dumb before you are no longer testable. The human brain isn’t capable of achieving an IQ of 1000, so the left and right points can’t extend out indefinitely.
To your Question, one of the best examples I have seen of what actual “Bell” curves looks like is this plot of real test results from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm
Note a few things, such as the fact that the curves are not perfect bells, and are not symmetrical. For Blacks there was significant trail out to the right so that at the extreme right the frequency of Blacks begins to approach that for Whites.
Perhaps even more significantly, if you measure the test score values and run calculations on them, the standard deviations are NOT the 15 points that would be valid for a true Gaussian distribution bell curve.
For this particular study the measured results are:
Average IQ: Whites 103.3 Blacks 87.5
Median IQ: Whites 103 Blacks 86
1 Standard Deviation: Whites 10.2 Blacks 9.4
Firstly of course scrabble is a high 'g' loaded game. Just google analyses of championship scrabble matches to see the logical convolutions of thought involved in high level scrabble - involving analyses of the probability of the opponent holding certain letters and the probability of them knowing certain words, leading to complex strategic choices of where to place your letters. In addition, vocabulary is highly correlated with 'g' anyway as HBD'ers usually point out themselves.
Secondly, despite the hand waving by some commenters here I don't see a refutation of the author's key claim (made more convincingly here than in previous articles) that countries like Gabon (if the stated average IQ for that country is correct) should not produce as many champion level players in a highly 'g' loaded activity.
Thirdly many commenters, rather bizarrely, given their love of HBD, seem to be engaged in shifting the goal posts on what 'intelligence' is to refer to empirical facts about GDP, etc rather than intellectual potential. I thought the whole point of HBD was a rigorous mono-causal relation between 'g' and outcomes like wealth -so you can't start measuring 'g' using wealth itself as a measure!
Fourthly, and more generally, any contemporary conservative political and social theory cannot be based on a mono-causal theory, which HBD is. Mono-causal theories are almost always wrong when they try to explain 'open fields' like civilizational success. There are simply too many variables and too much interaction between units. Tying your ideological fortune to HBD is potentially disastrous because any banal empirical refutation of HBD will threaten the whole edifice. I happen to think conservative political thought has a future but HBD can only be a small part of that.
What is g? Does it exist? Where does it exist? What kind of animal it is if it exists?
g is really a meaningless construct arrived via a circular reasoning. Circular reasoning and reification are two deadly sins IQ pseudo-science is guilty of. For this reason it is a pseudo-science.
The Spanish World Scrabble Championship is dominated by three countries, Spain, Argentina, and Venezuela. The 2004 World runner-up is an American named Hector Klie, apparently a Venezuelan immigrant. He has a PhD from Rice University in Computational Science and Engineering. LINK
I’m surprised that there are no winners or runner-ups from Peru. Peru has several gifted and talented schools that primarily serve the indigenous population and the students do well in math, science, and chess. Peru’s International Mathematical Olympiad team finished 16th in 2015.
Non-majority Spanish speaking countries that are members of the International Scrabble Federation in Spanish include the USA, France, Israel, Poland, and Switzerland.
As a predictive tool for modern societies it is great, because success depends on a blend of motivation and priorities and values, as well as sheer smarts. The IQ is clearly an indistinguishable blend of all these things.
But over time the IQ test has come to mean simply intelligence - not least because we don't know how to reliably and effectively measure motivation and values, at least not with any precision.
In the end, there is a desire to see IQ as far more than what it is, and no amount of logic or evidence will change that.
There is also a tendency to see things in this simplistic reductive way, which is unlikely to change soon and is a feature of certain kinds of mentalities.
“But over time the IQ test has come to mean simply intelligence” – Exactly. This is a perfect example of reification. Reification is often tricky. Most people do not notice it and then proceed operating as if the entity called IQ really existed. Ockham warned against it: Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. The result is bunk science.
g is really a meaningless construct arrived via a circular reasoning. Circular reasoning and reification are two deadly sins IQ pseudo-science is guilty of. For this reason it is a pseudo-science.
GO AND READ SOME PRIMER, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
All tests tapping at mental skills correlate. ALL OF THEM, no matter whether it is memorizing numbers, tests of reaction times, or mentally rotating the objects. Then there is a hypothesis that maybe those tests measure some hidden variable. There are mathematical methods to check whether there is a possibility of some hidden variable, and those methods do not always result in showing hidden variables. Here they show – and the result of applying those methods to any array of tests tapping at mental abilities is called “g”. “G” is pretty much invariable through life and is THE BEST predictor of future success of life – when measured at youth, it is better of predicting success than SES.
As an example, imagine you have measured variables with results (a) how often one goes to cinema (b) how often one goes to resaturant (c) how expansive food one buys and so on. All of those tests measure some specifics, but also it quite likely they would correlate, so a statistician could infer that there is some hidden variable explaining why people who go more often to cinema, on average (meaning, not always) also buy more expansive food. That statistician would employ special method to calculate value of that “hidden variable” and would call that variable “personal income”, while idiots like you would then complain that “personal income” is just a meaningless construct arrived at by circular reasoning and it does not exist.
DO you get it? whenever you got a bunch of diverse tests measuring mental abilities, they will, on average, correlate. Applying mathematical method would extract some common general factor. This factorisation results are not always the same, but they correlate more than measures of blood pressure in the same person. This is a fact. Even when people created a bunch of tests which were FUCKING DESIGNED TO PROVE G DOES NOT EXIST, these correlated and “g” value could be extracted out of them. The “g” exists, period. You may now try to explain what “g” actually reflects – quality of nervous system? Size of brain? But arguing “g” does not exist simply makes you look like a moron who does not even know what he is talking about.
Phrenology was more interesting and more creative than all this pseudo-scientific IQ reductionism. Pseudo-science of IQ attracts lots defective intellects. Have you been to Mensa meeting?
No it isn’t, or even close to it.
Are there any HBD-deniers who can restrain themselves from attacking silly strawmen? Rhetorical question, obviously.
Americans tend to identify with power rather than the people ruled by power, a common tendency among earth people. US power has conducted a three century extermination of Indian Americans and the enslavement of African Americans, stealing the homes and homelands from the former, and the labor and freedom from the latter. I would guess that it would be necessary to emplace an anti-racist power system in the US before it is possible to attack US racism effectively.
Especially as the majority of births in this country is of non-White infants and the US is turning into a non-White country like most of the others. This is apparently frightening US-Americans, especially the Educated classes, so ideological denial, historical amnesia, and power delusion appears to be the norm in the racist blogs.
Listen you pathetic, totally ignorant, low-IQ moron, being able to beat the crap out of a Harvard grad at some stupid child’s game of Scribble or whatever, doesn’t mean crap all.
We know IQ determines achievement in every sphere of mental activity because, well it just does. And if someone with a low IQ like Richard Feynman — plus a mere couple of SD’s — wins the Nobel Prize in physics, it just shows that the Nobel Prize is sometimes awarded to the wrong person.
It was the same with Carl Gauss. The greatest mathematician the world had ever known — they SAID. Then, when he died, they found he had only a tiny brain — well only average size, anyhow. Then they KNEW, Carl Gauss just couldn’t have been that good.
(1) IQ does NOT determine success. It is however correlated with success, meaning that with higher IQ, you have higher probability of achieveing success (with one caveat: extremely high intelligence may be sometimes obstacle)
(2) IQ is NOT the only factor and I know no serious psychometrician claiming that.
(3) Lower IQ does NOT prevent one from achieving success. It only lowers chances, i.e. far larger percentage of high IQ people will achieve success than low IQ people.
In fact, in one of the primers on IQ for beginners you start with anecdote of extremely intelligent officer who was kicking a shell out of sheer boredom, with predictable results. High IQ does not mean you do no stupid things and no errors. It only means your ratio of stupid things/clever things is lower.
By success, I mean higher income, higher education, longer life span etc.
Human intelligence is not a random function. It will also vary depending on non-random factors such as environment, training, education, culture and, yes, racial composition. If you plot the actual measured IQs of racial groups such as Whites, Blacks or Asians, you have to keep in mind that each of those groups is composed of sub-groups. "Whites" are a collection of people like Swedes, Italians, Anglos, Poles, etc., each of which are genetically slightly different. "Blacks" are a collection of different sub-groups, Caribbean, Nigerian, East African, and in the US with a mixture of Whites in their genetics. Similar with "Asians".
Furthermore, IQ has biological limitation. You can only get so dumb before you are no longer testable. The human brain isn't capable of achieving an IQ of 1000, so the left and right points can't extend out indefinitely.
To your Question, one of the best examples I have seen of what actual "Bell" curves looks like is this plot of real test results from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm
Note a few things, such as the fact that the curves are not perfect bells, and are not symmetrical. For Blacks there was significant trail out to the right so that at the extreme right the frequency of Blacks begins to approach that for Whites.
Perhaps even more significantly, if you measure the test score values and run calculations on them, the standard deviations are NOT the 15 points that would be valid for a true Gaussian distribution bell curve.
For this particular study the measured results are:
Average IQ: Whites 103.3 Blacks 87.5
Median IQ: Whites 103 Blacks 86
1 Standard Deviation: Whites 10.2 Blacks 9.4
Thank you so much, this is really useful information! Especially the superimposed distributions from NLSY and the empirical data about actual SD’s.
You understand the concept of “average”, right?
This article seems to confirm Scott Adam’s contention that when experiencing cognitive dissonance, most people hallucinate a rationalizing solution to relieve the stress.
Thus it has been explained/hallucinated by many contributors to this discussion that if, at any activity, people of a racial group presumed to be of low IQ outscore people of a racial group presumed to be of high IQ, then the difference in performance must be cultural. Howver, in the minds of most commenters, what seems to be entirely out of the question is the possibility that racial differences in IQ test results could be due primarily to cultural differences.
The same amazing hallucinatory quality is evident in most contributions to the discussion of the recent unz.com article on 9/11.
with my pathetic low IQ, Can, I can’t tell what side you are arguing on.
Oh dear. I have revealed my low IQ.
I got the apostrophe in the wrong place. I should have referred to “Scott Adams’ contention,” or “Scott Adams’s contention,” not “Scott Adam’s contention.” But who knows, I may hallucinate a good explanation for my error other than low IQ, in which case, I will announce it right away.
IQ = intelligence…
Iqdiots “think” (regurgigates preconceived notions to neutralize their low self esteem) like that…
IQ is a set of tests that “measure” cognitive potentialities… IQ try to reflect what intelligence (s) is but is not perfect… It’s not enough.
Like formula 1 versus real street race with all urban elements increasing the difficultly diversity levels.
Like scrabble versus debate (correctly) in sites like that.
IQ what happen with almost of the recreative sports is de-contextualized, atomized and or acultural. Why?? Because is semiticaly perfect to atomize intelligence specially the conceptions of the intelligence (s) to the whitey from real world/natural contexts, dissociating one each other, where undoubtedly many of redpilled statements will be blatantly right, specially the so-called “prejudices”.
What would proved some of the Chinsala statements would be the existence of real world African geniuses in any place doing “great” achievements and seems we have some rare individuals usually women doing some great social or political achievements in Africa, but that geniuses Africans seems not “common”.
I took the old SATs when the highest score was 1600. My combined score was 1470 something and I know perfectly well my IQ is nowhere near 143, more like 125 according to the test I was given in third grade.
And philosophy majors have IQs of 130? LOL all day long LOL till I fall off the couch.
Competitive scrabble and checkers who knew? Well maybe in an after school activities program.
Happy Hildabeast Revealed Day!!!!!
Um, mean? median? mode? You mean that kind of thing? I sorta get it. Yeah. But why?
Sorry for the tone of the previous comment. I was quite irritated by one other commenter.
(1) IQ does NOT determine success. It is however correlated with success, meaning that with higher IQ, you have higher probability of achieveing success (with one caveat: extremely high intelligence may be sometimes obstacle)
(2) IQ is NOT the only factor and I know no serious psychometrician claiming that.
(3) Lower IQ does NOT prevent one from achieving success. It only lowers chances, i.e. far larger percentage of high IQ people will achieve success than low IQ people.
In fact, in one of the primers on IQ for beginners you start with anecdote of extremely intelligent officer who was kicking a shell out of sheer boredom, with predictable results. High IQ does not mean you do no stupid things and no errors. It only means your ratio of stupid things/clever things is lower.
By success, I mean higher income, higher education, longer life span etc.
Americans tend to identify with power rather than the people ruled by power, a common tendency among earth people. US power has conducted a three century extermination of Indian Americans and the enslavement of African Americans, stealing the homes and homelands from the former, and the labor and freedom from the latter. I would guess that it would be necessary to emplace an anti-racist power system in the US before it is possible to attack US racism effectively.
Especially as the majority of births in this country is of non-White infants and the US is turning into a non-White country like most of the others. This is apparently frightening US-Americans, especially the Educated classes, so ideological denial, historical amnesia, and power delusion appears to be the norm in the racist blogs.
Actually, the educated classes are the ones that want the country to become non White. It is the educated classes determined to replace Whites in occupations like Drs, nurses, math, accountants, computers, engineering and all STEM occupations with Asians and E. Indians no matter how bogus their degrees.. Government workers at all levels will be indian Hispanic and black. Every other occupation from construction to food from planting through harvest to processing to warehouse to supermarket and restaurants will go to indian Hispanics.
That is what has been taught in the universities since about 1970, almost 2 generations now. That is what educated people believe. In America, the more educated you are the more you hate and despise your fellow Whites and the more determined you are to replace them with non White.
What would be cool, is if some of these Gabonese checkers champs could be identified early, say at the age of eight or nine, and then given a really first-rate education with the opportunity to learn as much math as they can manage.
I think until a native African wins the Fields Medal, there will always be a question about how bright the brightest of them really is. My bet is on the Africans, but we’ll probably not get confirmation of that for a long time because the cultural gulf between Cambridge, Mass. and Soweto is still just too great.
Now that I’m retired maybe I’ll devote myself to wandering the earth searching for some obscure little talent that only old White women have. Then I can prove that we are superior to everyone else on earth.
I myself have a weird little talent, color matching. I once did a 3 day vocational aptitude and preference testing. One of the tests was color matching. There were 800 pieces of leather in 400 shades of every possible color. I matched them all perfectly something no one else had ever done. And it went very fast, most of my time was spent moving the pieces around, not really looking at them.
So I am the color matching champion of the greater Los Angeles area, perhaps in the entire state of California. Didn’t do me a bit of good as there aren’t any jobs for color matchers.
(1) IQ does NOT determine success. It is however correlated with success, meaning that with higher IQ, you have higher probability of achieveing success (with one caveat: extremely high intelligence may be sometimes obstacle)
(2) IQ is NOT the only factor and I know no serious psychometrician claiming that.
(3) Lower IQ does NOT prevent one from achieving success. It only lowers chances, i.e. far larger percentage of high IQ people will achieve success than low IQ people.
In fact, in one of the primers on IQ for beginners you start with anecdote of extremely intelligent officer who was kicking a shell out of sheer boredom, with predictable results. High IQ does not mean you do no stupid things and no errors. It only means your ratio of stupid things/clever things is lower.
By success, I mean higher income, higher education, longer life span etc.
Such statements, when applied across cultural boundaries, seem unverifiable. For example, what would happen if you planted a Harvard grad in the middle of darkest Africa with nothing to his name but an iron pot, a mud hut and ten bucks? Maybe he become a Central African Republic billionaire/cannibal-president/whatever. But it does not look like a sure bet.
Or to take an example closer to home, is it definitely known that the infant child of a white Harvard grad, adopted at birth by a low IQ African-American family, would perform as an adult significantly better on an IQ test, or in getting money, than the child of a low IQ African-American family adopted at birth by a white Harvard-graduate couple?
Re 2nd example: While there is no such example, however you have IQ gaps on all SES levels, and black children coming from higher SES are, on average, having worse results than whites from lower SES. Also, you have IQ being better predictor than SES. Moreover, adult results of IQ scores of adopted children is usually more similar to the biological parents than to adoptee.. adopt.. (f* I hate your English language) to the people who adopted them (Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, for example - I know, small sample size, but it's better than nothing).
All in all, this strongly suggest that while environment plays a role (a thing which was always stressed by everyone, including Lynn, Jensen, Rushton, Murray etc), you cannot argue that environment explains everything.
Finally, you say "unverifiable" but you then seem to propose how to verify it. Actually you meant "unverifiably because of ethical concerns" because in general, if you would be willing to abandon conerns for morality, you can devise such experiments very easily. Moreover, IQ tests seem to predict chances for success in any modern society, the only kind of society we care for. IQ tests may not predict chances of success in hunter-gatherer cultures, but we are not and we will be not H-G culture.
This type of study where you have very good controls for factors other than race is the reason that Chanda has decided to concede that there is something actually wrong with American Blacks and they really are genetically dumber. In his case he tries to explain it with the goofy theory that:
- During the days of slavery Black slaves inter-married in significant numbers with the poorest Whites.
- These Whites were poor because of mysterious, unknown, unspecified, genetic defects.
- Against all logic, the descendants of these marriages were somehow even dumber than either their Black ancestors OR even their White ancestors.
- These descendants have the ability to steal the penises of their enemies or call lightning strikes down on them.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist adding that last one.)
You said it. It is just a hypothesis. g is just a hypothesis. The existence of “personal income” does not need to be hypothesized. It has a real existence. It can be measured exactly by checking with IRS. It does not need to be inferred from shopping preferences. Besides there are high income people who are exceptionally thrifty. The correlations are not perfect and sometimes very poor. But in case of hypothetical g, which is an unknown entity, you can’t correlate anything with it because g has no values. All you can correlate are scrabble skills and chess skills and SAT and cross-word puzzle abilities and school tests and IQ test scores. And perhaps with hunting skills, and basket weaving skills,…., driving skills….Why would you want to reduce all those skills that mutually correlate to some degree (though not always) to reduce to some hypothetical entity g. It is a very primitive approach of 19 century science that as we know failed in dealing with more complex and systemic phenomena. It suffices to bring up Church, Turing, Godel and Tarski (your 50% compatriot) to see how 19 century grandeur plans of axiomatization (supreme reductionism) failed in mathematics.
Phrenology was more interesting and more creative than all this pseudo-scientific IQ reductionism. Pseudo-science of IQ attracts lots defective intellects. Have you been to Mensa meeting?
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and "g" is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure "g" in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children's income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure "g" in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means "g" is hardly useless construct. Even if "g" s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect - but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call "intelligence" in real life.
In your vein: Atoms do not exist,
electrons, positrons, neutrinos do not exist!
The abstract notion of DOG does not exist, and is useless, only Fido, Puffy and lassie exist.
Arguing against the existence of "g", is arguing against the possibility of science.
The reason that East Asians - almost all Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese - dominate go is that it is their most popular game.
Russians and Russian Jews dominated chess not so much through raw IQ but because far more Russians play chess than Anglos.
Which polls confirm:From what I have seen, Scrabble is largely considered to be a children's game in the US and Britain.
I have never seen it played at all in Russia. There is simply no pool from which Russia could draw Scrabble winners.
Without knowing anything about Scrabble's relative popularity in Africa no further legitimate conclusions about anything can be drawn.
Checkers are of limited interest to mind games aficianados because it is a relatively dull and completely solved. So I suspect you will actually get some range restriction effect at the top end (which would also likely discourage ultra-competitive mind sportsmen from seriously competing in it).
You do not need every country to be equally interested in Scrabble to draw “further legitimate conclusions about anything.”
So, let’s take your example of chess and Russia. Suppose African countries started playing chess seriously (as seriously as Russia) and they defeated Russia. Would you say that you can’t draw any conclusions from this because there are many other white countries that do not play chess as much as Russia?
I’m not sure you actually read the article or bothered to go to some of the sources. Or you prefer to rely on your own “from what I have seen” research? (Even just the professions of the players would not be predictable if what you say is true.)
Another statement that sounds like you never bothered to read the article. It covers the period before checkers was allegedly “completely solved.” The Ashkenazi Jewish “interest” factor has to also be factored into your claim.
Others are making similar points, so let me just say something that I assumed was already well understood from the literature/logic on this issue: genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument). The people of India will probably not produce the fastest runner in the world even if the entire country becomes passionate about running and half of Jamaica (a relatively tiny population) is forbidden by law to stop doing any running.
Also, as someone else has pointed out here, the same people claiming relative interest differences rejected that argument when it came to IQ tests.
I am not disputing that Scrabble champions are pretty bright. (Though almost certainly far less bright than chess and go champions).
Where is the most crucial part - the statistics (e.g. polling evidence) on relative interest in the game of Scrabble?So race differences on traits where your people overperform are real but inflated or non-existent where the opposite is the case. Gotcha.
Your detractors are not making that argument - that is a straw man.
They are making a mathematical argument.
They accept that some Gabonese, for instance, will be within whatever cohort is highly skilled at Scrabble, but the sheer numbers of potential Scrabble experts in each country is not a function of the total population, but a function of the total population of Scrabble devotees - depending upon the culture, that subset will vary.
Given that Africans are much less likely, per capita, to have access to all of the Western electronic entertainments/distractions, it seems reasonable to believe that board games of all types will be played, seriously, by a higher percentage of the population in Africa than in the decadent West.
His novel arguments aside, Mr Chisala’s ideas are virtually identical to the absolute biological IQ race equality theory (by current community standards it’s far more than a hypothesis) backed by the mainstream media (and the owner of even this this site) in addition to educational and government establishment in every major country of the West. Arguing against them and their received wisdom theory is seen as gross moral turpitude and has ever-increasing personal costs attached. Hence, what dooms the “Racial Hypothesis of Intelligence” is it doesn’t pay to hold it.
That is what has been taught in the universities since about 1970, almost 2 generations now. That is what educated people believe. In America, the more educated you are the more you hate and despise your fellow Whites and the more determined you are to replace them with non White.
Hating the plebs has been a part of Western elite thinking since the industrial revolution. Disraeli made that clear in his novel Sybil. There are, he said:
The objectives of the elite are:
(1) to lower wages, or as GHW Bush said about Mexican immigration, “it solves the servant problem.”
(2) to undermine the constitution, written or otherwise, i.e., to rob the common people of their rights by flooding the country with people from countries where people are accustomed to dictatorship and the arbitrary government of men not laws. Such people aren’t going to make a fuss about shenanigans at the Clinton Foundation.
(3) to raise the quality of labor on the assumption that immigrants represent the froth from whatever community they have come: they are, in other words, among the upper half of the IQ, energy and initiative distribution.
Elites in Europe and America do not see population replacement by reproductive suppression combined with mass immigration as genocidal of their own people, because they do not see the common people as “their own people.” Western elites are globalists intent on making common cause with elites abroad, not the stinking masses at home. There objective is global control by the Money Power.
To return to a true nationalism, it would be necessary to reinstate the reproductive system of the Western nations as it existed before the industrial revolution. Then both poor and rich had many children. Most children died but more of the children of the poor died than children of the rich. As a result the rich were downward mobile, their excess progeny making up for the excess mortality among the poor. The rich and poor were thus of one nation and regarded one another with some sympathy and respect.
That’s all finished now, unless folks want to eliminate all welfare and public services, and most taxation. Otherwise, its always gonna be a choice between Hillary and Trump, or some similar pairing of people of doubtful sympathy with the voter.
"The objectives of the elite are (1) to lower wages, or as GHW Bush said about Mexican immigration, “it solves the servant problem.”
No, the goal of business elites are to maximize profits and minimize costs, which may include the suppression of wages.
"(2) to undermine the constitution, written or otherwise, i.e., to rob the common people of their rights by flooding the country with people from countries where people are accustomed to dictatorship and the arbitrary government of men not laws."
How is the Constitution undermined if laws are passed by Congress, which represent the will of the people, enabling people from different nations to emigrate?
"Elites in Europe and America do not see population replacement by reproductive suppression combined with mass immigration as genocidal of their own people"
Because mass immigration is does NOT equate to genocide.
"To return to a true nationalism, it would be necessary to reinstate the reproductive system of the Western nations as it existed before the industrial revolution."
There is no such thing as "true nationalism", just nationalism, as defined by a group of people. Praytell, how to plan to coerce men and women to put back into place this 18th century notion?
Re 1st example: Doubt it. But (a) I hope you have noticed that Lynn and all “scientific racist” argued that poverty, pathogenes etc are lowering African IQ by 10-15 points (b) saying that extremely adverse environmental conditions can be detrimental is kind a creating a strawman. Let’s say that I modify my statement by adding qualification “given environment fulfilling minimal environmental requirements i.e. no hunger, war, natural catastrophes, legal obstacles”. While for many Africans those minimal environmental requirements are not fulfilled, it’s hard to argue that they are not fulfilled for all of them; in fact I’d argue that for many Africans their standard of life may be better now than in my country when I was a child.
Re 2nd example: While there is no such example, however you have IQ gaps on all SES levels, and black children coming from higher SES are, on average, having worse results than whites from lower SES. Also, you have IQ being better predictor than SES. Moreover, adult results of IQ scores of adopted children is usually more similar to the biological parents than to adoptee.. adopt.. (f* I hate your English language) to the people who adopted them (Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, for example – I know, small sample size, but it’s better than nothing).
All in all, this strongly suggest that while environment plays a role (a thing which was always stressed by everyone, including Lynn, Jensen, Rushton, Murray etc), you cannot argue that environment explains everything.
Finally, you say “unverifiable” but you then seem to propose how to verify it. Actually you meant “unverifiably because of ethical concerns” because in general, if you would be willing to abandon conerns for morality, you can devise such experiments very easily. Moreover, IQ tests seem to predict chances for success in any modern society, the only kind of society we care for. IQ tests may not predict chances of success in hunter-gatherer cultures, but we are not and we will be not H-G culture.
That is what has been taught in the universities since about 1970, almost 2 generations now. That is what educated people believe. In America, the more educated you are the more you hate and despise your fellow Whites and the more determined you are to replace them with non White.
Apparently, Alden, you have applied your talent of “color matching’ to persons and prefer to have different skin colors in their proper places, i.e. far away from you. Naturally you would not want non-White persons in responsible positions, with their “bogus degrees” as you refer to them. You appear to be an ideal commenter for this kind of blog. Have you discovered Stormfront yet?
Agreed. I doubt it’s even 10% of the white and Asian population of the USA, and more like one percent of the rest.
Phrenology was more interesting and more creative than all this pseudo-scientific IQ reductionism. Pseudo-science of IQ attracts lots defective intellects. Have you been to Mensa meeting?
Except that “g” DOES exist (I mean the existence of “g” is a fact, even though some charlatans such as Gould try to deny it) and it DOES correlate with longer life span, higher income, higher education, less chance for criminal record, better health even, higher chance to get a patent, higher chance to get a PhD etc. “G” is also correlated with brain volume, brain activity, nerve conduction velocity etc.
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and “g” is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure “g” in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children’s income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure “g” in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means “g” is hardly useless construct. Even if “g” s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect – but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call “intelligence” in real life.
and on and on... reifications. These are meaningless (no T or F value) statements and some of them are false. Like "it DOES correlate". How do are you going to correlate g with say income when you have no measure of g. What is your and Karlin's g values? How do I go about correlating it with say, your and Karlin's incomes?
Median is not all the same as average, and the difference should be easy to understand.
“ALL mental skills correlated [ positively ] with ( psychometric) g”
Less face recognition??
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and "g" is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure "g" in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children's income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure "g" in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means "g" is hardly useless construct. Even if "g" s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect - but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call "intelligence" in real life.
Intelligence is not just cognition at least if you’re a machine. Intelligence is psychological and affective, like it or not.
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and "g" is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure "g" in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children's income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure "g" in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means "g" is hardly useless construct. Even if "g" s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect - but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call "intelligence" in real life.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/18/more-g-denialism-and-more-gould-refuting/
As much as I appreciate reading you article, Mr. Chandy Chisala, I think – after reading something about scrabble – your assertion that “hereditarian hypothesis is refuted” is too strongly worded. Here is why, reduced to scrabble:
Scrabble definetely must be correlated to IQ, but the correlation may be very weak. In studies I googled master scrabble players seem to be very good at scrabble-related skills, but compared to the control group not particularly better at other skills. Meaning that while being top scrabble player will require above average IQ, your postulated IQ of 140 is probably wrong. I have not found IQ results for scrabble players, so this is a speculation.
Just a comparison, for chess players, I’ve found that players with below average IQ (80-90) were nevertheless able to reach 2000 ELO points, while IQ110 is enough to reach levels of ELO above 2200. The IQ scores for grandmasters reported by google seem to be speculated and it seems to me were simply estimated, not measured.
Seems to me that it is not improbable that top players in Scrabble may have IQ of +1SD.
Now, let’s postulate that in 1.7m Gabon you have, say, a 300.000 strong – minority with IQ of 85. That minority would have 2000 people capable for being top scrabble players; Ten thousand if Gabon IQ is actually closer to 80-85 than to 64. The results suddenly do not look impossible; implausible, yes, but not impossible. All you need now is to get scrabble being seen as more valid to invest resources to in Gabon than in France.
Again, I really look forward for hereditarians response and I enjoyed your writing, I think you presented valid and strong argument, but I do not see it as the one which would really crush the hereditarian hypothesis.
Hm, quite frankly, I don’t know. My first reaction was to say “facial recognition” rarely is considered a mental skill, but that would be escaping from an argument. So it may be an exception, or it may not, I know no studies about that.
EDIT: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2010/01/20/face-recognition-not-correlate/
Seems you are right.
But g is pattern recognition. This explain why almost of IQ subtests correlates one each other. Because everything that is part of the intelligence correlated with basic pattern recognition/logics.
Racial differences on backward-digits tests, on tests of mental decision-making times, and in average brain size are not purely cultural in origin.
Different races have long existed under the influence of different cultural and environmental conditions and have, therefore, been subject to different selective pressures. One would not expect, therefore, that the relative intellectual capacity of the races will be the same in every realm of mental activity. High population density, as in parts of Asia, for example, might be expected to select for superiority in certain social skills, whereas existence in a small hunter gatherer society would enhance those aspects of calculation and strategic thinking that promote success at the hunt.
The fact that certain African groups that are reputed to score low in IQ tests nevertheless excel at checkers and Scrabble seems to refute the idea that skill at one mental task is tightly correlated with skill at another mental task, e.g., IQ test taking.
Yes exactly — a search for evidence to support a fixed conclusion, rather than a search for evidence to then subsequently reach a conclusion. Not a good scientific method.
So, let's take your example of chess and Russia. Suppose African countries started playing chess seriously (as seriously as Russia) and they defeated Russia. Would you say that you can't draw any conclusions from this because there are many other white countries that do not play chess as much as Russia?I'm not sure you actually read the article or bothered to go to some of the sources. Or you prefer to rely on your own "from what I have seen" research? (Even just the professions of the players would not be predictable if what you say is true.)Another statement that sounds like you never bothered to read the article. It covers the period before checkers was allegedly "completely solved." The Ashkenazi Jewish "interest" factor has to also be factored into your claim.
Others are making similar points, so let me just say something that I assumed was already well understood from the literature/logic on this issue: genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument). The people of India will probably not produce the fastest runner in the world even if the entire country becomes passionate about running and half of Jamaica (a relatively tiny population) is forbidden by law to stop doing any running.
Also, as someone else has pointed out here, the same people claiming relative interest differences rejected that argument when it came to IQ tests.
I presumed, without reading him but because he was publishing here that Anatoly Karlin was a solid thinker even though he dabbles in what ultimately will be known as a pseudo-science. His comment here demonstrated that my assumption was incorrect. Clearly your (Chanda Chisala) article little bit unhinged him so he dropped his guard. BTW, is Karlin Jewish?
Perhaps it would be useful to offer a working definition of “elites”, since this term has observably different references.
“The objectives of the elite are (1) to lower wages, or as GHW Bush said about Mexican immigration, “it solves the servant problem.”
No, the goal of business elites are to maximize profits and minimize costs, which may include the suppression of wages.
“(2) to undermine the constitution, written or otherwise, i.e., to rob the common people of their rights by flooding the country with people from countries where people are accustomed to dictatorship and the arbitrary government of men not laws.”
How is the Constitution undermined if laws are passed by Congress, which represent the will of the people, enabling people from different nations to emigrate?
“Elites in Europe and America do not see population replacement by reproductive suppression combined with mass immigration as genocidal of their own people”
Because mass immigration is does NOT equate to genocide.
“To return to a true nationalism, it would be necessary to reinstate the reproductive system of the Western nations as it existed before the industrial revolution.”
There is no such thing as “true nationalism”, just nationalism, as defined by a group of people. Praytell, how to plan to coerce men and women to put back into place this 18th century notion?
But in any case, who's to say that maximizing profit is the prime objective of business elites. For some it may be. For most, i.e., the professional managers, a primary goal might be to maximize their share options and bonuses, the Hell with company profits.What twaddle is this. Anyone who thinks that Congress represents the will of the people needs to go back to kindergarten. Congress is there to vote as the members are paid to vote by the Money Power. As for the will of the people, LOL.The question of grammar aside, and the SHOUTING IN CAPS (a bad habit you should attend to if you wish to be taken seriously) of course destroying the people by undermining their reproduction, while piling in a mass of foreigners is genocide. Go and read Raphael Lemkin again, you'll see that there's nothing in his definition of genocide (a term Lemkin coined) that requires the use of ovens, gas, or bullets.This is a silly quibble. If there is nationalism there is true nationalism as opposed to any fake nationalism, such as you might find in a country where the elite promote mass immigration and multi-culturalism.
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and "g" is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure "g" in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children's income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure "g" in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means "g" is hardly useless construct. Even if "g" s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect - but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call "intelligence" in real life.
“g” DOES exist; “g” is a fact; “it DOES correlate”, “g” in children, “g” in people
and on and on… reifications. These are meaningless (no T or F value) statements and some of them are false. Like “it DOES correlate”. How do are you going to correlate g with say income when you have no measure of g. What is your and Karlin’s g values? How do I go about correlating it with say, your and Karlin’s incomes?
Please, do tell what this ‘pseudo-science’ is you speak of.
No don’t you get it, Phil? Those numbers are just constructs by Europeans to show their superiority using THEIR number system, hence it’s clearly biased!
and on and on... reifications. These are meaningless (no T or F value) statements and some of them are false. Like "it DOES correlate". How do are you going to correlate g with say income when you have no measure of g. What is your and Karlin's g values? How do I go about correlating it with say, your and Karlin's incomes?
The measured “g” values correlate with measured income. It’s like measured blood pressures values correlate with some health problems, even though measuring the blood pressure in the same man, in the course of few minutes, may give you different values. I don’t know my “g” value because I have never took a professional IQ test (and then I would have to extract “g” value), but it’s hardly irrevelant to the question whether “g” correlates with income.
So yeah, “g” values are imperfectly measured, but ARE measured, and those measured values ARE correlating with income, meaning that “real” “g” values would correlated even stronger. Imagine a scientist can’t get real income values from IRS; he can only estimate my income using some variables like how often I go to the cinema etc. Of course his estimation of my income would be imperfect even though my income is a real thing. Now, using his estimate, he will sure find out correlates with, for example, size of houses bought by people with different estimated outcomes. Correlates will exists even though his measure of income would be imperfect and the imperfection of income measurement would be neither an argument against existence of correlation, nor against existence of income.
Moreover, “reification” is an old argument which reveals lack of strong arguments. It does not matter whether “g” is reified or not, whether I think it is a real thing or not. I assume you are a left-winger. So, “social justice” does not really exist, therefore all advocates of social justice are guilty of reification of “social justice” concept and therefore should be ignored and their arguments are false.
Or say you would invent some test trying to measure racism by testing implicit association bias. While such test was proven invalid, would you accept the accusation that “racism index” does not really exist, cannot be reliably measured, and using IAT scores is reification of “racism” concept, and racism does not really exist, and IAT scores correlation with, say, bias in recruting whites/blacks (they do not actually exist, I just hypothesize to explain why you argument is not even wrong) therefore do not exist?
The measured correlations remain. You still have values of “g” or estimation of thereof, correlated repeatedly by hundreds of replicated studies with vast array of life outcomes and human biology.
IQ "measured' Potential' but one of the most important aspect of human mind, rationality potential, IQ just correlates in very inconsistent way. Almost of super higher IQ folks are invincibly more rational than most of 99% of population??
Don't think so.
And "creativity"?? (I prefer use the term perceptiveness, the pre condition to the creative achievements)
Again and again and again (unfortunately, repeating the same things)
The intention of the IQ never was replace intelligence concept(s) but measure it.
The analytical approach of intelligence in all of its multidimensionality is not just still there but quite valid. Intelligence is partially reducible to the quantitative value. Analyze it is complementary if not more relevant. Become dependent on IQ score system is just like create a system and follow their rules as if was a god, economic system?? As if this system were perfect.
Gymnastics score system seems very similar with IQ where just one athlete will be the champion while it should be not a crazy race with a diversity of different skilled people and with a only one criteria.
Thanks, I will read it tomorrow, as it’s 22:36 here and I’m too tired now.
I committed a mistake!! Face recognition Don’t correlate with IQ. And yes, face recognition is facial pattern recognition, g,
But g is pattern recognition. This explain why almost of IQ subtests correlates one each other. Because everything that is part of the intelligence correlated with basic pattern recognition/logics.
Scrabble definetely must be correlated to IQ, but the correlation may be very weak. In studies I googled master scrabble players seem to be very good at scrabble-related skills, but compared to the control group not particularly better at other skills. Meaning that while being top scrabble player will require above average IQ, your postulated IQ of 140 is probably wrong. I have not found IQ results for scrabble players, so this is a speculation.
Just a comparison, for chess players, I've found that players with below average IQ (80-90) were nevertheless able to reach 2000 ELO points, while IQ110 is enough to reach levels of ELO above 2200. The IQ scores for grandmasters reported by google seem to be speculated and it seems to me were simply estimated, not measured.
Seems to me that it is not improbable that top players in Scrabble may have IQ of +1SD.
Now, let's postulate that in 1.7m Gabon you have, say, a 300.000 strong - minority with IQ of 85. That minority would have 2000 people capable for being top scrabble players; Ten thousand if Gabon IQ is actually closer to 80-85 than to 64. The results suddenly do not look impossible; implausible, yes, but not impossible. All you need now is to get scrabble being seen as more valid to invest resources to in Gabon than in France.
Again, I really look forward for hereditarians response and I enjoyed your writing, I think you presented valid and strong argument, but I do not see it as the one which would really crush the hereditarian hypothesis.
This quite recent study disagrees: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3059/abstract
Can you point me to those other studies?
Thanks
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13421-011-0137-5
And that study seems to me confirming that scrabble players make use of learned skills:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945215001069
There is an uncanny resemblance between IQ deniers and creationists, from back when the whole “religion vs. evolution” shouting match was in vogue. The similarity is that this a debate between people who are at least minimally educated on the mechanism of a subject (evolution / (IQ) and those who are not (“evolution / IQ” does not exist”). This is extremely obvious to anyone even minimally educated when they look at comments from people like utu or Speccy. It’s the same thing over and over again. There may very well be a minimum IQ for understanding IQ. Or maybe they just don’t want to crack a book.
"The objectives of the elite are (1) to lower wages, or as GHW Bush said about Mexican immigration, “it solves the servant problem.”
No, the goal of business elites are to maximize profits and minimize costs, which may include the suppression of wages.
"(2) to undermine the constitution, written or otherwise, i.e., to rob the common people of their rights by flooding the country with people from countries where people are accustomed to dictatorship and the arbitrary government of men not laws."
How is the Constitution undermined if laws are passed by Congress, which represent the will of the people, enabling people from different nations to emigrate?
"Elites in Europe and America do not see population replacement by reproductive suppression combined with mass immigration as genocidal of their own people"
Because mass immigration is does NOT equate to genocide.
"To return to a true nationalism, it would be necessary to reinstate the reproductive system of the Western nations as it existed before the industrial revolution."
There is no such thing as "true nationalism", just nationalism, as defined by a group of people. Praytell, how to plan to coerce men and women to put back into place this 18th century notion?
I didn’t say the highest level goal of elites is to lower wages. Self-evidently the goal of lowering wages is to contribute to the maximization of profits.
But in any case, who’s to say that maximizing profit is the prime objective of business elites. For some it may be. For most, i.e., the professional managers, a primary goal might be to maximize their share options and bonuses, the Hell with company profits.
What twaddle is this. Anyone who thinks that Congress represents the will of the people needs to go back to kindergarten. Congress is there to vote as the members are paid to vote by the Money Power. As for the will of the people, LOL.
The question of grammar aside, and the SHOUTING IN CAPS (a bad habit you should attend to if you wish to be taken seriously) of course destroying the people by undermining their reproduction, while piling in a mass of foreigners is genocide. Go and read Raphael Lemkin again, you’ll see that there’s nothing in his definition of genocide (a term Lemkin coined) that requires the use of ovens, gas, or bullets.
This is a silly quibble. If there is nationalism there is true nationalism as opposed to any fake nationalism, such as you might find in a country where the elite promote mass immigration and multi-culturalism.
That means, Blacks have low IQ because they're not murderous or war criminals!!
Let me quote Eric Margolis from his book, "War at the Top of the World".
"When Indian were enjoying a great civilization under Mughal rule - London was a city of 15,000 unwashed people."
David Brooks in his January 12 Op-Ed column ”The Tel Aviv Cluster’ in the New York Times boasted many Jewish achievements considering they make-up only 0.2% of world’s population. He claimed that 54% of world chess champions, 27% of the Nobel physics laureates and 31% of the medicine laureates are Jewish. David Brooks also adds that though Jews make only 2% of United States population – 21% of Ivy League student bodies, 26% of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37% of Academy Award winning directors, 38% of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists and 51% of Pulitzer Prize winners for non-fiction are Jewish. I, too, find them very laudable. But then David Brooks come out of his Hasbara (propaganda) liter-box by equating these Jewish achievement with Israeli achievements – as if the great majority of 12.7 million world Jewish population lives inside Jewish occupied Palestine. ....
https://rehmat1.com/2010/01/21/jewish-or-israeli-achievements/
Also, once one Jew gets into any position of power or influence, there is a fraternatilist favoring of other Jews to advance due to his influence. It’s a tribal thing, not necessarily genetic.
Good at Scrabble, eh? That probably explains why Black Africa had such highly developed and varied written languages prior to the arrival of the White man. And their libraries! Whew! Just thinking about it makes me want to go have a cigarette. And I don’t even smoke. What bad luck for them that they didn’t stick with it. If they’d only kept it up, and kept up with building anti-gravity pyramids instead of wasting their time waiting for the White man to invent Scrabble, we could be living on Mars by now. Unbelievable the lengths some people will go to disprove the obvious, and challenge reality.
And also among IQdiots and their IQ cultism.
IQdiots also love to deny obvious aspects of intelligence such many types of it just because the leftist IQ deniers use “multiple” intelligences as refutation against IQ racial (black white) differences. It’s not science it’s a ideological tribe conflicts.
People on avg are
Horrible to perceive and understand subtleties (over generalizing)
Inept to think via multiple perspectives (IQ measure intelligence, partially speaking… Higher IQ folks are someone who are good to do IQ tests, at priore, based on this perspective… Different types of smarter ones… Etc etc)
It’s always a black white thinking
You do not have “g” values. In practice you have at best a surrogate of g which for most people in the field that you so strongly defend is just a result from some IQ test. So what are your and Karlin’s g values? Give me some numbers. What is the scale?
Once again, the value of my height is irrevelant to the question whether height is a real concept.
In a discussion whether Poles are on average taller from Chinese, would you keep asking questions what my height is? If I would say that my height is between 180cm and 181cm, and I can't give you exact value in mm (and for valid reasons: as you know, men's height fluctuates slightly over a day) - would you now glibly say that at best I have surrogate for height and therefore Poles are not taller than Chinese? And even if my height would be 150cm and lower from average Chinese, would that be really relevant to the question of average differences between Chinese and Poles?The question of the value of my income is irrevelant to the existence of concept of income. Do you understand this? If yes, why you keep asking the irrevelant questions? Not to mention that asking stranger about personal income is extremely rude and creepy (for the record, i have income much above Polish average).(2) If you don't know the basics of "what the "g" values are" then what are you doing here? If you have even basic understanding of "g", you would know that we standarize "g" values into several different scales (Catell, Stanford, Wechsler...). The fact that those are in part effect of standarization that is, a question of agreement does not mean values do not measure anything. (3) Let's say that "g" in fact is a rough estimation, resulting of forcing of several unrelated concepts into one scale. You still have the following:
(a) somehow, those unrelated concept all seem co correlate with the same things
(b) over more than 100 years no one got better concept (with one exception, there is one theory which however is unpopular), and theories designed to prove "g" wrong (Thurons, Gardner's) all in the end showed "g" exist
(c) you still have "g" correlating with a bunch of outcomes and physical properties of brain.DO you understand that? The question whether "g" is a "reification" is totally irrevelant, as whatever "g" is, it still correlates with a real things in real world, is a good predictor of personal outcomes, there is no better predictor than "g", and therefore, "g" is a useful concept.(4) While you have imprecise and imperfect measures of "g", they all correlate (meaning, they are within a strict range when measured by professionalists). As I wrote, measurements of blood pressure are not perfect and you can get different values of blood pressure, but still "blood pressure" is a valid and useful concept. Moreover, measured "g" values correlate with outcomes, meaning that more precise measurements of "g" can only increase the correlation.really, go and read some primer on "g". Or Jensen's book. Let me reiterate the example with personal income, so you would finally understand how absurd your objections are.Anthropologists from distant star comes to earth and decides to investigate humans. They have no idea about our culture, the concept of money is totally strange to them. They start to investigate males only, they measure how often they buy food - while those aliens have no concept of money, they can notice that quality of food is different, and they measure it in their own imperfect way. After a while, while alien notices that people buying better food, on average - though not always - also have better quality clothes, have larger houses, more often go on vacation and so on. So they postulate that maybe there is some hidden variable and call that "income".Now, in reality male expanses are result of his and his wife's incomes plus the wealth they inherited/amassed; so "income" variable created by alien anthropologist must be imperfect. Moreover, since aliens have no concept of money, they would simply standarize "income" into some ranges in say normal distribution, which would mean that a man X with income "115" has higher "income" than man Z with income "105", and a man Y with income "125" has higher income by X, but it would not mean the difference between X and Y is the same as between X and Z.And yet, income does exist (unknown to aliens). The "income" variable would correlate, though imperfectly, with a bunch of other variables. Moreover, after calculating "income", an alien could (imperfectly) predict outcomes of a given man on a bunch of other variables.Imagine now that UTU argues that "income" does not exist, because measurements available to anthropologists are imperfect; that "income" is just reification of concept created by aliens; that "eating food" has no relation to "buying clothes", so postulating "income" variable tying those to variables is absurd; that because "income" does not explain all variation of "eating food" (meaning in "eating food" there is also specific variable involved in addition to "income") it means "income" is invalid.All those arguments would be, of course, absurd, as we know that personal income DOES exist and in fact can be perfectly measured - only that alien anthropologists have no idea how. Yet those are exactly the same arguments you are using here.
Great article again, and very interesting data. I can´t see how the “global racial IQ hypothesis” can be uphold, confronted with data like that. On the other side, there are obviously big differences concerning physical ability and personality between the races, it would be strange when IQ would show no geographical variance.
stupid.
there are [at least] two physiologically distinct brain structures, the cerebral cortex housing the cognitive structures making up the reflective brain and the undelying mass encapsulating emotional and intuitive and other structures largely responsible for the human “reflexive” pattern recognizer brain. our reflective brain processes serially like the von neumann computers and the reflexive brain processes in parallel to recognizes patterns at the speed of a super computer.
both have their own IQs. a common use of the two working together is to imagine something, get really excited about making that dream a reality and developing and pursuing an action plan to make the dream come true. as the plan gets more realistic and executable, the positive expectation of success triggers lots of dopamine production which in turn produces motivation and one gets into a positive feedback loop making success ever more likely.
(gee, ask eric schmidt, google’s ex-ceo about his experiences with motivation and success on big projects.)
its been talked about and published for a long time that blacks have statistically smaller cerebral cortexes than whites. what does that mean. well, they’r not as good at turning dreams into reality. higher ADD naturally. more emo driven. might explain their greater presence in the emo blues/rock/rap music scene and less presence in silicon valley startups.
so how to the reflective and reflexive brains complement each other on games of skill and pattern recognition like scrabble? reflect on it and tell me.
Whatever is “extremely obvious” hardly needs stating does it.
But how do you account for the fact that I graduated in … Oh, well, never mind.
What is a hallucination experienced by those suffering from cognitive dissonance over the fact that black people may be smarter than white people at some kiddy game, can only be validated by assuming obviousness to all but the morons to whom it is not obvious.
Unfortunately for the West, places like China will continue to investigate the subject of IQ and probably get a sizable leg up on the rest of the world in the inevitable genetic engineering arms race while people like yourself sit back, wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth.
Gardner is a hack.
Read The Bell Curve for more information.
Tl;dr, it’s pseudoscience–real pseudoscience (other commenter who said Karlin does pseudoscience, take note). It’s not falsifiable, therefore not a scientific theory.
You already talked it in Pumpkin Person. Do you remember??
I really doubt you have any decent arguments to defend your point of views. The voice of experience.
The existence of musical intelligence/skills or mathematical intelligence/skills is not pseudoscience. It's just a other way to look for intelligence phenomenon and differently complementary way with IQ.
Again...
IQ and many types of intelligence are not mutually excluding.
Other thing
Why some people are contradictions?? Shorter memories?? And why other people can see the contradictions of this shorter memory dudes??
Is this, a forum for stating the obvious, or what?
IQ tests born in the scholastic environment, and surprise, schools exist to “prepare good workers”. IQ tests correlated positively with income, occupational status or social class by some reason.
IQ “measured’ Potential’ but one of the most important aspect of human mind, rationality potential, IQ just correlates in very inconsistent way. Almost of super higher IQ folks are invincibly more rational than most of 99% of population??
Don’t think so.
And “creativity”?? (I prefer use the term perceptiveness, the pre condition to the creative achievements)
Again and again and again (unfortunately, repeating the same things)
The intention of the IQ never was replace intelligence concept(s) but measure it.
The analytical approach of intelligence in all of its multidimensionality is not just still there but quite valid. Intelligence is partially reducible to the quantitative value. Analyze it is complementary if not more relevant. Become dependent on IQ score system is just like create a system and follow their rules as if was a god, economic system?? As if this system were perfect.
Gymnastics score system seems very similar with IQ where just one athlete will be the champion while it should be not a crazy race with a diversity of different skilled people and with a only one criteria.
Less skill at checkers and Scrabble too.
But in any case, who's to say that maximizing profit is the prime objective of business elites. For some it may be. For most, i.e., the professional managers, a primary goal might be to maximize their share options and bonuses, the Hell with company profits.What twaddle is this. Anyone who thinks that Congress represents the will of the people needs to go back to kindergarten. Congress is there to vote as the members are paid to vote by the Money Power. As for the will of the people, LOL.The question of grammar aside, and the SHOUTING IN CAPS (a bad habit you should attend to if you wish to be taken seriously) of course destroying the people by undermining their reproduction, while piling in a mass of foreigners is genocide. Go and read Raphael Lemkin again, you'll see that there's nothing in his definition of genocide (a term Lemkin coined) that requires the use of ovens, gas, or bullets.This is a silly quibble. If there is nationalism there is true nationalism as opposed to any fake nationalism, such as you might find in a country where the elite promote mass immigration and multi-culturalism.
Again, it would be useful to offer a working definition of “elites”, since this term has observably different references.
“I didn’t say the highest level goal of elites is to lower wages. Self-evidently the goal of lowering wages is to contribute to the maximization of profits.”
Business elites have the liberty to look out for their own property interests. They are merely engaging in capitalistic enterprise.
“For most, i.e., the professional managers, a primary goal might be to maximize their share options and bonuses, the Hell with company profits.”
Company profits enable the managers to earn shares and bonuses, so there is a vested interest to ensure that the company gains as much profit as possible.
“What twaddle is this. Anyone who thinks that Congress represents the will of the people needs to go back to kindergarten. Congress is there to vote as the members are paid to vote by the Money Power. As for the will of the people, LOL.”
It’s not twaddle, it’s fact. Congress represents their constituents, which also includes business elites, who have every right, like non-business interests, to lobby for their own causes. The will of the people will determine to what extent those causes are worthy to support.
“The question of grammar aside, and the SHOUTING IN CAPS (a bad habit you should attend to if you wish to be taken seriously)”
I used NOT as an emphasis. If you were triggered by it, there are a number of safe spaces you are able to find on your local college campus.
“of course destroying the people by undermining their reproduction, while piling in a mass of foreigners is genocide.”
An immigrant does not undermine a woman’s liberty to choose to reproduce. She makes up her own mind with her boyfriend or husband.
“Go and read Raphael Lemkin again, you’ll see that there’s nothing in his definition of genocide (a term Lemkin coined) that requires the use of ovens, gas, or bullets.”
Does changes in population demographics over time due to movement of people and interbreeding constitute:
…an intention to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group? No.
…the killing of members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group? No.
…causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group? No.
…inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part? No.
…a way to prevent births within a national, ethnical, racial or religious group? No.
…a way to forcibly transfer children? No.
Thus, based on generally accepted definitions of genocide, notions of “white genocide” based on changing population demographics over time and interbreeding are demonstrably false.
“This is a silly quibble. If there is nationalism there is true nationalism as opposed to any fake nationalism, such as you might find in a country where the elite promote mass immigration and multi-culturalism.”
Doesn’t work that way. There is only nationalism, i.e. a patriotic feeling, principle, or effort by an individual or group of people. You are making the categorical error that there is but one “true nationalism” that everyone at anytime must uphold to, lest they are other than being nationalistic. Rather strange on your part.
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so."
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don't you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
Actually, I’ve met a lot of people who think they’re smart that say the “IQ test is crap.” I’ve never met any actual smart people who thought that.
But don’t be disheartened, just because you have a low IQ doesn’t mean you can’t be very happy and successful in life. Not everyone can run a 4 minute mile, it doesn’t mean you can’t go out and enjoy a run.
I check out this information on Japan and South Korea losing to Zambia, and indeed they did. But in the same tournament, Moldova with a population of 3.5 million beat Zambia 2.5 to 1.5. France and Spain beat Zambia 4 – 0 each. The poor performance of South Korea and Japan probably has much more to do with lack on interest in western chess relative to other countries than anything else.
Here is the link you provided: http://chess-results.com/tnr140380.aspx?lan=1&art=20&fed=ZAM&flag=30&wi=821
That may be so. There are obviously racial differences among the races or there would be no races, and some of those differences are surely mental. The issues raised here, though, are whether (a) racial differences in IQ test results are partly or solely culturally determined; and (b) whether there is something called general intelligence, or g, which dictates relative competence in all spheres of mental activity. This last proposition seems unlikely.
Different races have long existed under the influence of different cultural and environmental conditions and have, therefore, been subject to different selective pressures. One would not expect, therefore, that the relative intellectual capacity of the races will be the same in every realm of mental activity. High population density, as in parts of Asia, for example, might be expected to select for superiority in certain social skills, whereas existence in a small hunter gatherer society would enhance those aspects of calculation and strategic thinking that promote success at the hunt.
The fact that certain African groups that are reputed to score low in IQ tests nevertheless excel at checkers and Scrabble seems to refute the idea that skill at one mental task is tightly correlated with skill at another mental task, e.g., IQ test taking.
Is it too much to ask if Unz can provide us with a scrabble format for debating this issue?
If Chanda and ‘Truth’ beat all of us, I’ll go with the thesis of this article.
Btw, which ethnic group dominates cross-word puzzles?
In Japan Japanese.
And of course Fr. (later Msgr.) Ronald Knox, the Catholic chaplain at Oxford in the thirties, was legendary; he used to do the London Times crossword in his head (there is a story that once, on a train, a student observed him staring at the paper, pencil in hand, not writing, apparently puzzled, and kindly offered to help; Knox said "Thank you, but I've just got it." and proceeded to fill in the entire puzzle). In later life he did play Scrabble, but unfortunately for the purposes of psychometrics, not competitively. I think I remember reading somewhere that on his (Knox's) deathbed he began to cheat at Scrabble with his friend Evelyn Waugh; I'm not sure if that is important. Knox was of Scottish ancestry.
The train story seems to have several extant versions, so I'll leave it as above.
RSDB
And yet there are any number of online venues you can visit and observe how there are still people who think the earth is 6,000 years old and possibly flat.
Unfortunately for the West, places like China will continue to investigate the subject of IQ and probably get a sizable leg up on the rest of the world in the inevitable genetic engineering arms race while people like yourself sit back, wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth.
It's far more challenging than spelling bees though.
The more the game progresses, the more one needs to be 'creative' in memory.
Scrabble is not a substitute for an IQ test. Blacks on average score very low on IQ tests. The article is bullshit.
That said, Nigeria does have intelligent people, and they have lots of kids cuz black men love to spread the seed around.
Also, a smart black guy is bound to be more muscular and tougher smart non-blacks. Even a bleek, or black geek, is less geeky than non-black geeks. So, even a bleek might turn on a lot of 'hos'.
With high-IQ whites, Asians, and Jews have few kids and high-IQ blacks have many kids, the future could be filled with smart blacks.
But the problem is pathology. Even smart blacks tend to be sociopathic or psychopathic, like all those utterly conscienceless Nigerian email scam artists. That is the drag on black societies.
Now, a nation full of sociopathic smart people won't achieve much since all these smart guys will try to rip one another off instead of working together in goodwill.
But sociopathic smart guys have an advantage in a stable modern society that is run on trust.
It's like a nation filled with Obamas aint gonna achieve much since each Obama, though smart, will try to jive and hustle his way to the top. All these Obamas will be cheating each other like they something slick and special.
BUT, in a high trust society, a sociopath like Obama can use charm and smoothness all the sucker whites who mean well and want to score virtue-signaling points.
Blacks don't fool me, but I see so many non-blacks being fooled by Magic Negro BS.
Indeed, sometimes there doesn't even have to be Negroes around. An all-white community will worship the Magic Negro cuz they read To Kill a Mockingbird or watched HELP.
This is why white folks need a double-mindset.
They should work in Trust mode with fellow whites(as long as they are not Greeks or Southern Italians) but they should work in gangster-mode with Negroes who work in 'gangsta' mode'.
RR,
You already talked it in Pumpkin Person. Do you remember??
I really doubt you have any decent arguments to defend your point of views. The voice of experience.
The existence of musical intelligence/skills or mathematical intelligence/skills is not pseudoscience. It’s just a other way to look for intelligence phenomenon and differently complementary way with IQ.
Again…
IQ and many types of intelligence are not mutually excluding.
Other thing
Why some people are contradictions?? Shorter memories?? And why other people can see the contradictions of this shorter memory dudes??
Your name says it all….Jack Shit as in you don’t know Jack shit.
Given that Nigeria has a population of 173 million (expected to grow to 440 million by the end of the century) it is not surprising that they will have a decent number of very smart people, but not as many as you would find among 173 million Ashkenazim.
” but not as many as you would find among 173 million Ashkenazim.”
Or whites.
“Blacks on average score very low on IQ tests. The article is bullshit.”
That said, Nigeria does have intelligent people, and they have lots of kids cuz black men love to spread the seed around.
Also, a smart black guy is bound to be more muscular and tougher smart non-blacks. Even a bleek, or black geek, is less geeky than non-black geeks. So, even a bleek might turn on a lot of ‘hos’.
With high-IQ whites, Asians, and Jews have few kids and high-IQ blacks have many kids, the future could be filled with smart blacks.
But the problem is pathology. Even smart blacks tend to be sociopathic or psychopathic, like all those utterly conscienceless Nigerian email scam artists. That is the drag on black societies.
Now, a nation full of sociopathic smart people won’t achieve much since all these smart guys will try to rip one another off instead of working together in goodwill.
But sociopathic smart guys have an advantage in a stable modern society that is run on trust.
It’s like a nation filled with Obamas aint gonna achieve much since each Obama, though smart, will try to jive and hustle his way to the top. All these Obamas will be cheating each other like they something slick and special.
BUT, in a high trust society, a sociopath like Obama can use charm and smoothness all the sucker whites who mean well and want to score virtue-signaling points.
Blacks don’t fool me, but I see so many non-blacks being fooled by Magic Negro BS.
Indeed, sometimes there doesn’t even have to be Negroes around. An all-white community will worship the Magic Negro cuz they read To Kill a Mockingbird or watched HELP.
This is why white folks need a double-mindset.
They should work in Trust mode with fellow whites(as long as they are not Greeks or Southern Italians) but they should work in gangster-mode with Negroes who work in ‘gangsta’ mode’.
We kids in Romania, had a set of a board and cardboard pieces named “Sah si Moara” (Chess and “Nine Men Morris”) that was selling for 3 lei (One US dollar was 12 lei at that time).
The folded board had the 8×8 chess board layout on one side, and the 3x3x3 Morris board on the other side.
Perhaps a copy of the German board game “Schach – Dame und Mühle” used by the Wehrmacht during WW2.
A wooden Chess set was/is not required.
That said, Nigeria does have intelligent people, and they have lots of kids cuz black men love to spread the seed around.
Also, a smart black guy is bound to be more muscular and tougher smart non-blacks. Even a bleek, or black geek, is less geeky than non-black geeks. So, even a bleek might turn on a lot of 'hos'.
With high-IQ whites, Asians, and Jews have few kids and high-IQ blacks have many kids, the future could be filled with smart blacks.
But the problem is pathology. Even smart blacks tend to be sociopathic or psychopathic, like all those utterly conscienceless Nigerian email scam artists. That is the drag on black societies.
Now, a nation full of sociopathic smart people won't achieve much since all these smart guys will try to rip one another off instead of working together in goodwill.
But sociopathic smart guys have an advantage in a stable modern society that is run on trust.
It's like a nation filled with Obamas aint gonna achieve much since each Obama, though smart, will try to jive and hustle his way to the top. All these Obamas will be cheating each other like they something slick and special.
BUT, in a high trust society, a sociopath like Obama can use charm and smoothness all the sucker whites who mean well and want to score virtue-signaling points.
Blacks don't fool me, but I see so many non-blacks being fooled by Magic Negro BS.
Indeed, sometimes there doesn't even have to be Negroes around. An all-white community will worship the Magic Negro cuz they read To Kill a Mockingbird or watched HELP.
This is why white folks need a double-mindset.
They should work in Trust mode with fellow whites(as long as they are not Greeks or Southern Italians) but they should work in gangster-mode with Negroes who work in 'gangsta' mode'.
“as long as they are not Greeks or Southern Italians”
Why so you say this?
I guess anyone who notices or experiences the reality of differences among humans is racist. Right?
Phrenology was more interesting and more creative than all this pseudo-scientific IQ reductionism. Pseudo-science of IQ attracts lots defective intellects. Have you been to Mensa meeting?
Dear Utu,
In your vein: Atoms do not exist,
electrons, positrons, neutrinos do not exist!
The abstract notion of DOG does not exist, and is useless, only Fido, Puffy and lassie exist.
Arguing against the existence of “g”, is arguing against the possibility of science.
Once again, the concept of g itself is useless.
Scrabble is a stupid game. No matter how well you play someone else will spell “zit” on the triple word score on the last turn and beat you. Boggle would more fair test of intellect.
This article is not well-written and not statistically sophisticated, and contains some silly ideas (for example that the reason for African-Americans not doing as well as African immigrants is related to bad genes from breeding with poor whites). However, as a professional statistician, chess master, and game theory consultant, I have to admit that the data here demands explanation. The situation is very different for high-level chess, but even in chess there are some anomalies (in the USA, teams from inner-city schools with black players often win championships at the elementary and middle school level and occasionally at the high school level).
I have some theories, but I’d prefer to hear from people who know more about the data cited here. (By the way, the 8×8 American/British “checkers” has been solved by computer, but the versions of the game referred to here are more complex.)
The most I will say now is that, there are probably some ethnic groups within Africa, which don’t stand out phenotypically in a way that Europeans easily notice, which are fairly large and have IQs 1-2 SDs above other, even larger, African ethnic groups. This results in much more of s “smart fraction” than you would expect if “black Africans” had a less complex population structure but the same average IQ.
"The objectives of the elite are (1) to lower wages, or as GHW Bush said about Mexican immigration, “it solves the servant problem.”
No, the goal of business elites are to maximize profits and minimize costs, which may include the suppression of wages.
"(2) to undermine the constitution, written or otherwise, i.e., to rob the common people of their rights by flooding the country with people from countries where people are accustomed to dictatorship and the arbitrary government of men not laws."
How is the Constitution undermined if laws are passed by Congress, which represent the will of the people, enabling people from different nations to emigrate?
"Elites in Europe and America do not see population replacement by reproductive suppression combined with mass immigration as genocidal of their own people"
Because mass immigration is does NOT equate to genocide.
"To return to a true nationalism, it would be necessary to reinstate the reproductive system of the Western nations as it existed before the industrial revolution."
There is no such thing as "true nationalism", just nationalism, as defined by a group of people. Praytell, how to plan to coerce men and women to put back into place this 18th century notion?
Wrong. The goal of business elites is to maximize profits only. Costs can be minimized by minimizing quantities sold, which in turn reduces profits. Thus, the goal is solely to maximize profits, as profits are net “finished” values from which costs are already deducted.
Interesting article. I think the main point of the article–no innate difference in intelligence between races–has not been established. But he does establish that there are brilliant persons of color who can compete at the highest levels in cognitively demanding pursuits. Given these successes, and the IQ required, it does seem to challenge the very low IQ numbers quoted for African populations.
But it is a stretch to maintain that there are no differences between the races. Gabon is not Switzerland.
Here's another way of looking at it: Years ago, I played online Scrabble at work. It's a good stress reliever. Soon, I was at the top of the leaderboard, and soon there dozens, even hundreds of people playing. It began to consume too much of my attention, so I wrote an algorithm to first sort, then alphabetically increment through all combinations of tiles, at every available attachment point on the board, perform a dictionary lookup, and append the tiles at the point of highest score.
There were some technicalities in the programming that were entertaining, and I wrote it in several stages, in plain vanilla Turbo C for speed and TSR.
If I was cheating, wasn't I still demonstrating greater intelligence and greater problem-solving ability than those who did not cheat?
After completing the final programming upgrade, I observed that, in terms of games and solutions, I felt I had "solved" Scrabble, and subsequently lost interest in the game. I visit my mother in the hospice most days, and let her win, since she still loves to play Scrabble.
So… we would agree that the verbally apt fraction (+ 2 SD) in Nigeria isn’t that apt on average — I mean, when we look at the mean scores and standard deviations on international achievement tests. So the argument is that there’s a bimodal distribution?
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure.
“Btw, which ethnic group dominates cross-word puzzles?”
In Japan Japanese.
But it is a stretch to maintain that there are no differences between the races. Gabon is not Switzerland.
The HBD “theorists” — classic humanists they be — disagree. They know all dem niggahs be dumb, and it ain’t just “innate”, it is foh-evah. Oh, well, they’re a funny bunch of fuzzy thinkers.
Here’s another way of looking at it: Years ago, I played online Scrabble at work. It’s a good stress reliever. Soon, I was at the top of the leaderboard, and soon there dozens, even hundreds of people playing. It began to consume too much of my attention, so I wrote an algorithm to first sort, then alphabetically increment through all combinations of tiles, at every available attachment point on the board, perform a dictionary lookup, and append the tiles at the point of highest score.
There were some technicalities in the programming that were entertaining, and I wrote it in several stages, in plain vanilla Turbo C for speed and TSR.
If I was cheating, wasn’t I still demonstrating greater intelligence and greater problem-solving ability than those who did not cheat?
After completing the final programming upgrade, I observed that, in terms of games and solutions, I felt I had “solved” Scrabble, and subsequently lost interest in the game. I visit my mother in the hospice most days, and let her win, since she still loves to play Scrabble.
Of course. And there is a bimodal distribution in the American white population, as well. Within the white population, there are people who can play Scrabble well, and people who can’t. Scrabble is not, and has never been a means of measuring intelligence. Chisala’s article — and I am sure that Mr. Chisala is himself a wonderful and humanistic person — the article is margin-filler for some scientific journal, being little more than a listing and exampling of exceptions/deviations from some mean — a possibly meaningless “mean”. (That’s a little pun … you’re welcome.)
In your vein: Atoms do not exist,
electrons, positrons, neutrinos do not exist!
The abstract notion of DOG does not exist, and is useless, only Fido, Puffy and lassie exist.
Arguing against the existence of "g", is arguing against the possibility of science.
The agnostic dyslexic has said in his heart, “There is no dog.”
The article says nothing of what the black standard deviation in IQ is. White IQ has an sd of 15. If black sd is higher, then black countries can occasionally throw up high IQ individuals despite a lower mean.
The omission undermines the article’s credibility
The long running UK TV game show “Countdown” which is a sort of mixture of Scrabble and a little speed arithmetic has been dominated by Cambridge mathematicians in recent years.
Now that must be partly cultural, but Cambridge is, far and away, the most prestigious place in the UK to study mathematics and the IQs of the undergraduates will be very high.
Since Africans are capable of performing at the highest level in the intellectual domains of Scrabble and checkers, what could explain the low mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans? Either IQ tests have not been, and perhaps cannot be, properly calibrated and thus give non-comparable results for groups differing in language, culture, or wealth, or IQ is not indicative of intellectual capacity in every domain.
The probability would seem to be that if certain features of African life converge on those of Western society, then African IQ’s will increase by twenty or thirty points as did those of Europeans over the last 60 years. In that case, the inferiority of Africans to Europeans and Americans in IQ can be attributed to the Flynn effect, which has yet to have its effect in Africa.
However, even if Africa is to follow the European and American pattern of increasing IQ with increasing standard of living (or the associated cultural change that has accompanied an increase in standard of living), there remains the fact that Africans already perform at or above European and American levels at Scrabble and checkers. That being the case, it is apparent that IQ test results do not relate to anything fundamental, but are indicative of the outcome of an environment by genotype interaction, which is what just about any biologist would assume.
IQ, in other words, does not measure genetically determined intellectual potential among populations differing markedly in diet, education and culture (or whatever the relevant factors are), but provides a broad measure of intellect as modified by environmental factors. Moreover, IQ does not necessarily reflect intellectual performance in specific domains. Thus, the brilliance of Europeans such as Newton and Shakespeare in pre-Flynn-effect Europe — geniuses as bright as any the modern world has produced despite the dimness of the intellectual background from which they emerged. These intellectual giants of the past, were the counterparts of today’s African Scrabble champions.
This has to be one of the most insane things I've ever read. So you're saying that despite the masses of evidence from the psychometric field and the complete dearth of cognitive/civilizational achievements today and historically for sub-Saharan Africans and the apparent low-IQ as measured by IQ tests is now meaningless to you because........ scrabble?
I'll admit this article fascinated me and, like someone else already stated, I think it demands a good hereditarian explanation but to suddenly throw out years of data and the simple reality of the world around you because of one anomalous fact is madness.
If you look at other African countries, such as Kenya, you see substantial geographic heterogeneity which problematizes extrapolations from means: http://www.sacmeq.org/?q=sacmeq-projects/sacmeq-i/readingmathscores One could have a similar phenomenon in Nigeria, with the largely English speaking south being much more well educated than e.g., the Muslim north. Whatever the case, Chanda should show us actual measured aptitude data broken down by regions/subgroups and put this in context. Enough with the word games!
Interesting that South African Whites haven’t produced a chess grandmaster – they used to be a biggish East European Jewish population there.
I’ll start again very soon. I was moving and preoccupied with other matters unfortunately.
Science and culture in general is something that many people want and appreciate as well so there is a good correlation between national scientific and artistic output and national IQ as well (though very generally speaking Europeans overperform and East Asians underperform relative to their intelligence).
Once you get down to individual sciences and artistic endevours you start seeing some of the effects of national idiosyncracies, e.g. the French seem to have been more relatively prominent in mathematics than in other spheres.
Once you get down to board games these specific effects begin to dominate, especially as you go down from the most universal game (chess) to ever more and more specific games. If the entire Viking world were to be all resurrected draugr-style they would presumably account for all Hnefatafl champions, at least for the first one or two years anyway. Doubt Chisala would be using it as evidence for Nordic supremacy however.
All the same, if Lynn’s IQ numbers are correct a country like Gabon simply has no business producing scrabble champions. The frequency that it is played would have to be astronomical to compensate for the very low frequency of high IQ individuals – unlikely in a country with patch literacy.
BTW scrabble in the UK is *not* just a children’s game. In my experience, it is far more widely played by educated middle class British people than chess.
In your vein: Atoms do not exist,
electrons, positrons, neutrinos do not exist!
The abstract notion of DOG does not exist, and is useless, only Fido, Puffy and lassie exist.
Arguing against the existence of "g", is arguing against the possibility of science.
We have very good theories of atoms, electrons… We know their properties. We measure them often directly and also calculate them from other properties. The theories are mathematically sufficiently complex (highly non-linear) that the constructs of atom, electron,…become ineluctable. The structure of matter is complex and thus requires many constructs. There is a zoo of subatomic particles. All those particles are actually necessary to explain the whole. This is not the case with intelligence which itself might be more complex than the theory of matter. But we are nowhere near knowing much about the nature of intelligence and its mechanism. Trying to reduce it to one one-dimensional (scalar) entity g is both arrogant and primitive. It merely states the fact that observations indicate that various tests (IQ test, SAT, memory….) are mutually correlated. It suppose to be a hidden variable that cannot be accessed directly and only manifests itself via the correlation matrix. By positing existence of g we do not explain anything. We just multiply entities against the dictum of Ockham. Only development in neurology will give us explanation of intelligence. It will amount to the model of brain consisting of various specialized subassemblies that interact, communicate and retain some degree of plasticity. Furthermore this intelligence does not exist outside of environment.
Once again, the concept of g itself is useless.
Peace.
So, let's take your example of chess and Russia. Suppose African countries started playing chess seriously (as seriously as Russia) and they defeated Russia. Would you say that you can't draw any conclusions from this because there are many other white countries that do not play chess as much as Russia?I'm not sure you actually read the article or bothered to go to some of the sources. Or you prefer to rely on your own "from what I have seen" research? (Even just the professions of the players would not be predictable if what you say is true.)Another statement that sounds like you never bothered to read the article. It covers the period before checkers was allegedly "completely solved." The Ashkenazi Jewish "interest" factor has to also be factored into your claim.
Others are making similar points, so let me just say something that I assumed was already well understood from the literature/logic on this issue: genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument). The people of India will probably not produce the fastest runner in the world even if the entire country becomes passionate about running and half of Jamaica (a relatively tiny population) is forbidden by law to stop doing any running.
Also, as someone else has pointed out here, the same people claiming relative interest differences rejected that argument when it came to IQ tests.
After adjusting for Africa’s 8x preponderance in population over Russia, it would then be an actual argument against a substantial Negroid/Caucasoid difference in IQ (after ). Of course since there are a vast number of arguments for it – namely, all the IQ tests that say otherwise throughout the entire world – but at least it would make for a half-way decent debate.
Yes I have read it. No I am certainly not going to bother going to some of the sources because you had 6300 words to make the case yourself.
I am not disputing that Scrabble champions are pretty bright. (Though almost certainly far less bright than chess and go champions).
Where is the most crucial part – the statistics (e.g. polling evidence) on relative interest in the game of Scrabble?
So race differences on traits where your people overperform are real but inflated or non-existent where the opposite is the case. Gotcha.
Again, if you read the article -- or understood the article -- you would have noticed that I do actually give an example of where I believe "my people" have a genetic disadvantage (swimming), which makes your "gotcha" basis demonstrably false.
I give athletic and sporting examples only because they are much less controversial, particularly in these circles. The aim of that Indian runner example was simply to show concretely how little "relative interests" have to do with relative performance where strong genetic differences exist. It is unlikely that Indian runners will start beating African runners by increasing their interest sufficiently, but apparently it is possible to increase African performance in areas where they have a very strong biological disadvantage by simply inspiring interest among them, even when they have a population of 1.7 million. You could begin by explaining to me where I'm wrong in thinking there is a contradiction there.
And while you are at it, you could also explain for me why children in the US and the UK -- who have a relatively stronger interest in the game, according to you, than adults, are not the Scrabble champions of those countries as a result of their stronger interest. Why the champions are always adults despite an active school Scrabble program where children express this higher interest in the game. If it is because the superior intelligence of the few adults is sufficient to overcome their relative total interest deficit, please explain to me why that same reasoning does not give those same adults a similar advantage over the cognitively deficient Africans (who have the average intelligence of the same children).
I look forward to your guidance on those two issues.
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships"
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
It is about not insulting the boss, but there are a multitude of subtleties here: the head guy lets the mid level guy set the tone. The mid level guy goes with a bland fish/beer order. The head guy signals camaraderie by ordering the same thing, as do the others. The young guy flashes maximum impertinence by taking more time to order, then signals higher taste and refinement by taking more advantage of what the restaurant has to offer, impressing the waiter, complimenting the chef, etc. The old guys are pissed that he broke protocol, but he did so by exhibiting more knowledge and culture.
1SD above the mean = 0.15 (1 in 6.5) (IQ 115)
1.5 SD - 0.0668
2SD = 0.0228 (1 in 43.8) (IQ 130)
2.5SD = 0.0062 (1 in 150.9) (IQ 137.5)
3SD = 0.0013 (1 in 750) (IQ 145)
3.5SD = 0.0002 (1 in 5000) (IQ 152.5)
4SD = 0.000031 (1 in 32000) (IQ 160)
5SD = 0.000000286 (1 in 350.000) (IQ 175)
5.5SD = 0.000000019 (1 in 5.000.000) (IQ 182.5)
5.78SD = 0.000 000 00373 (more or less 1 in 300.000.000)
Now, scrabble is weakly correlated with IQ, though specific skills are at play. Assume being top scrabble player is 3SD above the mean for white players. For Gabon, that would be 145-64=81. Assume SD for blacks is 14, because usually it is claimed blacks have lower SD. Then they would have to be 5.78 above their mean and would mean roughly one top player per 300 million of people. Gabon population is 1.7 mln and few top players.
If top scrabble players would be 2sd above the mean, for gabon that would mean 4.7SD above Gabon mean, meaning there would be something like five people in Gabon eligible for being a top players, three of which made it to the final 10.
To attack Chandy's argument, you must show either:
* Top scrabble player are not particularly intelligent (say 1SD above the mean - meaning 3.6SD for Gabon, i.e. 1 in 5000, meaning 340 potential top players in Gabon. And no way there is no correlation between IQ and scrabble)
* Gabon's IQ mean is higher than 64
* There is a subpopulation in Gabon with mean much higher than 64.
For example, with scrabble "iq" for top players being say 115, and Gabon subpopulation IQ mean 85, you have almost 40.000 potential top players in Gabon (compared to millions in France). But then, you would have to only then explain why scrabble attracts more players in Gabon than in France.
It’s pretty obvious that there is something here that needs explaining, and that some people are reluctant to address it (I’m not talking about peanut gallery morons, but people who generally have some regard for the scientific method).
“problematizes extrapolations from means” – WTF?
Hey Chuck, did you come up with this phrase yourself? Do you have any idea what does this possibly mean? So please do explain. I know various definitions of mean and know various methods of extrapolations in mathematics so you do not need toe explain them. But I did not know what the verb to problematize is suppose to mean. I found this usage:
“Problematization of a term, writing, opinion, ideology, identity, or person is to consider the concrete or existential elements of those involved as challenges (problems) that invite the people involved to transform those situations. It is a method of defamiliarization of common sense.”
I liked the “defamiliarization of common sense” the most. It strangely seems to be a very apt description of your writing.
Anyway, explain what did you mean by “problematizes extrapolations from means”. Skip problematize and just explain what extrapolation from means mean?
Once again, the concept of g itself is useless.
Precisely.
Instead of having "g" explaining good portion of variation in crime level, education achievement and so on, you will have several different constructs each of which will explain smaller part of variation in limited number of outcomes.
I do not think you understand what Ockham razor postulates.
“Science is broken today” because science–actual science–doesn’t reliably supply the results we want today. Cherry picking is much more productive. Cf…
“if Lynn’s IQ numbers are correct” – Most things that Lynn does and writes are not correct, so why would you expect that IQ numbers, say in Gaboon are correct. And even if 10, 100, or 1000 kids were given some IQ test in Gabon the results are pretty meaningless.
I’m saying that the African (achievement test etc) numbers are *useless*, for real cognitive comparison to others.
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure.
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure."What does "real cognitive comparison" mean?Either you think that Africans in Africa have substantially lower mean e.g., verbal ability or not (due to whatever factors). (1) The evidence against the contra position includes:--IQ scores
--Achievement test scores (e.g., SACMED, PASEC (in French).
--International graduate test scores (e.g., the GMAT)Actual measures of cognitive ability (CA)! Of course, this could be explained by educational under-exposure. After all, African countries have commensurate general socio-economic, social progress, and Human Development index scores. But the mean ability scores would be low, nonetheless.Now, you can argue either that: (1) these measures of CA as less good measures of latent CA than e.g., scabble performance or that (2) these measures are good measures but the distribution of CA is non-normal, thus allowing large pockets of high ability Africans, etc. If it's non-normal, there must be an explanation, for example regional heterogeneity in scores, which makes difficult estimations of the smart fraction. Now the problem with you evidence in relation to 1 & 2 is that scrabble scores, at least based on the sources used, don't well predict national IQs for non-African countries. Yet, if scrabble performance indexed national/smart fraction ability, one would expect a substantial national IQ x performance correlation. (The same point, of course, would stand for other proxy measures of cognitive ability e.g., research papers per capita, math Olympiad performance, chess Olympiad performance). This lack of correlation means one of -- or a mixture of -- three things:(1) The specific metrics are not particularly good measures of cognitive ability on the individual level; for example, the meta-analystic correlation between chess performance and cognitive ability is a modest r = .25).
(2) There are national/ regional specific factors (for example, the National IQ x math Olympiad correlations is only 0.4, a low correlation which is understandable because of differences in math Olympiad training, recruiting, funding.)
(3) The samples are not representative (which is probably the case here). If so, one is not comparing the mean/elite of Africans with the mean/elite of whomever.Another way to think about this is that if you factor analyzed cognitive indexes, national scramble playing ability would probably have a low national G-loading, and thus would not have a high validity when it comes to assessing the cognitive ability of nations.In this case, you might as well use Parcheesi performance as an index.
Today Scrabble, tomorrow… the world.
Well, only time will tell.
The difference in average IQ between East Asians or ethnic Europeans and people of sub-Saharan African descent is primarily on ‘g’. The Flynn Effect is not on ‘g’.
By the way, you got any actual evidence for your remarkable claim? Probably not. Wikipedia says:
"the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from David Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than 0.95.
Oh well, we'll have to welcome the Africans to the human race after all.
Success in higher mathematics is often correlated with a high verbal intelligence; high end scrabble players the same.
Looking at just success in scrabble or checkers narrows the kind of society building intelligence we are looking at in these pages. Heck, by some measures, chimpanzees are smarter than humans.
We are pretty much barraged with anecdotes about high achieving individual Blacks. There seems to be missing the cooperative spark for building and maintaining an industrial infrastructure.
Yes I agree. Give the black people their freedom. I don’t want there to be any possibility I am holding down the black man or woman. I have too much respect for them to do that!
Is it possible that within these African countries there are different sub-species? I understand that in east Africa it’s a specific tribe that produces the champion distance runners, not the east African population generally. Perhaps the same is true for brain sports.
And there are Ethiopian Jews. They may not get much respect currently in Israel, but they may be far above the general black population in Africa. I taught an Ethiopian young woman here in USA in a class, and she was the academic talent of the class which included at least half white people. She had nothing in common intellectually with what we see with dreary consistency in African Americans. It didn’t require any special cultural understanding or indoctrination on my part, no “sensitivity” etc. She spoke excellent English and comported herself simply as a member of good society, in manner and in thinking. And she got top grades on tests. I don’t know if she was Jewish, but she was an intelligent woman by regular standards who was black.
African Americans were selected a few hundred years ago for incompetence in battle (they lost within Africa and were captured to be sold to slave traders) but physical strength. They cannot be expected to excel in military and strategic skills, which are pretty much the basis of a well respected IQ test which used to be called the ASVAB.
Universities know that they can find talented black students from Africa. When our top universities fill their racial quotas, quite a few of the blacks are such foreign students. The “SAT score gap” would be even greater if they had to fill the whole quota with African Americans.
Igbo - or their upper castes - may be cognitively superior, for example.
But what does that say about spreading the West's brief experiments with (majoritarian) "democracy" to Africa? What does it say about the future of democracy in the dysgenic USA?
Native (white and other middle class) Australians are reproducing below replacement rate. How long will smart immigrants make up for this so compulsory voting remains a positive? (My main reasons for calling it a positive is that it counters the need for money and emotion to get out the vote and it protects reasonable politicians from single issue fanatics who all vote).
Care to put a few of those holes and incongruities up?
Memory correlates with IQ, in my experience.
***
It’s reasonable to suppose that a group of poor-but-bright people could flourish, if given access to more resources and education. To suppose that this situation persists over centuries is not.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been in contact with its betters for many centuries.
Isn’t “Mughal” just another word for “Mongol”? Yes, the Mongols were indeed the font of great civilizations…for me to poop on.
P.S., Muslims castrated and genitally mutilated hundreds of thousands of black slaves. Look it up.
Kinda stupid, considering American blacks (mean IQ 85) have substantially more white admixture than African blacks (mean IQ…70? 75?).
Assume that the AI revolution is a reality and that:
1. It’s practically impossible to devise a cognitive test to differentiate between a human and an AI system.
2. AI system is built modularly with standard unit in term of ai-core. Depending on the task, more ai-core can be added so that let’s say you only need 10 ai-cores to be an economist or a lawyer, 20 ai-cores to be a family doctor, 30 ai-cores to be a string-theorists, and so on and so forth.
Questions:
What kind of test can you devise to determine the number of ai-cores in any given system? Or is this a contradiction with assumption #1?
Will this test have any resemblance to today’s IQ test?
Will this has anything to say about all the intelligence tests we have today?
And if this AI future is a reality, will this become the new way of ranking humans?
Bob = 9 ai-cores
Peter = 14 ai-cores
John = 2 ai-cores
hmmm…
So you’re saying that Africans just aren’t motivated to do well on these tests and that’s why they score lower? If so why do tests given to even College populations – who, presumably, are motivated to do well on a cognitive test – test similarly low on IQ (Rushton recorded this).
Why if the disparity is merely due to different motivation does the same indifference Africans show towards cognitive testing seem to apply equally to their diligence in building a functional civilization?
Could their lack of motivation be a reflection of a general indolence that could be correlated with intelligence? Isn’t a component of the psychological make-up of driven people a certain anxiety and dissatisfaction with the world?
Also, how does one train a population of a a billion people to ‘give a damn’?
Finally, have you seen the documentary Empire of Dust? I was watching it the other day and it struck me that this lack of interest applies to things much broader than just cognitive testing. We’re dealing with something much deeper.
I believe IQ measures the motivation to do the things we call 'civilization', at least in significant part, so people not motivated to do well on these tests also aren't going to be motivated to perform great engineering works.
What you call indolence would definitely be correlated to lower IQ scores, as well as lower civilization levels - that is, in fact, exactly my point. But it doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence - it corelates to values and priorities.
Indeed, anxiety and dissatisfaction are key factors in the make up of driven people - which should make us question the value of being driven. If being driven doesn't correlate well to happinness, then being too driven is clearly a disease that should be treated, not emulated.
But why would you want to train a billion people to be driven like us? We are unhappy and nihilistic, shouldn't we learn from them?
Our disease is that we are miserable and nihilistic but seek to impose our paradigm on everyone else - we can't diagnose the sources of our own misery because it's tied to the sources our success and power, and we can't stand that much honesty, so we blindly forge ahead trying to make everyone like us. Let it go.
I haven't seen that documentary, but my point is exactly that these things go much deeper than just tests, and involve an entire life approach and attitude, priorities and values, affections and desires, and apply to all of life.
In the final analysis what matters is happiness - and we don't got it, so maybe we should question our values.
This has to be one of the most insane things I’ve ever read. So you’re saying that despite the masses of evidence from the psychometric field and the complete dearth of cognitive/civilizational achievements today and historically for sub-Saharan Africans and the apparent low-IQ as measured by IQ tests is now meaningless to you because…….. scrabble?
I’ll admit this article fascinated me and, like someone else already stated, I think it demands a good hereditarian explanation but to suddenly throw out years of data and the simple reality of the world around you because of one anomalous fact is madness.
OK, I’m sold. IQ doesn’t exist and blacks are normal. Now we send all the refugees back because they were lying to us about how bad their homelands are.
IQ "measured' Potential' but one of the most important aspect of human mind, rationality potential, IQ just correlates in very inconsistent way. Almost of super higher IQ folks are invincibly more rational than most of 99% of population??
Don't think so.
And "creativity"?? (I prefer use the term perceptiveness, the pre condition to the creative achievements)
Again and again and again (unfortunately, repeating the same things)
The intention of the IQ never was replace intelligence concept(s) but measure it.
The analytical approach of intelligence in all of its multidimensionality is not just still there but quite valid. Intelligence is partially reducible to the quantitative value. Analyze it is complementary if not more relevant. Become dependent on IQ score system is just like create a system and follow their rules as if was a god, economic system?? As if this system were perfect.
Gymnastics score system seems very similar with IQ where just one athlete will be the champion while it should be not a crazy race with a diversity of different skilled people and with a only one criteria.
You make some valid points, but the problem is that there is no other valid measure: no measure of creativeness or rationality. IQ tests, in the meantime, ARE correlated with creativeness and rationality too
The measurement of "intelligence" by government-approved "intelligence tests" is a measurement of what the twisted and corrupt government wants (in the guise of "education goals"). This nation needs no IQ tests. Functionally, they are nothing more than red herrings, and accomplish no good at all.
''creativeness'', i prefer ''perceptiveness', ;)
creativity is a derivative word of the verb '' to create'' and of the substantive ''creation''.
none born creative=creator.
perceptiveness is the level of perception or accuracy people or living beings have, pre-condition to be creative, smart or wise.
The ''meritocratic'' system is imperfect because humans are not analysed individually and correctly, their strenghts and weakeness. There is a massified public exames that selects for
- narrow technical skills
- conformity
and also character, one of the most important psychological traits that HBD despise, don't care enough or even don't understand, is not required...
(some people ask why human societies are so imperfect...why*)
All higher IQ people are rational**
no, i doubt if more than a half of them are.
tell me your concept of rationality, the differences between rationality and intelligence and exemplifications of the rational behavior.
I am not disputing that Scrabble champions are pretty bright. (Though almost certainly far less bright than chess and go champions).
Where is the most crucial part - the statistics (e.g. polling evidence) on relative interest in the game of Scrabble?So race differences on traits where your people overperform are real but inflated or non-existent where the opposite is the case. Gotcha.
I replied to you because I assumed that you were interested in a respectful exchange, to get to the truth of the matter.
The point of me mentioning the sources — the reason that sources are given at all — is in case a reader contests some factual claim presented by the writer. You have stated what you believe is the level of seriousness given to the game of Scrabble in the US and the UK from “your experience”, which contradicts my claims. I don’t need to “make my case” to you in these “6,300 words” about a factual issue that someone else has already extensively researched on (and written books that are much longer than 6,300 words to make their case — like “Word Freak” etc); I simply give my sources, and if you don’t want to bother checking the sources, that is definitely your prerogative, and you are free to continue believing that your experience is more reliable.
Your people? Seriously? We can’t keep this discussion respectful and impersonal?
Respectfully, you seem to have misunderstood this and probably my other articles, judging from your comments here. The point of my articles has never been to make the case that “my people” are “superior” to other people, but to argue against the “evidence” of those who think that they have found a significant genetic cognitive disadvantage for Africans. The evidence may ultimately show that Africans are indeed inferior, or inferior but not by much (Chuck) or it may find that everyone is equal, or indeed that Africans are “superior” – by little or by much.
Again, if you read the article — or understood the article — you would have noticed that I do actually give an example of where I believe “my people” have a genetic disadvantage (swimming), which makes your “gotcha” basis demonstrably false.
I give athletic and sporting examples only because they are much less controversial, particularly in these circles. The aim of that Indian runner example was simply to show concretely how little “relative interests” have to do with relative performance where strong genetic differences exist. It is unlikely that Indian runners will start beating African runners by increasing their interest sufficiently, but apparently it is possible to increase African performance in areas where they have a very strong biological disadvantage by simply inspiring interest among them, even when they have a population of 1.7 million. You could begin by explaining to me where I’m wrong in thinking there is a contradiction there.
And while you are at it, you could also explain for me why children in the US and the UK — who have a relatively stronger interest in the game, according to you, than adults, are not the Scrabble champions of those countries as a result of their stronger interest. Why the champions are always adults despite an active school Scrabble program where children express this higher interest in the game. If it is because the superior intelligence of the few adults is sufficient to overcome their relative total interest deficit, please explain to me why that same reasoning does not give those same adults a similar advantage over the cognitively deficient Africans (who have the average intelligence of the same children).
I look forward to your guidance on those two issues.
As said to us many times by Italians as we toured Italy, “Go south of Rome and they are Africans, not Italians ….” Were they talking about their history, their culture, their genetic heritage, or simply their behaviors? I don’t know.
I guess anyone who notices or experiences the reality of differences among humans is racist. Right?
Just wishful thinking by blacks. History? What about it? Culture? What about it? Genetic history? See above. This garbage about Southern Italians being so different than the north needs to go. It's not based in reality.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/
utu,
I have a feeling like if I am talking to a wall.
(1) My “g” values are irrevelant to a question of whether “g” is a valid concept or not. To get “g” values I would have to pay to be tested, and I do not care. I can estimate my “g” using free tests online, but they are of limited value – I presume my values are in range 125-140, but that does not mean “g” are this inprecise, only that the online tests are imprecise because to get precise results I would have to get oficial tests under control of trained testers, and I do not care – especially since those tests are quite expensive.
Once again, the value of my height is irrevelant to the question whether height is a real concept.
In a discussion whether Poles are on average taller from Chinese, would you keep asking questions what my height is? If I would say that my height is between 180cm and 181cm, and I can’t give you exact value in mm (and for valid reasons: as you know, men’s height fluctuates slightly over a day) – would you now glibly say that at best I have surrogate for height and therefore Poles are not taller than Chinese? And even if my height would be 150cm and lower from average Chinese, would that be really relevant to the question of average differences between Chinese and Poles?
The question of the value of my income is irrevelant to the existence of concept of income. Do you understand this? If yes, why you keep asking the irrevelant questions? Not to mention that asking stranger about personal income is extremely rude and creepy (for the record, i have income much above Polish average).
(2) If you don’t know the basics of “what the “g” values are” then what are you doing here? If you have even basic understanding of “g”, you would know that we standarize “g” values into several different scales (Catell, Stanford, Wechsler…). The fact that those are in part effect of standarization that is, a question of agreement does not mean values do not measure anything.
(3) Let’s say that “g” in fact is a rough estimation, resulting of forcing of several unrelated concepts into one scale. You still have the following:
(a) somehow, those unrelated concept all seem co correlate with the same things
(b) over more than 100 years no one got better concept (with one exception, there is one theory which however is unpopular), and theories designed to prove “g” wrong (Thurons, Gardner’s) all in the end showed “g” exist
(c) you still have “g” correlating with a bunch of outcomes and physical properties of brain.
DO you understand that? The question whether “g” is a “reification” is totally irrevelant, as whatever “g” is, it still correlates with a real things in real world, is a good predictor of personal outcomes, there is no better predictor than “g”, and therefore, “g” is a useful concept.
(4) While you have imprecise and imperfect measures of “g”, they all correlate (meaning, they are within a strict range when measured by professionalists). As I wrote, measurements of blood pressure are not perfect and you can get different values of blood pressure, but still “blood pressure” is a valid and useful concept. Moreover, measured “g” values correlate with outcomes, meaning that more precise measurements of “g” can only increase the correlation.
really, go and read some primer on “g”. Or Jensen’s book.
Let me reiterate the example with personal income, so you would finally understand how absurd your objections are.
Anthropologists from distant star comes to earth and decides to investigate humans. They have no idea about our culture, the concept of money is totally strange to them. They start to investigate males only, they measure how often they buy food – while those aliens have no concept of money, they can notice that quality of food is different, and they measure it in their own imperfect way. After a while, while alien notices that people buying better food, on average – though not always – also have better quality clothes, have larger houses, more often go on vacation and so on. So they postulate that maybe there is some hidden variable and call that “income”.
Now, in reality male expanses are result of his and his wife’s incomes plus the wealth they inherited/amassed; so “income” variable created by alien anthropologist must be imperfect. Moreover, since aliens have no concept of money, they would simply standarize “income” into some ranges in say normal distribution, which would mean that a man X with income “115″ has higher “income” than man Z with income “105″, and a man Y with income “125″ has higher income by X, but it would not mean the difference between X and Y is the same as between X and Z.
And yet, income does exist (unknown to aliens). The “income” variable would correlate, though imperfectly, with a bunch of other variables. Moreover, after calculating “income”, an alien could (imperfectly) predict outcomes of a given man on a bunch of other variables.
Imagine now that UTU argues that “income” does not exist, because measurements available to anthropologists are imperfect; that “income” is just reification of concept created by aliens; that “eating food” has no relation to “buying clothes”, so postulating “income” variable tying those to variables is absurd; that because “income” does not explain all variation of “eating food” (meaning in “eating food” there is also specific variable involved in addition to “income”) it means “income” is invalid.
All those arguments would be, of course, absurd, as we know that personal income DOES exist and in fact can be perfectly measured – only that alien anthropologists have no idea how. Yet those are exactly the same arguments you are using here.
I am not disputing that Scrabble champions are pretty bright. (Though almost certainly far less bright than chess and go champions).
Where is the most crucial part - the statistics (e.g. polling evidence) on relative interest in the game of Scrabble?So race differences on traits where your people overperform are real but inflated or non-existent where the opposite is the case. Gotcha.
People should go through the sources he gives, some of it seem to be alittle disgenuine.
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player’s opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships”
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
Chanda, you have complained above about uncivil responses (while still responding to them). Please respond to Fanhar's civil critique. I am also curious why you haven't corrected your use of the wrong table to map SAT scores to IQs and the resultant incorrect value of 143 for estimated IQ. I noted this yesterday and received no response. Please either correct your errors or respond as to why I am mistaken.
Tiring.
“we compared the performance of a group of competitive Scrabble players with a group of age-matched nonexpert control participants. The results of a series of cognitive assessments showed that the Scrabble players and control participants differed only in Scrabble-specific skills (e.g., anagramming). Scrabble expertise was associated with two specific effects (as compared to controls): vertical fluency (relatively less difficulty judging lexicality for words presented in the vertical orientation) and semantic deemphasis (smaller concreteness effects for word responses). These results suggest that visual word recognition is shaped by experience”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13421-011-0137-5
And that study seems to me confirming that scrabble players make use of learned skills:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945215001069
Which is why I go to great lengths of giving more details about the profile of the topmost players. For example, I do not see that there would be an over-representation of Ashkenazi Jews if this was just a slightly above average group that just has some Scrabble-specific skills and not much else.
I’m an academic (an historian and anthropologist) and lack a lot of the familiarity with the stats discussed here. Nevertheless I believe I can add to the discussion.
1. The article, while fascinating, doesn’t account for the possibility that the brightest Africans may be playing scrabble, while the brightest Europeans may not be. I’d like to think I’m a fairly intelligent person (for example I have a Phd but that is as much about tenacity as anything else) and I have always been contemptuous of scrabble as a “grandma’s game.” The kind of game you played with Memaw after a ham and buttered cornbread dinner, but before the onset of that night’s Heehaw episode. It’s hard for me to look at scrabble as a respectable pursuit. That’s admittedly my bias, however.
2. We often hear criticism of IQ tests as relating to a particular cultural context, yet the substance of the tests are never discussed, which for a novice such as myself is a little mystifying. I know that I scored a 147 on a test from long ago, but that’s been so long I only remember a few questions, and those seemed fairly universal.
3. IQ denialism contradicts my personal experiences. I taught high school for a number of years when I was younger. Because I was a radical leftist as a youth, i insisted on teaching in a “failing” (read; 85% + black) school. Eventually my staunch leftist mentality was crushed by the stark reality of black underachievement. The same thing was experienced during my travels in Africa. I had a girlfriend who had been in the peace corps; they were teaching the natives to plant their crops in rows, which can hardly be seen as a development unique to
Industrialized societies. My personal
experiences are not science, however, though I can’t really go against them either.
3. My ultimate problem with the critique of IQ tests is that the critics seem to ignore the massive and near universal nature of the issue. If we perform an analysis of multiple countries, we find that IQ correlates with economic, military, scientific, and social success, on a very large scale. The inability of males descended from Africans who speak Bantu languages to build or maintain anything approaching civilization is virtually constant wherever a population of Bantu Africans exist. Black Bantu Africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit, but they are, in general, wealthier in these mixed societies than they are in societies that are purely Bantu. To me, this “on the ground” pattern is very significant.
I also don’t concur with the relativistic dismissals of “g” due to differences in culture, as I don’t believe all cultures are “equal.” It’s fairly obvious to me, that what we mean by “intelligence” is much more prevalent in NASA scientists than in most fishermen in the Congo River, whose techniques are generally remarkably primitive still. To argue otherwise is ridiculous sophistry from my point of view.
Furthermore, IQ isn’t so relevant simply in the abstract. It’s a hot button issue in Western countries because those elites who insist on race replacement via mass immigration also insist that blacks and whites are equal according to Western standards. The standard is therefore clear. Analytical and critical thinking skills trump other cognitive skills. A Kung Bushman’s ability to register five times the smells of an average Swede has little bearing on the debate on IQ in the current discourse.
My thoughts, anyway.
explain to me then why, seems, most people with higher scores on cognitive tests are so good to think interestingly, however wrong way * and worse, morally wrong *
It's as simple reject such mass immigration idea, and without thereby leaving the impression that is racist or ignorant, and yet most people of higher IQ, it seems, just thinking very similar in relation to other cognitive levels: binary and wrong thinking... and even worse, they are not reflective enough to re-think if they are doing the right judgments.
All your reports, I can also comment because I see the same macro-patterns, correlate with higher IQ, but in fact, the key difference here is the level of rationality, and in this sense, the Europeans are historically irrational: poverty , environmental destruction, numerous wars, religion ...
Every time when a HBD-aficionado talk about racial differences in BEHAVIOR, and using IQ as a parameter, is underlied the key point here is the level of rational capacity ... regardless of their level of IQ.
In almost all societies there is a constant struggle between reason and force. In most primary societies, the force dominating the reason almost completely, even because they often the same thing. Who protects the community (strength), it is the boss, and it is those who have '' reason '' to his side.
In more extroverted societies, the most popular are usually raised to command them, and not necessarily the most competent or the strongest. We may have many rational Africans: shy, living on the margins of society, while we have those who have all the requirements to be socially successful in their society, in the position that practicaly offer them, popularity or power.
And this reality is often not only possibly epidemic in Africa, but in virtually all human societies: to rule the nations, subjective or indirect values are required, and not directly the competence or wisdom.
The top black african economies are Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana ...
Nigeria is mixed but the drivers of the economy are the bantus who inhabit the south,Igbo, Yoruba etc. And as you're aware Zulus, Xhosa from SA are all bantu. So are the Akan peoples of Ghana. The wealthiest ethnic group in Kenya is bantu (Kikuyus) which contradicts your claim since Kenya is mixed - bantus, nilo saharans and cushites. Even in neighbouring Tanzania, the wealthiest group is Chagga, who are bantu in a mixed society.
So, no, bantus are not generally just wealthier in mixed societies.
Or maybe you meant another african country? Botswana, maybe? No, total bantu. There isn't one african country that backs up your specious claims.
Now compare this to Nilo Saharans and Cushites. South Sudan is exclusively Nilo Saharan. So is Chad. And Mali. Somalia is exclusively cushite as is half or more of Ethiopia. None of these countries are considered to be growing, dynamic economies.
It would appear you're egregiously misinformed.
So…
Instead of having “g” explaining good portion of variation in crime level, education achievement and so on, you will have several different constructs each of which will explain smaller part of variation in limited number of outcomes.
I do not think you understand what Ockham razor postulates.
Also, just for the record and to assure you that semi-sexual gut feeling of superiority ... Gawrsh, Sergeant, Ah dint know nufin' 'bout no Okkum guy. You shore are smart!
Are all bell curves shaped the same?
If there are two populations of similar size. And the median IQ (at 100) of Population I equates to X out of Y questions solved correctly in a battery of culture-neutral IQ tests ... and Population II's median IQ 100 equates to (X - 33%)/Y correctly answered questions ... then if you push the transparent graph paper with Pop II's bell curve over to the right until their medians are in the same place ... will the rest of the curves be congruent from tip to tip, yes or no?
If the answer is, yes they should be, then if you shift the second curve back, the farthest reaches of its right-hand side will again peter out long before the first curve's right-hand tail does. There won't be any individuals in Pop. II with results equivalent to those scored by, say, 145 IQ individuals in Pop. I. If I understand this article, however, such individuals do exist in low-median-IQ populations such as Gabon, contrary to expectations.
(If you reject Scrabble as a proxy for intelligence, pick something else. Perhaps medals at Math Olympiads, which some contestants from Sub-Saharan Africa have won.)
A result contrary to expectations suggest that there is something wrong in the underlying assumptions. What is it?
A Gaussian curve aka a “Normal” distribution is fully specified by two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation.
As far as I know, the evidence is that a Gaussian distribution fits population IQ data better than any other. I’m no expert on this topic.
Kurt Godel, where are we when we need you?
Once again, the concept of g itself is useless.
Hey utu,
Two excellent points!
Peace.
In theory, yes, but in practice you have test of reaction times, where RT is divided into “neurological” and “muscular” reaction. THe “neurological” is correlated with IQ, “muscular” is not. In the same test blacks have faster “mscular” reaction and lower “neurological” reaction, meaning they are both more interested and less interested in the test…
1. The article, while fascinating, doesn't account for the possibility that the brightest Africans may be playing scrabble, while the brightest Europeans may not be. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person (for example I have a Phd but that is as much about tenacity as anything else) and I have always been contemptuous of scrabble as a "grandma's game." The kind of game you played with Memaw after a ham and buttered cornbread dinner, but before the onset of that night's Heehaw episode. It's hard for me to look at scrabble as a respectable pursuit. That's admittedly my bias, however.
2. We often hear criticism of IQ tests as relating to a particular cultural context, yet the substance of the tests are never discussed, which for a novice such as myself is a little mystifying. I know that I scored a 147 on a test from long ago, but that's been so long I only remember a few questions, and those seemed fairly universal.
3. IQ denialism contradicts my personal experiences. I taught high school for a number of years when I was younger. Because I was a radical leftist as a youth, i insisted on teaching in a "failing" (read; 85% + black) school. Eventually my staunch leftist mentality was crushed by the stark reality of black underachievement. The same thing was experienced during my travels in Africa. I had a girlfriend who had been in the peace corps; they were teaching the natives to plant their crops in rows, which can hardly be seen as a development unique to
Industrialized societies. My personal
experiences are not science, however, though I can't really go against them either.
3. My ultimate problem with the critique of IQ tests is that the critics seem to ignore the massive and near universal nature of the issue. If we perform an analysis of multiple countries, we find that IQ correlates with economic, military, scientific, and social success, on a very large scale. The inability of males descended from Africans who speak Bantu languages to build or maintain anything approaching civilization is virtually constant wherever a population of Bantu Africans exist. Black Bantu Africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit, but they are, in general, wealthier in these mixed societies than they are in societies that are purely Bantu. To me, this "on the ground" pattern is very significant.
I also don't concur with the relativistic dismissals of "g" due to differences in culture, as I don't believe all cultures are "equal." It's fairly obvious to me, that what we mean by "intelligence" is much more prevalent in NASA scientists than in most fishermen in the Congo River, whose techniques are generally remarkably primitive still. To argue otherwise is ridiculous sophistry from my point of view.
Furthermore, IQ isn't so relevant simply in the abstract. It's a hot button issue in Western countries because those elites who insist on race replacement via mass immigration also insist that blacks and whites are equal according to Western standards. The standard is therefore clear. Analytical and critical thinking skills trump other cognitive skills. A Kung Bushman's ability to register five times the smells of an average Swede has little bearing on the debate on IQ in the current discourse.
My thoughts, anyway.
As I showed above, IF being Top player requires high intelligence AND Gabon national IQ is 64, THEN it is impossible for there being enough talented people in Gabon to get 3 top players (impossible if IQ required is 140, if IQ 130 – then you would have something like 5 people like that in Gabon, if IQ 115 – something like 500). To solve the puzzle, you have to either show that top players in Scrabble does not require that higher intelligence (still, higher than above, but not +3SD as postulated by Chanda Chisala) or Gabon’s national IQ is significantly higher, or it has a large minority with REALLY HIGH average IQ. The last point, of course, would also mean most likely that national IQ of Gabon cannot be 64, unless all people with IQ high enough to play scrabble actually play it instead of following other careers.
You can't say it's impossible based on the mean value alone.
Also, if the IQ hereditarians are right, Africans have different brains from Europeans. Then for a European to be champion at scrabble he might need an IQ of 140, but an African might not, because his brain is different.
Once again, the concept of g itself is useless.
How can concept be useless if it is a useful predictor of life outcomes, unmatched by any other predictor? How can introduing one unifying concept instead of many concepts is against Ockham razor?
By your criterion, all concepts in psychology and sociology are useless and therefore shouldn’t be used and all what is left is an enigma.
“Scrabble relies on rote retention skills”
So to a great extent do the study of medicine and law. And even if you’ve memorised the dictionary, you still have to shuffle the letters (on table or in head) to see what words they make., and I presume there’s a time limit.
Interesting piece.
I just love the picture heading up the article. Black cognitive superman destroying his mere white opponents, one after another, just like in every Hollywood movie these days. They are certainly the master race. Now that we’re all convinced lets have the African tide of Nobel Prize worthy achievements come our way. We’re waiting, where is it?
The significant cognitive disadvantage for sub-Saharan African stock is a fact, and not in dispute. Its causes may be genetic and/or environmental, but that is a different question.
Personally, I don’t care if it’s their genes, or if God smites them, or phantom tricknology rays from YT steal all their brilliant thoughts. It’s real, it’s persistent, and it explains more about their situation than any other factor.
Because adults have had more time to read and broaden their vocabularies?
1SD above the mean = 0.15 (1 in 6.5) (IQ 115)
1.5 SD - 0.0668
2SD = 0.0228 (1 in 43.8) (IQ 130)
2.5SD = 0.0062 (1 in 150.9) (IQ 137.5)
3SD = 0.0013 (1 in 750) (IQ 145)
3.5SD = 0.0002 (1 in 5000) (IQ 152.5)
4SD = 0.000031 (1 in 32000) (IQ 160)
5SD = 0.000000286 (1 in 350.000) (IQ 175)
5.5SD = 0.000000019 (1 in 5.000.000) (IQ 182.5)
5.78SD = 0.000 000 00373 (more or less 1 in 300.000.000)
Now, scrabble is weakly correlated with IQ, though specific skills are at play. Assume being top scrabble player is 3SD above the mean for white players. For Gabon, that would be 145-64=81. Assume SD for blacks is 14, because usually it is claimed blacks have lower SD. Then they would have to be 5.78 above their mean and would mean roughly one top player per 300 million of people. Gabon population is 1.7 mln and few top players.
If top scrabble players would be 2sd above the mean, for gabon that would mean 4.7SD above Gabon mean, meaning there would be something like five people in Gabon eligible for being a top players, three of which made it to the final 10.
To attack Chandy's argument, you must show either:
* Top scrabble player are not particularly intelligent (say 1SD above the mean - meaning 3.6SD for Gabon, i.e. 1 in 5000, meaning 340 potential top players in Gabon. And no way there is no correlation between IQ and scrabble)
* Gabon's IQ mean is higher than 64
* There is a subpopulation in Gabon with mean much higher than 64.
For example, with scrabble "iq" for top players being say 115, and Gabon subpopulation IQ mean 85, you have almost 40.000 potential top players in Gabon (compared to millions in France). But then, you would have to only then explain why scrabble attracts more players in Gabon than in France.
How does that all add up to an argument regarding the racial hypothesis?
It doesn’t. It’s just an argument that people in Gabon are smarter than some people think. It’s not an argument that their intelligence isn’t genetic.
Lots of people seem offended by the very idea of IQ tests. Many seem to have hangups about their own IQ, and so would like to dismiss the entire notion. Others have hangups owed to their religion (idiotic delusion of human equality). Still others have a curiously selective insistence on the Christian virtue of humility (for white guys, and not for, say, black pro athletes), also often owed to the aforementioned religion. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with getting a more granular look at one’s own mental horsepower, say, via an IQ test. A bit more precise than “me smart, me know me smart,” I suppose.
As a further point, taking an IQ test is not a pastime or hobby. It takes about half an hour or so, eating far less time than a Scrabble hobby.
Half an hour? I 've sat through a few WAIS sets. If you can administer that test in 30 minutes, the US government wants YOU for a position in the Department of Education.
Again, I'm sure Chanda is a fine fellow, but I have great difficulty visualizing the scene where for-real IQ tests were administered to Gabonese Scrabble players. It boggles the imagination. Invariably, what someone buys as an "IQ test" to administer to large groups as part of a "research" project turns out to be an achievement test from the 1965 NEDT pile.
The military intelligence/achievement test on which the Richwine dissertation was based was NOT an IQ test. If it's not a full WAIS, it is not an IQ test. If it is the Binet test, it is not an IQ test.
Moron, “true nationalism” is used to contrast with phony nationalism. For every thing imaginable, there is a “true” version. You complete nincompoop.
Pedantic and stupid.
How is that a problem? All job functions in human society that require some degree of a cloudy “creativity” are both self-starting and self-motivating. No measurement required. For governmental positions requiring (maybe) those abilities, they are either elective positions, or appointed positions.
The measurement of “intelligence” by government-approved “intelligence tests” is a measurement of what the twisted and corrupt government wants (in the guise of “education goals”). This nation needs no IQ tests. Functionally, they are nothing more than red herrings, and accomplish no good at all.
Blacks having less IQ is sufficient for explanation why their life outcomes are poor.
Without some measurement of intelligence, i.e. by stating that IQ or "g" are fake, you suddenly need another explanation: hence invoking fake concepts like "stereotype threat", and instead of one simple explanation fitting most if not all of the evidence, you need several explanations.
Ockham razor dictates that one should rather decide that one explanation is better, hence one should decide that "g" exists and is a valid concept, and not decide that "g" does not exist and instead create several other concepts.
So to a great extent do the study of medicine and law. And even if you've memorised the dictionary, you still have to shuffle the letters (on table or in head) to see what words they make., and I presume there's a time limit.
Interesting piece.
Time limit? How many worthwhile enterprises are holding a stopwatch to intelligent solutions? Are you suggesting that good solutions to difficult problems should be produced quickly, if not instantaneously?
You don't have an infinite amount of time in Scrabble.
"Are you suggesting that good solutions to difficult problems should be produced quickly, if not instantaneously?"
In Scrabble, yes (also in chess. Not so much in chip design or interpreting a CAT scan.)
1. The article, while fascinating, doesn't account for the possibility that the brightest Africans may be playing scrabble, while the brightest Europeans may not be. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person (for example I have a Phd but that is as much about tenacity as anything else) and I have always been contemptuous of scrabble as a "grandma's game." The kind of game you played with Memaw after a ham and buttered cornbread dinner, but before the onset of that night's Heehaw episode. It's hard for me to look at scrabble as a respectable pursuit. That's admittedly my bias, however.
2. We often hear criticism of IQ tests as relating to a particular cultural context, yet the substance of the tests are never discussed, which for a novice such as myself is a little mystifying. I know that I scored a 147 on a test from long ago, but that's been so long I only remember a few questions, and those seemed fairly universal.
3. IQ denialism contradicts my personal experiences. I taught high school for a number of years when I was younger. Because I was a radical leftist as a youth, i insisted on teaching in a "failing" (read; 85% + black) school. Eventually my staunch leftist mentality was crushed by the stark reality of black underachievement. The same thing was experienced during my travels in Africa. I had a girlfriend who had been in the peace corps; they were teaching the natives to plant their crops in rows, which can hardly be seen as a development unique to
Industrialized societies. My personal
experiences are not science, however, though I can't really go against them either.
3. My ultimate problem with the critique of IQ tests is that the critics seem to ignore the massive and near universal nature of the issue. If we perform an analysis of multiple countries, we find that IQ correlates with economic, military, scientific, and social success, on a very large scale. The inability of males descended from Africans who speak Bantu languages to build or maintain anything approaching civilization is virtually constant wherever a population of Bantu Africans exist. Black Bantu Africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit, but they are, in general, wealthier in these mixed societies than they are in societies that are purely Bantu. To me, this "on the ground" pattern is very significant.
I also don't concur with the relativistic dismissals of "g" due to differences in culture, as I don't believe all cultures are "equal." It's fairly obvious to me, that what we mean by "intelligence" is much more prevalent in NASA scientists than in most fishermen in the Congo River, whose techniques are generally remarkably primitive still. To argue otherwise is ridiculous sophistry from my point of view.
Furthermore, IQ isn't so relevant simply in the abstract. It's a hot button issue in Western countries because those elites who insist on race replacement via mass immigration also insist that blacks and whites are equal according to Western standards. The standard is therefore clear. Analytical and critical thinking skills trump other cognitive skills. A Kung Bushman's ability to register five times the smells of an average Swede has little bearing on the debate on IQ in the current discourse.
My thoughts, anyway.
” Analytical and critical thinking ”
explain to me then why, seems, most people with higher scores on cognitive tests are so good to think interestingly, however wrong way * and worse, morally wrong *
It’s as simple reject such mass immigration idea, and without thereby leaving the impression that is racist or ignorant, and yet most people of higher IQ, it seems, just thinking very similar in relation to other cognitive levels: binary and wrong thinking… and even worse, they are not reflective enough to re-think if they are doing the right judgments.
All your reports, I can also comment because I see the same macro-patterns, correlate with higher IQ, but in fact, the key difference here is the level of rationality, and in this sense, the Europeans are historically irrational: poverty , environmental destruction, numerous wars, religion …
Every time when a HBD-aficionado talk about racial differences in BEHAVIOR, and using IQ as a parameter, is underlied the key point here is the level of rational capacity … regardless of their level of IQ.
In almost all societies there is a constant struggle between reason and force. In most primary societies, the force dominating the reason almost completely, even because they often the same thing. Who protects the community (strength), it is the boss, and it is those who have ” reason ” to his side.
In more extroverted societies, the most popular are usually raised to command them, and not necessarily the most competent or the strongest. We may have many rational Africans: shy, living on the margins of society, while we have those who have all the requirements to be socially successful in their society, in the position that practicaly offer them, popularity or power.
And this reality is often not only possibly epidemic in Africa, but in virtually all human societies: to rule the nations, subjective or indirect values are required, and not directly the competence or wisdom.
As for your point about Europeans being irrational, I don't believe this is the case, or at least not in the way you mean it. Warfare, poverty, prejudice, etc. don't necessarily imply irrationality. There are rational cases for war. There are also limitations on resources which can lead to poverty.
But where I most definitely object is where you attribute those qualities as fundamental characteristics of European civilization. Poverty, warfare, prejudice, etc., are largely universal features of human life.
What makes societies unique however is how they address these issues. Europeans have developed great rationality over time, much greater than the global south. Europeans have experienced skyrocketed technological, philosophical, and ethical development over the last 1,000 years. There's no comparison there with the global south. Of course, societies like China also developed along rational lines. A man on the moon proves without a shadow of a doubt that western civilization outshines non-technological civilizations, just as China's sending an astronaut into orbit is proof of their greater sophistication versus a society like Mozambique.
It's like with slavery. Are Europeans uniquely irrational because they participated in slavery? No, because that mode of suffering was widespread historically. You even had black Bantu slaves in China.
No, what makes Europeans actually uniquely rational in this matter is the effort to abolish slavery, which was a white European/American venture. In fact slavery continues in much of Africa today, but is absent in NA and EU.
As for the shy Africans, I don't really think speculation leads to a more accurate picture. Regardless of who leads a society, IQ does contribute to the overall trajectory and condition of that society. Otherwise it wouldn't correlate with SO much! If the societies with the lowest life expectancies, per capita income, access to quality healthcare, etc., all correlate with lower IQ, then "g" is a pretty important metric.
And then we have the universal character of it; how can St. Louis, MO, Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, and Monrovia display the same kind of dynamic? That's something that should be addressed in my opinion. There is no way that societies on different continents with different influences can be so similar without a genetic cause of their shared dysfunction.
As for mass immigration, I don't reject it because of IQ solely. I reject it because I don't want my four children to be disenfranchised and bound to an ever-increasing population that will never allow them to reach their true potential. My most fundamental moral charism is to provide for and protect them, and mass immigration is a serious threat to their future happiness and well being (I believe).
I wish I could understand your reply more thoroughly. I admit that a lot of this is above my pay grade. I'm just offering my take on things even if I'm not the most knowledgable on this topic. Thank you for your thoughts.
As far as I know, the evidence is that a Gaussian distribution fits population IQ data better than any other. I'm no expert on this topic.
The evidence is that a Gaussian distribution fits population IQ data, as IQ is measured by “standardized” tests.
Kurt Godel, where are we when we need you?
Instead of having "g" explaining good portion of variation in crime level, education achievement and so on, you will have several different constructs each of which will explain smaller part of variation in limited number of outcomes.
I do not think you understand what Ockham razor postulates.
I think you don’t understand how much more effective crime statistics are as a tool of prediction than IQ tests will ever be.
Also, just for the record and to assure you that semi-sexual gut feeling of superiority … Gawrsh, Sergeant, Ah dint know nufin’ ’bout no Okkum guy. You shore are smart!
I guess anyone who notices or experiences the reality of differences among humans is racist. Right?
This is retarded.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/10/refuting-afrocentrism-part-2-are-italians-black/
Just wishful thinking by blacks. History? What about it? Culture? What about it? Genetic history? See above. This garbage about Southern Italians being so different than the north needs to go. It’s not based in reality.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/
And the Lynn thesis is backed up by tons of real world effects of the IQ discrepancy. North Italian economy is vastly superior to the South, it's inarguably and stark as can be. Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing), and the fact that South Italians' closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s.
And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards "terroni" down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don't arise out of thin air.
So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn't fit your desires, lmao.
Basically everyone is black, sub-Saharan Bantu African, except for whites that pathetic ideology is aimed at.
It’s enough for you*
”creativeness”, i prefer ”perceptiveness’,
creativity is a derivative word of the verb ” to create” and of the substantive ”creation”.
none born creative=creator.
perceptiveness is the level of perception or accuracy people or living beings have, pre-condition to be creative, smart or wise.
The ”meritocratic” system is imperfect because humans are not analysed individually and correctly, their strenghts and weakeness. There is a massified public exames that selects for
- narrow technical skills
- conformity
and also character, one of the most important psychological traits that HBD despise, don’t care enough or even don’t understand, is not required…
(some people ask why human societies are so imperfect…why*)
All higher IQ people are rational**
no, i doubt if more than a half of them are.
tell me your concept of rationality, the differences between rationality and intelligence and exemplifications of the rational behavior.
As a further point, taking an IQ test is not a pastime or hobby. It takes about half an hour or so, eating far less time than a Scrabble hobby.
Doncha just hate it, when you sit down with that certified IQ-test administrator that you already went and paid $200 for, and you draw seven ‘E’s right off the bat?
Half an hour? I ‘ve sat through a few WAIS sets. If you can administer that test in 30 minutes, the US government wants YOU for a position in the Department of Education.
Again, I’m sure Chanda is a fine fellow, but I have great difficulty visualizing the scene where for-real IQ tests were administered to Gabonese Scrabble players. It boggles the imagination. Invariably, what someone buys as an “IQ test” to administer to large groups as part of a “research” project turns out to be an achievement test from the 1965 NEDT pile.
The military intelligence/achievement test on which the Richwine dissertation was based was NOT an IQ test. If it’s not a full WAIS, it is not an IQ test. If it is the Binet test, it is not an IQ test.
The measurement of "intelligence" by government-approved "intelligence tests" is a measurement of what the twisted and corrupt government wants (in the guise of "education goals"). This nation needs no IQ tests. Functionally, they are nothing more than red herrings, and accomplish no good at all.
Some degree…
by some degree almost of humans are creative, period.
There are specializations in divergent thiking, in rational thinking… and or individuals who are in upper hand in this specificities.
”Self-starting”**
most people work in that public jobs that don’t required great intrinsic motivation to work with it.
$elf-motivating.
Creativity can create or destroy the world, have the control of people with this potential is at least reasonable…
Indeed seems relatively more complicated predict creative potential, why I am using the term perceptiveness,
Rationality:
- reflective and introspective (inner-reflective) skills (interpersonal intelligence),
- moral thinking levels,
- potential to follow right thinking-lines…
ideological or political spectrum is a very good source to ”measure” rationality levels
from the extreme right wing to the extreme left wing, we have good, avg and bad ideas/statements…
for example,
mass immigration or globalistic idealism
in the way it’s being done, it’s wrong.
so,
extreme left wing ideas of mass immigration are mostly wrong while the right wing ideas of territorial integrity will be mostly right.
other example,
environmental issues
extreme economic right wing don’t care about it = obviously wrong or irrational.
left wing (superficially speaking) care about it = obviously right or rational.
to start…
rationality is absolutely correlated with cultural scenario (well, everything, including intelligence,
), so is impossible create a ”acultural” ”test” to measure it.
What’s Gabon’s standard deviation of IQ?
You can’t say it’s impossible based on the mean value alone.
Also, if the IQ hereditarians are right, Africans have different brains from Europeans. Then for a European to be champion at scrabble he might need an IQ of 140, but an African might not, because his brain is different.
The measurement of "intelligence" by government-approved "intelligence tests" is a measurement of what the twisted and corrupt government wants (in the guise of "education goals"). This nation needs no IQ tests. Functionally, they are nothing more than red herrings, and accomplish no good at all.
Let me put that in this way: Blacks in USA are consistently found to be less educated, having less income and being more criminal. The (white) people with lower IQ are consistenly found to be less educated, having less income and being more criminal.
Blacks having less IQ is sufficient for explanation why their life outcomes are poor.
Without some measurement of intelligence, i.e. by stating that IQ or “g” are fake, you suddenly need another explanation: hence invoking fake concepts like “stereotype threat”, and instead of one simple explanation fitting most if not all of the evidence, you need several explanations.
Ockham razor dictates that one should rather decide that one explanation is better, hence one should decide that “g” exists and is a valid concept, and not decide that “g” does not exist and instead create several other concepts.
Also, just for the record and to assure you that semi-sexual gut feeling of superiority ... Gawrsh, Sergeant, Ah dint know nufin' 'bout no Okkum guy. You shore are smart!
If you udnerstand Ockham razor, why you think several convolute explanations are better than one explanation fitting most if not all of the evidence?
Half an hour? I 've sat through a few WAIS sets. If you can administer that test in 30 minutes, the US government wants YOU for a position in the Department of Education.
Again, I'm sure Chanda is a fine fellow, but I have great difficulty visualizing the scene where for-real IQ tests were administered to Gabonese Scrabble players. It boggles the imagination. Invariably, what someone buys as an "IQ test" to administer to large groups as part of a "research" project turns out to be an achievement test from the 1965 NEDT pile.
The military intelligence/achievement test on which the Richwine dissertation was based was NOT an IQ test. If it's not a full WAIS, it is not an IQ test. If it is the Binet test, it is not an IQ test.
All mental tests measure “g” and military tests are pretty much very good approximations of IQ tests, even if they are not called that way.
If you do not know that (as this is pretty much established fact), why do i even bother to discuss with you?
Your point being what, exactly? I don’t disagree … I assume that was just the basic “contributing general impressions” comment?
So Africans are immune to the Flynn effect. Oh, thank God. Until now I thought they might really be, um, you know, like, actual humans.
By the way, you got any actual evidence for your remarkable claim? Probably not. Wikipedia says:
“the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from David Wechsler’s tests have been found to be greater than 0.95.
Oh well, we’ll have to welcome the Africans to the human race after all.
Quote my reference to “several convolute[d] explanations”. I don’t keep track of everything you say, Szzz. I post many items that are likely to be very much unrelated to your postings. What’s your beef, specifically? Spit it out.
Of course, this is wrong, as existence of "g" differences between blacks and whites explains also differences in outcomes between whites and blacks.
You can't say it's impossible based on the mean value alone.
Also, if the IQ hereditarians are right, Africans have different brains from Europeans. Then for a European to be champion at scrabble he might need an IQ of 140, but an African might not, because his brain is different.
Hard to say, but I’ve seen hereditarians claiming black SD is lower (in US) than white SD.
***
It's reasonable to suppose that a group of poor-but-bright people could flourish, if given access to more resources and education. To suppose that this situation persists over centuries is not.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been in contact with its betters for many centuries.Isn't "Mughal" just another word for "Mongol"? Yes, the Mongols were indeed the font of great civilizations...for me to poop on.
P.S., Muslims castrated and genitally mutilated hundreds of thousands of black slaves. Look it up.Kinda stupid, considering American blacks (mean IQ 85) have substantially more white admixture than African blacks (mean IQ...70? 75?).
Why is it unreasonable to suppose that Africans could not until now remain immune to the Flynn effect, when the Brits were largely immune to it until only 65 years when their average IQ was 80, and Americans scored only 75 in 1915?
Score very lower in IQ tests can be:
Errors in calculation
Correct and you have partial mental "retardation"
Correct and you no have any retardation degree because you're just like older humans, with lower "IQ" and with "normal" behavior.
Genetic differences between human populations showed that all of us derived from Africans,
Probably because my replies point out inconsistencies in your arguments, and that irritates you on the ego level?
Oh, hell no. Without exception, standard military “intelligence” tests are achievement tests. Mental tests MAY measure ‘g’. They certainly claim to. Guess that makes it a sure thing, huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_BatteryWith the following quoted claim:
", it is important to note that AFQT has been shown to correlate more highly with classic IQ tests than they do with one another, and that the "crystallized" intelligence measured by AFQT is measured very similarly by Wechsler, in particular"Here is is a quote from Jensen:" A military study of over 24,000 subjects training for 37 diverse jobs examined the predictive validity of the ten component tests of the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery and found a correlation of .75 between the test's g loading (roughly how important g was in determining job performance) and the tests validity in predicting training success. A replication showed a correlation of .96 on a sample of 78,000 subjects in 150 military job training courses, leaving little doubt about the predictive validity of these tests arising primarily from their ability to measure g. The tests in this battery measure other things than g. By breaking the test's scores down into g and non-g factors, it was found that virtually all of the ability of the battery to predict success at training was due to g. "When an overall average prediction equation for all eighty-nine jobs was compared against using a unique optimal prediction equation for each job, the total loss in predictive accuracy was less than one-half of 1 percent."You may also note that while it is postulated that "g" measures intelligence (I share that conviction) and reflects a "hidden variable" equivalent to overall quality of neurological system, the most common formal definition, one found in wikipedia and similarly defined in Bartholomew's book, is simply:"a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks"Using those definition, tests do not "claim" to measure "g", as "g" is defined as feature of those tests.
By the way, you got any actual evidence for your remarkable claim? Probably not. Wikipedia says:
"the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from David Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than 0.95.
Oh well, we'll have to welcome the Africans to the human race after all.
The first claim (differences are on g) is well established, it was called “hypothesis” untill few years ago but evidence seems to amass to the point it should be called fact. Differences are larger in tests with higher g-loading.
The second claim (Flynn effect is not on g) is not established and in fact I would hesitate to back it, as I saw studies claiming that Flynn effect was actually larger on more g-loaded tests.
Everyone:
List of some useful resources.
http://arthurjensen.net/?page_id=9
Your comment leave me the idea that creativity and rationality Don’t need to be measured when you argue “in every human activity there is some required creativity… Don’t need to be Measured’”. Maybe I interpret it wrong.
By the way, you got any actual evidence for your remarkable claim? Probably not. Wikipedia says:
"the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from David Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than 0.95.
Oh well, we'll have to welcome the Africans to the human race after all.
If I recall correctly, it’s either Rushton 2000, Rushton 1999 or Rushton and Jensen 2010. I’ll get back to you when I have access to a computer.
Blacks having less IQ is sufficient for explanation why their life outcomes are poor.
Without some measurement of intelligence, i.e. by stating that IQ or "g" are fake, you suddenly need another explanation: hence invoking fake concepts like "stereotype threat", and instead of one simple explanation fitting most if not all of the evidence, you need several explanations.
Ockham razor dictates that one should rather decide that one explanation is better, hence one should decide that "g" exists and is a valid concept, and not decide that "g" does not exist and instead create several other concepts.
Well, you really trundled yourself out a picnic basket of stupid with that one.
A statistical fact. Bravo.
Hahahahaha. Wait … hahahahahahaha. Bullshit.
Another explanation? What’s wrong with the explanations that describe facts like crimes and poor performance? What additional explanation is required? Crime statistics are sufficient. Measured levels of achievement are sufficient. The facts of Negro inferiority are clearly evident; there is no need to shuffle up of a bunch of excuses using poorly designed and misleading ‘tests’ as evidence. The evidence is clear and undeniable. Screw Ockham! Sufficient explanation, we’ve got!!
I have to add that I am utterly disgusted by your claim that "Negro (!) inferiority is evident". I do not discuss with racists. I will check how wel CTI feature (commenters to ignore)works by adding you to ignore list.
Ah, sorry, you just agreed to the following statement:
To which you said “precisely”
Of course, this is wrong, as existence of “g” differences between blacks and whites explains also differences in outcomes between whites and blacks.
For me, this all hinges on the tests that are used as "IQ tests" in these purported studies of racial difference in intelligence are NOT real IQ tests. Sure, excuses, excuses, excuses, but they're just NOT legitimate IQ tests in the modern world of improved research methods in psychometrics.
Understand, I'm not saying there is not a difference in the intelligence configurations of whites and blacks -- I'm saying you can't use bogus tests to prove it. There are clear and undeniable facts on record that prove it, statistically. There is very little need to add to that body of proof. But, if you're gonna do it, do it right.
This has to be one of the most insane things I've ever read. So you're saying that despite the masses of evidence from the psychometric field and the complete dearth of cognitive/civilizational achievements today and historically for sub-Saharan Africans and the apparent low-IQ as measured by IQ tests is now meaningless to you because........ scrabble?
I'll admit this article fascinated me and, like someone else already stated, I think it demands a good hereditarian explanation but to suddenly throw out years of data and the simple reality of the world around you because of one anomalous fact is madness.
No one is throwing out any data, so far as I am aware.
Those Africans, rather few of them I suspect, who’ve taken IQ tests mostly have low IQ’s, averaging in the 70 – 80 range, like Americans and Brits only 50 to 100 years ago. But like the Americans and Brits of a couple of generations ago, there is likely nothing wrong with their brains, they just haven’t been trained on the vast range of electrical, electronic, and mechanical devices to which most people in the West are exposed today. But in their own sphere of mental activity, our ancestors were almost certainly intellectually superior to the current generation in certain respects. Take a look at some of the old high school exam papers or Harvard University entrance exam papers, and you will see that the older generation was very capable people. Surely true of Africans today if one were to observe them in their own environment.
I thought if he is saying “Flynn effect is not genotypical changes” instead “it’s not g”. Well, g is more genotypical is not?? I mean pattern recognition is more genotypical, intrinsic than for example acquired language or numeracy. Bizarrely the great IQ increase in Flynn effect seems has been in raven tests. Increase in height = increase in brain size?? Well, but east Asians, who are on avg shorter than Europeans and Americans, are better in raven tests isn’t?? Maybe some technical noise in IQ tests after all the accumulation of human knowledge has increased and popularized and many IQ tests are classically “cultural”/scholastic.
That would be good argument if you had point out one inconsistency in my argument.
As for military aptitude tests… You can see the test’s description here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery
With the following quoted claim:
“, it is important to note that AFQT has been shown to correlate more highly with classic IQ tests than they do with one another, and that the “crystallized” intelligence measured by AFQT is measured very similarly by Wechsler, in particular”
Here is is a quote from Jensen:
” A military study of over 24,000 subjects training for 37 diverse jobs examined the predictive validity of the ten component tests of the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery and found a correlation of .75 between the test’s g loading (roughly how important g was in determining job performance) and the tests validity in predicting training success. A replication showed a correlation of .96 on a sample of 78,000 subjects in 150 military job training courses, leaving little doubt about the predictive validity of these tests arising primarily from their ability to measure g. The tests in this battery measure other things than g. By breaking the test’s scores down into g and non-g factors, it was found that virtually all of the ability of the battery to predict success at training was due to g. “When an overall average prediction equation for all eighty-nine jobs was compared against using a unique optimal prediction equation for each job, the total loss in predictive accuracy was less than one-half of 1 percent.”
You may also note that while it is postulated that “g” measures intelligence (I share that conviction) and reflects a “hidden variable” equivalent to overall quality of neurological system, the most common formal definition, one found in wikipedia and similarly defined in Bartholomew’s book, is simply:
“a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual’s performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person’s performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks”
Using those definition, tests do not “claim” to measure “g”, as “g” is defined as feature of those tests.
Blacks having less IQ is sufficient for explanation why their life outcomes are poor.
Without some measurement of intelligence, i.e. by stating that IQ or "g" are fake, you suddenly need another explanation: hence invoking fake concepts like "stereotype threat", and instead of one simple explanation fitting most if not all of the evidence, you need several explanations.
Ockham razor dictates that one should rather decide that one explanation is better, hence one should decide that "g" exists and is a valid concept, and not decide that "g" does not exist and instead create several other concepts.
Criminal levels between white and black American working classes seems discrepant. The problem is not “black” race but the psychological breed that over-represent them= low functioning sociopaths, specially black men. Black women have avg crime rates at the rate of white men.
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships"
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
Thanks for checking the references, Fanhar. Seeing issues like that go unacknowledged totally destroys my faith in the argument Chanda presents (and causes me to question whether that argument is made in good faith).
Chanda, you have complained above about uncivil responses (while still responding to them). Please respond to Fanhar’s civil critique. I am also curious why you haven’t corrected your use of the wrong table to map SAT scores to IQs and the resultant incorrect value of 143 for estimated IQ. I noted this yesterday and received no response. Please either correct your errors or respond as to why I am mistaken.
So, according to the correct link, the students were IQ 138? OK, this does not affect my IQ approximation for the experts much (will check through and correct links etc though) since that paper said the experts were significantly above the students on cognitive measures, if I recall right. Good thing I took a conservative approach by not giving the experts an estimate for them that is significantly above 143, but just assumed 143 itself (as if they scored just equal to the students in the other link). So, 143 still can't be far from the right estimate if they did score "significantly above" the 138 IQ students. It's just 5 IQ points. (but I'll still check through their paper to see exactly how far above they were in SDs etc etc before making corrections. Thanks).
Ah, so this is “pointing the inconsistencies”: sayign BS when you have no idea about what you are talking about. Facts always require explanation. If poor outcomes of blacks are result of lower average “g”, then you can try to address this core problem; and because all studies point to the fact that some portion of variability is environmental, it means you can raise “g” by some 10 to 20%. If it is all hereditary, then you can find out which genes and why are responsible and fix them.
I have to add that I am utterly disgusted by your claim that “Negro (!) inferiority is evident”. I do not discuss with racists. I will check how wel CTI feature (commenters to ignore)works by adding you to ignore list.
However, I agree that putting you on the Ignore list has more advantages than disadvantages.
My source here is “g factor” by Arthur Jensen, where he claims that differences disappear (or largely dissappear, I don’t remember right now) while you account for “g” differences. White American working class seems to be have higher “g” than black working class.
Everyone, I see no other way to show Chanda Chisala is wrong than to show that one can become Scrabble Top Player without particularly high intelligence. I will concentrate on Gabon here.
Even assuming Gabon IQ is in fact 85, and SD is 15 as in whites, then IF Ch.Ch. is right and Top Player has to have +3SD, THEN there would be something like 53 people in Gabon eligible to being Top Players. (If Top players are +2SD, it still means +3SD for Gabon, i.e. assuming even 85IQ, 1 in 750, ie only 2266 potential players – or am i wrong in my calculations?)
It’s really hard to imagine that out of 53 people in Gabon, 3 would decide to become Scrabble Top Players (a task which require investment of a lot of time), instead of pursuing other careers.
Unless:
(1) IQ distribution is known to have fat tails, meaning there could be more high IQ people than resulting from calculations
(2) Scrabble requires not high “g”, but some specific visual-spatial skills
(3) Scrabble requires minimal “g”, but even 90IQ can become a master with chances to beat 140IQ
(4) French Scrabble top players are lower on “g” than English (i.e. results given by Ch.Ch for English Scrabble do not apply to French Scrabble)
(5) Scrabble is insanely more popular in Gabon than in France, and in France it does not attract particularly intelligent people.
I would think that combination of 2 to 5 can be in play, since “scrabble players” is a self-selected group (i.e. there is a chance that high-IQ French decide to play chess, go to banks etc while only average intelligent are going to play Scrabble – but then, why high-IQ Gabon natives should decide not to go for banking career?). But I think this require an explanation and I have not seen one coming.
Excluding African countries, what's the correlation between national scrabble scores and national IQ/ACH. If it's low, since we have a pretty good idea that national IQ/ACH, in fact, measures the average abilities of nations outside of Africa, a combination of 2-5 is likely. To put another way, if you have 12 supposed indexes of national cognitive ability and 2 don't correlate with the others on the national level, it's more reasonable to discard/ question mark these than the other 10.
And black women are more criminal than white women.
So you're saying that Africans just aren't motivated to do well on these tests and that's why they score lower? If so why do tests given to even College populations - who, presumably, are motivated to do well on a cognitive test - test similarly low on IQ (Rushton recorded this).
Why if the disparity is merely due to different motivation does the same indifference Africans show towards cognitive testing seem to apply equally to their diligence in building a functional civilization?
Could their lack of motivation be a reflection of a general indolence that could be correlated with intelligence? Isn't a component of the psychological make-up of driven people a certain anxiety and dissatisfaction with the world?
Also, how does one train a population of a a billion people to 'give a damn'?
Finally, have you seen the documentary Empire of Dust? I was watching it the other day and it struck me that this lack of interest applies to things much broader than just cognitive testing. We're dealing with something much deeper.
Black college applicants might be more motivated than other blacks, but that doesn’t mean they are more motivated than white or Asian college applicants. Within group variation is not the same as between group variation.
I believe IQ measures the motivation to do the things we call ‘civilization’, at least in significant part, so people not motivated to do well on these tests also aren’t going to be motivated to perform great engineering works.
What you call indolence would definitely be correlated to lower IQ scores, as well as lower civilization levels – that is, in fact, exactly my point. But it doesn’t necessarily correlate to intelligence – it corelates to values and priorities.
Indeed, anxiety and dissatisfaction are key factors in the make up of driven people – which should make us question the value of being driven. If being driven doesn’t correlate well to happinness, then being too driven is clearly a disease that should be treated, not emulated.
But why would you want to train a billion people to be driven like us? We are unhappy and nihilistic, shouldn’t we learn from them?
Our disease is that we are miserable and nihilistic but seek to impose our paradigm on everyone else – we can’t diagnose the sources of our own misery because it’s tied to the sources our success and power, and we can’t stand that much honesty, so we blindly forge ahead trying to make everyone like us. Let it go.
I haven’t seen that documentary, but my point is exactly that these things go much deeper than just tests, and involve an entire life approach and attitude, priorities and values, affections and desires, and apply to all of life.
In the final analysis what matters is happiness – and we don’t got it, so maybe we should question our values.
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships"
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
Hm, re-reading your post I see that maybe there is (6) explanation: Gabon players have no chances in “elite” tournaments, so they concentrate in those other… and while top players in “elite” tournaments have to be +3SD, there is no proof the same is required in those tournaments Gabon players win…
Interpreted it wrong? I said:
What is the connection between what I actually wrote and what you “interpreted”?
"Measurements" (filtering) of "creativity" and rationality is extremely important to put the right people in the right place, better, put everyone in their right place in the market job world.
If people are supposedly self-motivated to the certain "creative jobs" this natural attraction make measurement look dispensable. What I understand by now.
Do you think meritocratic system is perfect?
Yes I know. And east Asian/yellow women are less criminal than white women.
Of course, this is wrong, as existence of "g" differences between blacks and whites explains also differences in outcomes between whites and blacks.
I am not a ‘g’ believer, but that doesn’t mean that ‘g’ as calculated — bs or not — will not track, as calculated, between white performance and black performance.
For me, this all hinges on the tests that are used as “IQ tests” in these purported studies of racial difference in intelligence are NOT real IQ tests. Sure, excuses, excuses, excuses, but they’re just NOT legitimate IQ tests in the modern world of improved research methods in psychometrics.
Understand, I’m not saying there is not a difference in the intelligence configurations of whites and blacks — I’m saying you can’t use bogus tests to prove it. There are clear and undeniable facts on record that prove it, statistically. There is very little need to add to that body of proof. But, if you’re gonna do it, do it right.
I have to add that I am utterly disgusted by your claim that "Negro (!) inferiority is evident". I do not discuss with racists. I will check how wel CTI feature (commenters to ignore)works by adding you to ignore list.
Not well. Ignored commenters still show up in the list. They should disappear, as well as not generating the email reply for posters using a valid email.
However, I agree that putting you on the Ignore list has more advantages than disadvantages.
My apologies for the bugs, but these sorts of systems are very intricate, and it's easy to miss various cases during testing.
Also, the IGNORE list can't block reply emails. The reason for that is that the list is stored as a cookie on the reader's local browser, to which the commenter being "ignored" has no access, so there's no way the system can easily determine he's been "ignored" and avoid sending out the response email.
Americans scoring 75 on avg is a calculation noise.
Score very lower in IQ tests can be:
Errors in calculation
Correct and you have partial mental “retardation”
Correct and you no have any retardation degree because you’re just like older humans, with lower “IQ” and with “normal” behavior.
Genetic differences between human populations showed that all of us derived from Africans,
Samoans and australians are
the most genetically distant from africans (genetically distant is not exactly the same than genetically differentiated, and specially via psycho-cognitive traits)
the lower scores in IQ tests... and most of them seems behave at ''normal'' levels.
Few people are angry because aboriginals scored lower than 60 in IQ tests... why*
Learn some stats doofus.
P.S. you just discovered what's called the Flynn effect
What is the relevance of this marginal subject??
“Measurements” (filtering) of “creativity” and rationality is extremely important to put the right people in the right place, better, put everyone in their right place in the market job world.
If people are supposedly self-motivated to the certain “creative jobs” this natural attraction make measurement look dispensable. What I understand by now.
Do you think meritocratic system is perfect?
Score very lower in IQ tests can be:
Errors in calculation
Correct and you have partial mental "retardation"
Correct and you no have any retardation degree because you're just like older humans, with lower "IQ" and with "normal" behavior.
Genetic differences between human populations showed that all of us derived from Africans,
Evolved beyond, my good man, as dolphins have evolved beyond trilobites. As trilobites evolved beyond stromatolites.
but ok, you understand.
Score very lower in IQ tests can be:
Errors in calculation
Correct and you have partial mental "retardation"
Correct and you no have any retardation degree because you're just like older humans, with lower "IQ" and with "normal" behavior.
Genetic differences between human populations showed that all of us derived from Africans,
The rest of this comment was eated…
Samoans and australians are
the most genetically distant from africans (genetically distant is not exactly the same than genetically differentiated, and specially via psycho-cognitive traits)
the lower scores in IQ tests… and most of them seems behave at ”normal” levels.
Few people are angry because aboriginals scored lower than 60 in IQ tests… why*
"Measurements" (filtering) of "creativity" and rationality is extremely important to put the right people in the right place, better, put everyone in their right place in the market job world.
If people are supposedly self-motivated to the certain "creative jobs" this natural attraction make measurement look dispensable. What I understand by now.
Do you think meritocratic system is perfect?
No, they’re not. And I have no interest in putting anyone into his or her “right place”. Better that everyone find his right place.
I assume you meant “That I understand by now.”
Perfect? No. Most functional, yes. In a huge and institutionalized society like ours, checks and balances must be asserted. That includes supervision and monitoring of the fairness and effectiveness of any defacto “meritocracy”.
English is not my mother tongue and yes i like to use it as a permanent excuse, ;)Many people are sub-employed, many very talented people are sub-employed, people with lack of character is not a exception in many important places, unemployment is perfectly clearable, so why it's not*
today there is the phenomenon of massification of higher education, seems amazing but it's not.
Imperfectly functional is not enough.
I no have any refutation because you’re right and because i thought your semantic recommendation over,
but ok, you understand.
However, I agree that putting you on the Ignore list has more advantages than disadvantages.
I’ve fixed the IGNORE bug, and uploaded the new code to the server, so let me know if things now work, or if there are any remaining IGNORE or FOLLOW problems. You’ll need to refresh your browser to reload the modified Javascript code.
My apologies for the bugs, but these sorts of systems are very intricate, and it’s easy to miss various cases during testing.
Also, the IGNORE list can’t block reply emails. The reason for that is that the list is stored as a cookie on the reader’s local browser, to which the commenter being “ignored” has no access, so there’s no way the system can easily determine he’s been “ignored” and avoid sending out the response email.
Any comments on the magnitude of the differences in each case? Surely that is relevant.
I love the way people seamlessly transition from “there are no differences” to “but whites are worse than [other group].”
Governments always have this interest and did it bad. I don’t know if you understand but it was a ”force of the expression”, manner/way to say, ”citizen tongue”.
Correct people all the time is not smart, it’s boring, do you understand* boring.
English is not my mother tongue and yes i like to use it as a permanent excuse,
Many people are sub-employed, many very talented people are sub-employed, people with lack of character is not a exception in many important places, unemployment is perfectly clearable, so why it’s not*
today there is the phenomenon of massification of higher education, seems amazing but it’s not.
Imperfectly functional is not enough.
I’m not that people.
Peace.
Hi! Talha , see mtn cur, aug 5
http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1518976Yeah - I don't see a problem with branches of human beings being more or less strong, tall, intelligent than other branches. That's all fine with me all of these seem related to the material composition of man. I agree with you, bragging about one or the other seems silly* - did you choose to be born in Boston and not in Juba or Kandahar? Does intelligence equate to wisdom? Nothing after my 40 years of observing human beings will convince me of this.Peace.*Note: And seems really stupid since God seems to have a track record of putting arrogant people in their place from my reading of history.
Again, if you read the article -- or understood the article -- you would have noticed that I do actually give an example of where I believe "my people" have a genetic disadvantage (swimming), which makes your "gotcha" basis demonstrably false.
I give athletic and sporting examples only because they are much less controversial, particularly in these circles. The aim of that Indian runner example was simply to show concretely how little "relative interests" have to do with relative performance where strong genetic differences exist. It is unlikely that Indian runners will start beating African runners by increasing their interest sufficiently, but apparently it is possible to increase African performance in areas where they have a very strong biological disadvantage by simply inspiring interest among them, even when they have a population of 1.7 million. You could begin by explaining to me where I'm wrong in thinking there is a contradiction there.
And while you are at it, you could also explain for me why children in the US and the UK -- who have a relatively stronger interest in the game, according to you, than adults, are not the Scrabble champions of those countries as a result of their stronger interest. Why the champions are always adults despite an active school Scrabble program where children express this higher interest in the game. If it is because the superior intelligence of the few adults is sufficient to overcome their relative total interest deficit, please explain to me why that same reasoning does not give those same adults a similar advantage over the cognitively deficient Africans (who have the average intelligence of the same children).
I look forward to your guidance on those two issues.
Blacks do not have a genetic disadvantage for swimming. In the US 70 percent of black children do not know how to swim and most of the 30 percent that do swim are weak swimmers. In order for there to be competitive black swimmers, they need to learn how to swim around age four or five and regularly visit a pool to practice and strengthen their skills. Most American black parents, regardless of income, are unwillingly to invest that much time and effort into their children.
In the US, with the exception of gymnastics, the sports that blacks excel in are the ones that don’t require parental involvement of time and money. If you look at a list of blacks in the National Hockey League, nearly all of them have a immigrant or non-black mother. LINK Native black families, and native black mother in particular, are not willingly to put in the effort needed to make their child an elite hockey player.
In Africa the problem is lack of access to a pool and/or the ability to pay fees, not genetics. You use South Africa as an example of blacks’ genetic inferiority in swimming, but the link you provided says that no South African woman made the 2016 Olympic swim team which would mean women are genetically disadvantaged at swimming if the same logic is used. Until this year South Africa had nearly all white rugby teams and it wasn’t because blacks are genetically disadvantaged at rugby. The sports minister had to introduce racial quotas (LINK) and South Africa’s Olympics men’s rugby team, with an equal number of blacks and whites, won a bronze medal in Rio.
In Rio, Naomi Ruele became Botswana’s first Olympic swimmer. She also swims for Florida International University.LINK The overweight swimmer Robel Kiros Habte competed for Ethiopia and was the country’s flag bearer in the opening ceremony. Ruele attended a swanky private school in Botswana and Habte is the son of the president of the Ethiopian Swimming Federation. The families that they were born into were instrumental in determining whether or not they would become elite swimmers not their race.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/30/white-men-cant-jump-thats-ok-black-men-cant-swim/
Are you saying that no racial differences in ability to do well in sports don't exist? I beg to differ.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/17/muscle-fiber-typing-hbd-and-sports/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/07/hbd-and-sports-football/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/20/hbd-and-sports-baseball/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/19/blacks-are-not-stronger-than-whites/
That's the point of my article(s): If you pick a field where brain power is required and there are few non-cognitive barriers to entry, African experts appear to be performing (relative to elite performers from other populations in better environments) as if they come from populations whose average IQ is way above those IQ scores of 70, and even way above IQ scores of 85, and arguably even above population IQ scores of 100.
Hey mtn cur,
Hope things are well! I believe you meant:
http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1518976
Yeah – I don’t see a problem with branches of human beings being more or less strong, tall, intelligent than other branches. That’s all fine with me all of these seem related to the material composition of man. I agree with you, bragging about one or the other seems silly* – did you choose to be born in Boston and not in Juba or Kandahar?
Does intelligence equate to wisdom? Nothing after my 40 years of observing human beings will convince me of this.
Peace.
*Note: And seems really stupid since God seems to have a track record of putting arrogant people in their place from my reading of history.
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships"
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
From the article:
Does that give you a clue about the discrepancies on the WESPA too? If a tournament is happening somewhere right now as we speak, that list will change by the time you check that link again; and if Nigerians were not given visas to attend it (a point mentioned in article too), the effect on the list is hopefully obvious.
Tiring.
There is an interesting pattern in that Nigeria has more people in the Top 200 compared to the remainder of the list than is usual for other countries. Any thoughts as to why that is so?Substantiating your statements and citations in the article is part of your job here. Sorry it is too tiring for you (if you want civil you might have been so yourself in response to Fanhar's reasonable comment).There were other points in that comment BTW. Do you have any response to those?
Chanda, until you’re willing to climb into an airliner or rocket designed and built by African engineers, maybe you should rein in your broad assertions about African intelligence. Checkers is not science, rocket or otherwise.
Chanda, you have complained above about uncivil responses (while still responding to them). Please respond to Fanhar's civil critique. I am also curious why you haven't corrected your use of the wrong table to map SAT scores to IQs and the resultant incorrect value of 143 for estimated IQ. I noted this yesterday and received no response. Please either correct your errors or respond as to why I am mistaken.
Thanks for that, I haven’t read through all the 200 plus posts, so I do miss some things.
So, according to the correct link, the students were IQ 138? OK, this does not affect my IQ approximation for the experts much (will check through and correct links etc though) since that paper said the experts were significantly above the students on cognitive measures, if I recall right. Good thing I took a conservative approach by not giving the experts an estimate for them that is significantly above 143, but just assumed 143 itself (as if they scored just equal to the students in the other link). So, 143 still can’t be far from the right estimate if they did score “significantly above” the 138 IQ students. It’s just 5 IQ points. (but I’ll still check through their paper to see exactly how far above they were in SDs etc etc before making corrections. Thanks).
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure.
re: “I’m saying that the African (achievement test etc) numbers are *useless*, for real cognitive comparison to others.
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure.”
What does “real cognitive comparison” mean?
Either you think that Africans in Africa have substantially lower mean e.g., verbal ability or not (due to whatever factors).
(1) The evidence against the contra position includes:
–IQ scores
–Achievement test scores (e.g., SACMED, PASEC (in French).
–International graduate test scores (e.g., the GMAT)
Actual measures of cognitive ability (CA)!
Of course, this could be explained by educational under-exposure. After all, African countries have commensurate general socio-economic, social progress, and Human Development index scores. But the mean ability scores would be low, nonetheless.
Now, you can argue either that: (1) these measures of CA as less good measures of latent CA than e.g., scabble performance or that (2) these measures are good measures but the distribution of CA is non-normal, thus allowing large pockets of high ability Africans, etc. If it’s non-normal, there must be an explanation, for example regional heterogeneity in scores, which makes difficult estimations of the smart fraction.
Now the problem with you evidence in relation to 1 & 2 is that scrabble scores, at least based on the sources used, don’t well predict national IQs for non-African countries. Yet, if scrabble performance indexed national/smart fraction ability, one would expect a substantial national IQ x performance correlation. (The same point, of course, would stand for other proxy measures of cognitive ability e.g., research papers per capita, math Olympiad performance, chess Olympiad performance). This lack of correlation means one of — or a mixture of — three things:
(1) The specific metrics are not particularly good measures of cognitive ability on the individual level; for example, the meta-analystic correlation between chess performance and cognitive ability is a modest r = .25).
(2) There are national/ regional specific factors (for example, the National IQ x math Olympiad correlations is only 0.4, a low correlation which is understandable because of differences in math Olympiad training, recruiting, funding.)
(3) The samples are not representative (which is probably the case here). If so, one is not comparing the mean/elite of Africans with the mean/elite of whomever.
Another way to think about this is that if you factor analyzed cognitive indexes, national scramble playing ability would probably have a low national G-loading, and thus would not have a high validity when it comes to assessing the cognitive ability of nations.
In this case, you might as well use Parcheesi performance as an index.
Suppose we want to measure which groups in Europe etc have a higher ability to make wealth. We might compare how much money has been made by members of that group so far, to give us a good idea. Let's call that test x.
If you use the same test x in Africa, I argue that it is approximately valid and can still work: certain groups within Africa will have made more money than others, etc. under similarly difficult conditions (even though conditions might still be a bit more different accross African countries, but not by much, generally).
However, the results for Africa are *useless* when you decide to compare them with groups outside Africa with very different business environments. Will you say Africans have a lower ability to make wealth because they have made less money? What was a valid measure of "ability" for limited purposes now starts sounding ridiculous due to vastly different environments.
And so here comes someone who suggests that we test some African businessmen in an area of business where there is no substantial advantage for doing business in the West. And suddenly, the African businessmen are equaling or beating the European businessmen in that limited space. Let's call that test y.
Your job here is to show me why test y is an invalid test that is giving African businessmen an undue advantage of sorts.
But to do that, you have to tell us why you called that same test y valid when it was used to test the wealth making ability of your men and your women, in favor of your men (just as it does even in Africa).
This is a problem for you because you told us that European women have a higher wealth making ability than African men (using test x). And yet, on that SAME purer (environment-free) test that European business males beat European business females (test y), African males equal or beat European males.
You can't say you are not using your best businessmen, because when you are using average businessmen, they never show a great advantage over women. Only when you are using the best businessmen is when the difference with women is big on test y.
So, how do you think I should answer your question? Do I believe that Africans have a lower ability to make wealth?
(Tell me why there is a huge gender disparity in cognitive games like Scrabble and tell me why your reasons do not work to produce an even bigger racial disparity on the same games. And do it without abandoning your hereditarian credentials !)
I'll take a break now and I hope you or someone will answer this question.
On average they have narrower chest cavities and less fat free body mass.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/30/white-men-cant-jump-thats-ok-black-men-cant-swim/
Are you saying that no racial differences in ability to do well in sports don’t exist? I beg to differ.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/17/muscle-fiber-typing-hbd-and-sports/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/07/hbd-and-sports-football/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/20/hbd-and-sports-baseball/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/19/blacks-are-not-stronger-than-whites/
Even assuming Gabon IQ is in fact 85, and SD is 15 as in whites, then IF Ch.Ch. is right and Top Player has to have +3SD, THEN there would be something like 53 people in Gabon eligible to being Top Players. (If Top players are +2SD, it still means +3SD for Gabon, i.e. assuming even 85IQ, 1 in 750, ie only 2266 potential players - or am i wrong in my calculations?)
It's really hard to imagine that out of 53 people in Gabon, 3 would decide to become Scrabble Top Players (a task which require investment of a lot of time), instead of pursuing other careers.
Unless:
(1) IQ distribution is known to have fat tails, meaning there could be more high IQ people than resulting from calculations
(2) Scrabble requires not high "g", but some specific visual-spatial skills
(3) Scrabble requires minimal "g", but even 90IQ can become a master with chances to beat 140IQ
(4) French Scrabble top players are lower on "g" than English (i.e. results given by Ch.Ch for English Scrabble do not apply to French Scrabble)
(5) Scrabble is insanely more popular in Gabon than in France, and in France it does not attract particularly intelligent people.
I would think that combination of 2 to 5 can be in play, since "scrabble players" is a self-selected group (i.e. there is a chance that high-IQ French decide to play chess, go to banks etc while only average intelligent are going to play Scrabble - but then, why high-IQ Gabon natives should decide not to go for banking career?). But I think this require an explanation and I have not seen one coming.
re: “Even assuming Gabon IQ is in fact 85, and SD is 15 as in whites, then IF Ch.Ch. is right and Top Player has to have +3SD…I would think that combination of 2 to 5 can be in play, since “scrabble players” is a self-selected group (i.e. there is a chance that high-IQ French decide to play chess, go to banks etc while only average intelligent are going to play Scrabble – but then, why high-IQ Gabon natives should decide not to go for banking career?).”
Excluding African countries, what’s the correlation between national scrabble scores and national IQ/ACH. If it’s low, since we have a pretty good idea that national IQ/ACH, in fact, measures the average abilities of nations outside of Africa, a combination of 2-5 is likely. To put another way, if you have 12 supposed indexes of national cognitive ability and 2 don’t correlate with the others on the national level, it’s more reasonable to discard/ question mark these than the other 10.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13421-011-0137-5
And that study seems to me confirming that scrabble players make use of learned skills:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945215001069
Thanks for that link and summary, Szopen. I’ll look at your paper properly later, but my first impression right now is that the difference with the paper (link) I gave you is in the level of expertise of their sample players. Your link says they are competitive players and they got them by advertising at Scrabble clubs and tournaments etc. The final set of volunteers had 7 women out of 12 players (?). That already tells me that this was probably not exactly an elite list among the competitive players (gender disparity is huge at the top), but perhaps sufficient for their purposes. My link, on the other hand, specifically calls their sample “elite nationally ranked players,” which would be the ones relevant for our research here. Although I haven’t done an in-depth comparison of the two papers, my instinct is that that’s where the difference in the results is coming from. The truly elite top ranked players might be truly more intelligent in general.
Which is why I go to great lengths of giving more details about the profile of the topmost players. For example, I do not see that there would be an over-representation of Ashkenazi Jews if this was just a slightly above average group that just has some Scrabble-specific skills and not much else.
There are outlier statistics about
Iranian”s” doing well in international exames,
Peruvian”s” doing well in international exames, specially in mathematics, i thought Sailer already posted this achievements…
Well, we can argue that Peru and Iran have higher collective IQ’s because this contextual-exceptional achievements*
but ok, you understand.
I had not realized you were having second-language issues. I did not intend to be rude, but at first I thought you were one of the local stupids like Beefsteak, Dukey, or Sheete. My apologies, I will give you extra time on the clock.
My apologies for the bugs, but these sorts of systems are very intricate, and it's easy to miss various cases during testing.
Also, the IGNORE list can't block reply emails. The reason for that is that the list is stored as a cookie on the reader's local browser, to which the commenter being "ignored" has no access, so there's no way the system can easily determine he's been "ignored" and avoid sending out the response email.
Put it in the session data and update the cookie on load. Yes, it will add overall load, but not a lot.
So, according to the correct link, the students were IQ 138? OK, this does not affect my IQ approximation for the experts much (will check through and correct links etc though) since that paper said the experts were significantly above the students on cognitive measures, if I recall right. Good thing I took a conservative approach by not giving the experts an estimate for them that is significantly above 143, but just assumed 143 itself (as if they scored just equal to the students in the other link). So, 143 still can't be far from the right estimate if they did score "significantly above" the 138 IQ students. It's just 5 IQ points. (but I'll still check through their paper to see exactly how far above they were in SDs etc etc before making corrections. Thanks).
In fact (I’m remembering more now), the students themselves scored above that IQ 138 (if we use that SAT-IQ transformation). And the Scrabble experts tested significantly above the students. 143 for the experts is still probably quite conservative, which is where I prefer to be; but I’ll still recheck everything later just to make absolutely sure.
To be clear, what I propose would increase the IQ numbers for the experts by about 2.5 points. Splitting hairs at that point IMHO. What's really needed is for the paper authors to do a better job with their metrics in the first place.
“They do not show logic, reasoning, problem solving or math abilities.”
You don’t really know anything about scrabble do you? What on earth makes you thing you’re in a position to make such an ignorant pronouncement?
I don’t know of any examples of children of high IQ people being adopted by low IQ African families so that comparison doesn’t seem possible. A lot of Americans are now adopting infants from Africa, so in twenty years you could hypothetically do a study comparing how those kids do against the American’s biological children, but in twenty years the U.S. Thought Police will probably give you a quick time-out in Room 101 for even attempting such a study.
There is one current situation I can think of that would theoretically serve as a study, but again I doubt the government would countenance it. In South Africa there are many high income professional Blacks people now in government and business and, conversely, many White Boers who have been shut out of job opportunities and are living in exactly the same dirt-poor, tin sheet hovel, low intellectually and culturally enriched poverty as Blacks in the worst part of the Black townships. It would theoretically be possible to measure the IQ’s and academic success of the children of these four groups and determine if there is a racial correlation.
The closest existing study I can think of is the one that compare SAT scores in the U.S. by race and by income bracket. That study finds that White kids significantly outperform Black kids who grew up with the same wealth, educational opportunities and mentally stimulating environment. If I recall correctly you didn’t see the same scores unless you compared White Appalachian children living in households with income of $20,000 or less per year, to Black children living in households with income of $200,000 or more per year.
This type of study where you have very good controls for factors other than race is the reason that Chanda has decided to concede that there is something actually wrong with American Blacks and they really are genetically dumber. In his case he tries to explain it with the goofy theory that:
- During the days of slavery Black slaves inter-married in significant numbers with the poorest Whites.
- These Whites were poor because of mysterious, unknown, unspecified, genetic defects.
- Against all logic, the descendants of these marriages were somehow even dumber than either their Black ancestors OR even their White ancestors.
- These descendants have the ability to steal the penises of their enemies or call lightning strikes down on them.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist adding that last one.)
My own view is that the black-white IQ gap in America is the last shred of pseudo-evidence to justify the strange notion of American exceptionalism, i.e., white American exceptionalism. But that idea seems about to die with the collapse of the Bush-Clinton treason alliance and a new direction in American politics that, with the election of Trump, will focus on, among other things, restructuring the society of the inner cities where most American blacks have had the misfortune to live.
Chisala is probably wrong about American blacks suffering from low-grade white genes. Mostly, whites mating with blacks were more likely plantation owners, people like Thomas Jefferson, rather than "white trash." However the hypothesis could be tested by comparison of IQs of American blacks of pure African descent, still a few of them around, and the rest. I doubt whether any significant difference would be found.
* Black IQ Gains in Britain, Kenya and Dominica
Baffling, truly baffling. Does this person think that Africa is just a big savanna with a billion goatherds wandering about? They are relatively poor compared with the Western nations, Japan etc Some areas are obviously terribly poor indeed. But to say that libraries “simply don’t exist” in Africa is startlingly ignorant. I just typed “kenya libraries” into a popular search engine and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_Kenya
http://www.afran.info/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=442
http://www.socialentrepreneurship-book.com/beneficiaries/kigali-public-library/
Kenya is one of the better functioning African countries, yet only has 60 public libraries for a population of 44 million or one branch per 733,000. Metro Atlanta has a population of 6 million and 34 public libraries or one branch per 176,000.
http://www.afpls.org/locations/locations2
Tiring.
Please provide a link (or a specific, e.g. dated, reference) to the version of the list you used to generate your quotes/data. There is a significant difference (for Nigeria only) between the numbers you gave and current data (via the link you provided). Given that this article was published yesterday it seems reasonable to expect a consistent reference.
In case it helps, here is an archive page from last year which gives numbers that align better with those you gave: http://web.archive.org/web/20150308182510/http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
There is an interesting pattern in that Nigeria has more people in the Top 200 compared to the remainder of the list than is usual for other countries. Any thoughts as to why that is so?
Substantiating your statements and citations in the article is part of your job here. Sorry it is too tiring for you (if you want civil you might have been so yourself in response to Fanhar’s reasonable comment).
There were other points in that comment BTW. Do you have any response to those?
Their last archived Table (August, 2016) is actually closer to the time I started writing (September or October), and it is off by just one or two Nigerians. It's quite possible that WESPA cleaned up its list very recently by removing the unpaid members or inactive members or something, besides the tournament participation possibility:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819013026/http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
And yes, the other countries did have some Nigerian names on that list, although I did not count them as part of Nigeria (yes, I always prefer to take the conservative approach to data: I slightly disadvantage my own case, quantitatively, so that the argument is won on logic alone). The second highest rated player on that list for Team US is originally Nigerian, for example. England also has at least one Nigerian name that I found on the top 100 of the world.
As for Farhar's "reasonable" comment, I do not personally find reasonable or "civil" anyone who throws around words like "dishonest" and "disingenuous" the moment they just find some discrepancy on the opposing side of the debate (and I owe them no civil discussion -- or any discussion -- at that point; Why assume the worst about someone?)
Yes I’m self imported stupid, ^_~
Thanks for the response. I gave the actual SAT numbers from the paper in a comment above. Be sure to notice my comments about the original paper apparently not accounting for the 1995 SAT recentering. Given the mean ages quoted you should really add ~35 points (~1/2 of experts before that date with a differential of ~70) to the aggregate SAT for the experts. As an academic perhaps you could ask the authors if they did do an adjustment.
To be clear, what I propose would increase the IQ numbers for the experts by about 2.5 points. Splitting hairs at that point IMHO. What’s really needed is for the paper authors to do a better job with their metrics in the first place.
That same agnostic dyslexic also sold his soul to Santa.
I’m suggesting that quick, high-scoring answers in Scrabble (i.e. being able to quickly shuffle your letters and find the best word you can fit on the board) are an indicator of high IQ.
You don’t have an infinite amount of time in Scrabble.
“Are you suggesting that good solutions to difficult problems should be produced quickly, if not instantaneously?”
In Scrabble, yes (also in chess. Not so much in chip design or interpreting a CAT scan.)
Samoans and australians are
the most genetically distant from africans (genetically distant is not exactly the same than genetically differentiated, and specially via psycho-cognitive traits)
the lower scores in IQ tests... and most of them seems behave at ''normal'' levels.
Few people are angry because aboriginals scored lower than 60 in IQ tests... why*
Most countries don’t do the level of data mining that the US does, so they honestly don’t know how much a certain group is underperforming. France doesn’t even know how many black people live in the country because their constitution outlaws the census from asking a person’s race. It was only after they started participating in the international PISA exam, and forced to collect the data, did Germany realize that higher income students do better on exams than low-income.
Unlike the US, and South Africa, most countries did not enact laws preventing certain groups from obtaining an education, living where they wanted, marrying who they wanted, obtaining certain employment, etc. Most countries did not do much legislating against their minority population so feel no compunction to rectify any wrongs.
Lysdexics untie!
You don't really know anything about scrabble do you? What on earth makes you thing you're in a position to make such an ignorant pronouncement?
“You don’t really know anything about scrabble do you? What on earth makes you thing(sec) you’re in a position to make such an ignorant pronouncement?”
Right back at you….asshole!
Give an example where scrabble players use logic, reasoning, problem solving or math abilities.
What I do know is that you are a troll on this site.
The fact is that all mental skills DO correlate and "g" is not effect of wishing them to be reduced to single factor, but is an effect of factor analysis. Factor analysis does not always results in a single factor, and here it does, and this is a fact, existing no matter whether you wish it to exist or not. That factor also correlates with biological features and measurable outcomes in life.
And once again, if you measure "g" in children, even using just highly g-loaded IQ tests, it can be used to predict the children's income, education level etc in future. The accuracy of taht prediction is better than socio-economic status. When you measure "g" in people, it predits better the chances in future job efficiency than previous experience. That means "g" is hardly useless construct. Even if "g" s arteficial, it is still a measure of SOMETHING, even if that measure is not perfect - but there are no better measures. And that SOMETHING seems to be related to what we call "intelligence" in real life.
And there is also evidence that self control beats ‘g’. The Cookie Test with all its later revisions still stands. ‘g’ which sometimes correlates with IQ is not everything. Persistence and concentration matter not just computational power.
Scrabble no have reasoning????
Is this Tonto?
Me say no.
I don’t know if Chanda is right or wrong, but he is busting all commenting records.
He sure knows how to bait ‘whitey’.
LOL.
Chanda and Fred Reed ought to get together and lead brilliant blacks and genius Peruvians to rule the world.
Been to NASA recently?
We have all evolved beyond the common ancestor. That kind of person no longer exists.
Chanda is from Zambia where the library situation is exactly as he stated. However, he did say “Africa”, so you were within your rights to look up Kenya. If you were to look up your favorite hell hole like Rwanda or Chad you would find something different. In 2012 Rwanda opened its first public library.
http://www.afran.info/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=442
http://www.socialentrepreneurship-book.com/beneficiaries/kigali-public-library/
Kenya is one of the better functioning African countries, yet only has 60 public libraries for a population of 44 million or one branch per 733,000. Metro Atlanta has a population of 6 million and 34 public libraries or one branch per 176,000.
http://www.afpls.org/locations/locations2
The key is that only phenotypic IQ is so low.
If genotypic IQ is at Afroamericans levels (85?), it means that there is a big subpopulation of well fed Sub-Saharan Africans with their own distribution with the mean at 85.
And that means that aprox. 1 in 1000 is over an IQ of 132 with a 15SD in that subpopulation.
In others words, 1 in 1000 of the total Sub-Saharan African population have a genotypic IQ of more than 132. That is more than a 1 million people. It’s enough that a fraction of them are well fed and have an environment not too bad, for having hundreds of thousands of potencial Scrabble winners.
*Excuses for my bad English. I’m not an English speaker.
1. The article, while fascinating, doesn't account for the possibility that the brightest Africans may be playing scrabble, while the brightest Europeans may not be. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person (for example I have a Phd but that is as much about tenacity as anything else) and I have always been contemptuous of scrabble as a "grandma's game." The kind of game you played with Memaw after a ham and buttered cornbread dinner, but before the onset of that night's Heehaw episode. It's hard for me to look at scrabble as a respectable pursuit. That's admittedly my bias, however.
2. We often hear criticism of IQ tests as relating to a particular cultural context, yet the substance of the tests are never discussed, which for a novice such as myself is a little mystifying. I know that I scored a 147 on a test from long ago, but that's been so long I only remember a few questions, and those seemed fairly universal.
3. IQ denialism contradicts my personal experiences. I taught high school for a number of years when I was younger. Because I was a radical leftist as a youth, i insisted on teaching in a "failing" (read; 85% + black) school. Eventually my staunch leftist mentality was crushed by the stark reality of black underachievement. The same thing was experienced during my travels in Africa. I had a girlfriend who had been in the peace corps; they were teaching the natives to plant their crops in rows, which can hardly be seen as a development unique to
Industrialized societies. My personal
experiences are not science, however, though I can't really go against them either.
3. My ultimate problem with the critique of IQ tests is that the critics seem to ignore the massive and near universal nature of the issue. If we perform an analysis of multiple countries, we find that IQ correlates with economic, military, scientific, and social success, on a very large scale. The inability of males descended from Africans who speak Bantu languages to build or maintain anything approaching civilization is virtually constant wherever a population of Bantu Africans exist. Black Bantu Africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit, but they are, in general, wealthier in these mixed societies than they are in societies that are purely Bantu. To me, this "on the ground" pattern is very significant.
I also don't concur with the relativistic dismissals of "g" due to differences in culture, as I don't believe all cultures are "equal." It's fairly obvious to me, that what we mean by "intelligence" is much more prevalent in NASA scientists than in most fishermen in the Congo River, whose techniques are generally remarkably primitive still. To argue otherwise is ridiculous sophistry from my point of view.
Furthermore, IQ isn't so relevant simply in the abstract. It's a hot button issue in Western countries because those elites who insist on race replacement via mass immigration also insist that blacks and whites are equal according to Western standards. The standard is therefore clear. Analytical and critical thinking skills trump other cognitive skills. A Kung Bushman's ability to register five times the smells of an average Swede has little bearing on the debate on IQ in the current discourse.
My thoughts, anyway.
1. Chanda is talking about elite/international competitors, not playing with friends on the weekend. He also mentioned that they have high mathematical abilities. You can decide if that applies to you. I will repeat what I wrote about the Spanish Scrabble runner-up.
People with high-level abilities often don’t do anything with their skill. The children of elite Kenyan runners don’t run because they didn’t grow up in poverty like their parents and aren’t motivated.
2. IQ tests aren’t discussed because once people know what is on them they may score higher than they otherwise would.
When the US was practically only white and black people we were always told not to study for the SAT because it wouldn’t make any difference. Turns out that is true for whites and blacks, but East Asians are able to earn up five times as many extra points through test prep compared to whites and blacks.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses
Chanda your columns are fascinating but they are too long to support comments. Try breaking them up into separate columns as part of a series. This one could have been:
1. Africans, math, and Scrabble
2. Draughts/checkers
3. Women, Scrabble, draughts/checkers
4. American blacks reproducing with half-wit whites
5. Jews and board games (except for chess)
6. The “African” public library system
I would love for you to do an analysis on the Scrabble prowess of East Asian Americans versus Indian Americans. Indian Americans rule the national spelling bee, they do well at MATHCOUNTS, medal in the US and International Mathematical Olympiads, and a Indian-Canadian-American was the only Asian to win a Fields Medal in 2014, so why don’t Indian Americans dominate Scrabble?
For example: He gives the following statistics.
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 51 24 40
US 71 19 29
UK 139 11 27
Now if you follow the link he gives http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
The correct statistics are:
Total Top 100 Top 200
Nigeria 24 11 16
US 75 21 34
UK 152 16 30
Unless he counts alot of people from uk / us as nigerians based on names ( I dont have time to check every name)
There is also some things that he avoids mentioning such that there are 4 different tournament in francophone scrabble.
Elite: Each national federation has a specified number of places in the Elite division in different age categories: Up to 16, 16-18, 18-25, 25-62, 62-72 and 72+. Each of these age categories has its own World Champion, but the individual World Champion is the player that wins the tournament. The tournament is a duplicate tournament where players do not play matches, but play every move with the same letters and board configuration as every other player and try to get the maximum score by playing the highest scoring move every time. Players play 7 games of 2 minutes per move.
Paires: Duplicate Scrabble in pairs, with two players discussing and submitting their solution together. 4 games are played with two minutes per move, followed by 2 games with just one minute per move. Players can form mixed pair, i.e. not both from the same country.
Blitz: A normal duplicate tournament but with 4 games with just one minute per move for all four games.
Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.
The elite duplicate tournament have been dominated by europeans, there have never been a winner or runner up from africa. So to say that scrabble in france is dominated by africans seems alittle dishonest, particular when you consider that classic tournaments are relative new (the first tournament was held in 2006) while duplicate elite tournament have been held since 1972.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_World_Scrabble_Championships"
As for the checkers championships:
Well , if you go through the list from wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts_World_Championship
The it seems to me to be more a case of popularity rather than raw intellect. The event is completely dominated by russians and the dutch.
There have been only 1 canadian, german, latvian, cameroon, french and one senegal player ever to make it to top 3 since 1948. Every champion apart from these have been russian or dutch.
Every year since 1948 the top 3 placements have been been either 2/3 russian or dutch or 3/3 dutch or russian.
I normally will not reply to a commenter that uses words like “dishonest” (before they even see my response to their point), but since one or two other polite people have asked me to comment on this, I will.
“To say that scrabble in France is dominated by Africans…” is splitting hairs. Which I can also split even further for you if you wish: I never wrote anywhere that Scrabble in France is dominated by Africans.
See, it’s pointless to do that. I could just focus on the point you are making.
We can also quibble about whether the older formats of the world championship are greater because they are older; or someone can argue that the newest format, which is similar to the English world championship, is the best.
The main point is that the Africans were never supposed to take the world championship in any format (under the contested hypothesis); that’s the point you can accept or dispute. They took it in the format that they were familiar with when the game was introduced to them in Africa, period. To suggest that this is an inferior format intellectually, as someone has derived from your post, is illogical: that would mean the English world championship is also intellectually inferior since it uses that same format that the Africans are familiar with, and therefore the English version world champions are not that smart.
Additionally, the players from the other formats try to win the same match play format as well, and there have been long debates about why they can’t defeat the Africans. Nigel Richards, the best player in the world, managed to do it, which tells us that the format does not require some special African witchcraft or some other special something peculiar to Africans.
(Also, ask Google “who is the world champion of French Scrabble?” It is the match play champions who are immediately listed, at least by the Google engine; but don’t pounce on that: it’s not my proof.)
"Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe."
If the best of the best in France go for the more popular form of scrabbles, then top players in Classique may have IQ less than +3SD.
I'd say you have definetely proven Gabon's IQ couldn't be possibly 64, but other than that, I am not totally convinced.
This type of study where you have very good controls for factors other than race is the reason that Chanda has decided to concede that there is something actually wrong with American Blacks and they really are genetically dumber. In his case he tries to explain it with the goofy theory that:
- During the days of slavery Black slaves inter-married in significant numbers with the poorest Whites.
- These Whites were poor because of mysterious, unknown, unspecified, genetic defects.
- Against all logic, the descendants of these marriages were somehow even dumber than either their Black ancestors OR even their White ancestors.
- These descendants have the ability to steal the penises of their enemies or call lightning strikes down on them.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist adding that last one.)
My proposed trans-racial adoption study was intended as a gedankenexperiment, since I certainly will not be around to learn the result of any such investigation. However, it seems likely to me that most interracial differences in IQ are environmentally and culturally determined. Many inner city US blacks exist in a culture of great ignorance (perpetuated by awful schools), violence, drug use, etc. That this environment limits IQ is indicated by the fact that where the descendants of black slaves live in a relatively civilized society, e.g., Afro-Carribeans in Britain, they show quite rapid generational gains in IQ*.
My own view is that the black-white IQ gap in America is the last shred of pseudo-evidence to justify the strange notion of American exceptionalism, i.e., white American exceptionalism. But that idea seems about to die with the collapse of the Bush-Clinton treason alliance and a new direction in American politics that, with the election of Trump, will focus on, among other things, restructuring the society of the inner cities where most American blacks have had the misfortune to live.
Chisala is probably wrong about American blacks suffering from low-grade white genes. Mostly, whites mating with blacks were more likely plantation owners, people like Thomas Jefferson, rather than “white trash.” However the hypothesis could be tested by comparison of IQs of American blacks of pure African descent, still a few of them around, and the rest. I doubt whether any significant difference would be found.
* Black IQ Gains in Britain, Kenya and Dominica
My own view is that the black-white IQ gap in America is the last shred of pseudo-evidence to justify the strange notion of American exceptionalism, i.e., white American exceptionalism. But that idea seems about to die with the collapse of the Bush-Clinton treason alliance and a new direction in American politics that, with the election of Trump, will focus on, among other things, restructuring the society of the inner cities where most American blacks have had the misfortune to live.
Chisala is probably wrong about American blacks suffering from low-grade white genes. Mostly, whites mating with blacks were more likely plantation owners, people like Thomas Jefferson, rather than "white trash." However the hypothesis could be tested by comparison of IQs of American blacks of pure African descent, still a few of them around, and the rest. I doubt whether any significant difference would be found.
* Black IQ Gains in Britain, Kenya and Dominica
Black-White IQ gap in USA exists even when blacks and whites are paired on SES. Also, this point was addressed by Jensen in his book “g factor”. To depress scores of affluent blacks (i.e. not poor ghetto inhabitants, but middle-class blacks) by 15 points, the culture and environment impact would have to be really, really, really huge – moreover, it would have to be very stange kind of impact, depressing scores of above average blacks, while in the same time increasing scores of below average blacks(regression to the mean!)
The question is whether the same kind of players are really competing in both formats? If you have computer science journals, Africans may dominate “Best Paper Awards” for some journal X, but it does not mean anything if other scientists from Europe and USA never sent anything to this journal…
“Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player’s opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe.”
If the best of the best in France go for the more popular form of scrabbles, then top players in Classique may have IQ less than +3SD.
I’d say you have definetely proven Gabon’s IQ couldn’t be possibly 64, but other than that, I am not totally convinced.
Excluding African countries, what's the correlation between national scrabble scores and national IQ/ACH. If it's low, since we have a pretty good idea that national IQ/ACH, in fact, measures the average abilities of nations outside of Africa, a combination of 2-5 is likely. To put another way, if you have 12 supposed indexes of national cognitive ability and 2 don't correlate with the others on the national level, it's more reasonable to discard/ question mark these than the other 10.
In general yes, but sometimes, if 10 indexes indicate that certain outcome is impossible, and yet this outcome happens, then it means those indexes are flawed, yes?
I mean, if Gabon’s IQ is 64, there should not be even ONE player who could be top player, and if IQ is 85, then there would be something like 50 in Gabon eligible for being top players, of which at least five (three in 2015 top ten, two in 2016 top ten) decided to go for preparing for Scrabble tournament – not impossible, but quite unlikely (ten percent of intellectual elite goes for Scrabble tournaments!).
[Chanda Chisala - ignore my last comment, the one with reference to journal X and claming that classique may attract worse players than elite. I withdraw it after re-reading your article and checking wikipedia.]
1SD above the mean = 0.15 (1 in 6.5) (IQ 115)
1.5 SD - 0.0668
2SD = 0.0228 (1 in 43.8) (IQ 130)
2.5SD = 0.0062 (1 in 150.9) (IQ 137.5)
3SD = 0.0013 (1 in 750) (IQ 145)
3.5SD = 0.0002 (1 in 5000) (IQ 152.5)
4SD = 0.000031 (1 in 32000) (IQ 160)
5SD = 0.000000286 (1 in 350.000) (IQ 175)
5.5SD = 0.000000019 (1 in 5.000.000) (IQ 182.5)
5.78SD = 0.000 000 00373 (more or less 1 in 300.000.000)
Now, scrabble is weakly correlated with IQ, though specific skills are at play. Assume being top scrabble player is 3SD above the mean for white players. For Gabon, that would be 145-64=81. Assume SD for blacks is 14, because usually it is claimed blacks have lower SD. Then they would have to be 5.78 above their mean and would mean roughly one top player per 300 million of people. Gabon population is 1.7 mln and few top players.
If top scrabble players would be 2sd above the mean, for gabon that would mean 4.7SD above Gabon mean, meaning there would be something like five people in Gabon eligible for being a top players, three of which made it to the final 10.
To attack Chandy's argument, you must show either:
* Top scrabble player are not particularly intelligent (say 1SD above the mean - meaning 3.6SD for Gabon, i.e. 1 in 5000, meaning 340 potential top players in Gabon. And no way there is no correlation between IQ and scrabble)
* Gabon's IQ mean is higher than 64
* There is a subpopulation in Gabon with mean much higher than 64.
For example, with scrabble "iq" for top players being say 115, and Gabon subpopulation IQ mean 85, you have almost 40.000 potential top players in Gabon (compared to millions in France). But then, you would have to only then explain why scrabble attracts more players in Gabon than in France.
*crickets*
No one attempting much of a response.
“Scrabble no have reasoning????”
Is this Tonto?
Me say no.
Did you read the article?
I am a white who finds antracism tiresome, who thinks white supremacy a pretty good state of affairs. However, facts are facts and the article is indeed interesting. The article is perhaps slightly tendentious, but not bad as such things go. It is not impossible that we have something to learn about the heritable abilities of west Africans.
I don’t know about you, but one of my chief complaints about liberals and progressive is that they won’t debate with you; they’ll only sneer at you. This article’s writer does debate. He deserves due credit.
Okay. Me too.
Africa and specially Subsaharia is full of partially endogamic groups as well exogamic ones ( Igbos, https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/fulani-hausa-igbo-and-yoruba-mating-patterns/).
Endogamy (not in their extreme forms) seems easier to spread new mutations than a exogamy…
but exogamy seems better to reduce mutational load and increase intelligence.
there are ”two” (or more) ways to increase intelligence, exogamic via, endogamic via, etc
and as happen in mixed race (genetically diverse,
) countries like Brazil, great diversity of cognitive levels can be found in this scenario, and some african families can have greater psycho-cognitive diversity within them than others.
Many ”smart” people, via IQ or any other reasonably good parameter, are smarter than their parents and most of their relatives and in place such Africa, with higher genetic diversity, this progression to the mean may be more common (but generally, progression to the mean often be subsequently followed by regression’s to the mean, specially if the polygenic traits were more recessive or have lack of biological stock necessary to become dominant)…
In Brazil the avg IQ is around 85 but even in the places with lowest avg IQ such Northeast there are selective pockets where people with similar levels of ”intelligence” usually marry one each other. Is perfectly possible a place with avg IQ 80, a bigger (or at least genetically diverse) population, have this discrepant scenarios, where some group of smarter people (specially if compared to the local mean) are demographically robust enough (even as a tiny minority) to create a relatively separated niche of biological reproduction and sustain it for long time or even increase their number.
Igbo types born that way*
Endogamy (not in their extreme forms) seems easier to spread new mutations than a exogamy...
but exogamy seems better to reduce mutational load and increase intelligence.
there are ''two'' (or more) ways to increase intelligence, exogamic via, endogamic via, etc
and as happen in mixed race (genetically diverse, ;) ) countries like Brazil, great diversity of cognitive levels can be found in this scenario, and some african families can have greater psycho-cognitive diversity within them than others.
Many ''smart'' people, via IQ or any other reasonably good parameter, are smarter than their parents and most of their relatives and in place such Africa, with higher genetic diversity, this progression to the mean may be more common (but generally, progression to the mean often be subsequently followed by regression's to the mean, specially if the polygenic traits were more recessive or have lack of biological stock necessary to become dominant)...
In Brazil the avg IQ is around 85 but even in the places with lowest avg IQ such Northeast there are selective pockets where people with similar levels of ''intelligence'' usually marry one each other. Is perfectly possible a place with avg IQ 80, a bigger (or at least genetically diverse) population, have this discrepant scenarios, where some group of smarter people (specially if compared to the local mean) are demographically robust enough (even as a tiny minority) to create a relatively separated niche of biological reproduction and sustain it for long time or even increase their number.
Igbo types born that way*
Progression from the mean,
Ah, in the grand tradition of black education.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cheating-trial-20140907-story.html#page=1
Just like the Atlanta case. Now, some people went to jail for slipping answers to students.
Brazile's cheat sheet for Hillary is surely more grievous since we are talking of real power here.
Will actions be taken for this unethical, possibly even illegal, act?
This is what ails the black community. Higher or lower IQ, there is more psychopathy.
Ails the community? Psychopathic? I think not.
This behavior is not pathological. It is a feature, and part of the social and cultural fabric of the community.
This behavior is only pathological in the societies of the occident.
"Classique (match play): Players play 17 games, two players to a board with the final standings being judged by games won and total points scored minus the total number of points scored by the player's opponents. The top two players in the standings play a best-of-three final to determine the World Champion. The tournament is very popular with African players as Duplicate Scrabble is less popular in Africa than it is in Europe."
If the best of the best in France go for the more popular form of scrabbles, then top players in Classique may have IQ less than +3SD.
I'd say you have definetely proven Gabon's IQ couldn't be possibly 64, but other than that, I am not totally convinced.
I’ve just seen your other comment where you withdrew this comment. I appreciate your honest approach to just getting to the bottom of this.
And here is a quick data point to put your mind at full rest concerning the other tanget: number 2 at the World Championships in “Elite” was actually from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Arnaud Mulonda) — pushed Nigel Richards to third; Richards was second in 2015. (Again, the other formats are just not popular with the Africans … yet.)
Lynn’s work sucks because comparing the results of IQ testing of people at different levels of development is not a fair comparison. We know IQ has gone up (Flynn effect) with increases in socioeconomic development in homogeneous European countries.
Second, generalizing from the results of IQ testing of American ethnic groups is problematic, because African-Americans (for example), are not representative of African ethnic diversity, and have admixture with Europeans.
The reality is that genes + environment give rise to phenotype. Cross-continental IQ testing fails to control for known and significant environmental differences. Testing in the US fails to be representative of African genetic diversity, and may represent merely an unfavorable strain of European genetic heritage (the mutant zombie redneck rapist strain per Chanda).
Historically, all the action in politics in Africa is between “high IQ” ethnic groups and “low IQ” ethnic groups, which would be implausible if Africans all had the same genetic potential.
Last, I think the Copts have the highest IQ as an ethnic group, but that does not make Egypt the most advanced nation in the world. Even if you wanted to make some generalization about Europeans, the West was backwards relative to the Arabs and China until at least the Renaissance, but presumably their genetic potential has not drastically improved in 500 years relative to China and Arabia.
what an astoundingly contentless article. How can the author pretend to know anything about the intelligence distribution when he thinks that a black man defeating white scrabble players in any way refutes IQ statistics?
She is using girl logic in which anecdotes are proof. She is a street-sh*tting idiot.
There is an interesting pattern in that Nigeria has more people in the Top 200 compared to the remainder of the list than is usual for other countries. Any thoughts as to why that is so?Substantiating your statements and citations in the article is part of your job here. Sorry it is too tiring for you (if you want civil you might have been so yourself in response to Fanhar's reasonable comment).There were other points in that comment BTW. Do you have any response to those?
Thanks for that archive link, although 2015 is actually too long ago from the time I was writing this and archive.org doesn’t archive every month.
Their last archived Table (August, 2016) is actually closer to the time I started writing (September or October), and it is off by just one or two Nigerians. It’s quite possible that WESPA cleaned up its list very recently by removing the unpaid members or inactive members or something, besides the tournament participation possibility:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819013026/http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
And yes, the other countries did have some Nigerian names on that list, although I did not count them as part of Nigeria (yes, I always prefer to take the conservative approach to data: I slightly disadvantage my own case, quantitatively, so that the argument is won on logic alone). The second highest rated player on that list for Team US is originally Nigerian, for example. England also has at least one Nigerian name that I found on the top 100 of the world.
As for Farhar’s “reasonable” comment, I do not personally find reasonable or “civil” anyone who throws around words like “dishonest” and “disingenuous” the moment they just find some discrepancy on the opposing side of the debate (and I owe them no civil discussion — or any discussion — at that point; Why assume the worst about someone?)
Where did Flynn got his numbers from? In case of some European countries as was pointed out by Ron Unz Flynn was very creative in inventing IQ scores for countries.
P.S. It's best to try to get names correct (Fanhar) when trying to be civil. I don't always succeed myself, and you probably have people mistake yours more often than most (I hope I haven't erred there anywhere).
P.P.S. Any thought on how much of the effect you are seeing is due to different IQ means in different populations (e.g. the Igbo)? On a related note, it would probably be worth discussing the apparent non-normality (fat tails) of IQ distributions as part of your argument.
“We know IQ has gone up (Flynn effect) ” – It should not be called Flynn effect but at best Flynn’s discovery, though I doubt he discovered it. It must have been known before but they preferred to sweep this little unconvenient secret under the carpet until they could not do it anymore. So here comes Lynn. Lynn’s job was to explain it away. Imagine what would it take to deal with variability of 1-meter standard kept in Sevres if its variability was discovered? The cultural/environmental drift in IQ test results (I would call it IQ testing savviness) is a devastating blow to the whole methodology of IQ/intelligence pseudo-science. For this reason the true believers like like to use the concept of g instead of IQ in their statements. The concept of g possibly was constructed to escape the fluidity and uncertainty of IQ tests to put the pseudo-science or more firm footing. But in reality nobody really does complex testing to arrive at this elusive g. In reality regular IQ tests are applied. In practice and reality g=(result of IQ test)! The same old crappy tests that were used to find out which recruits needed to be taught how to wipe their ass and eat with fork and knife .
I wonder if Chanda Chisala could tell us what is the reality of IQ testing in some African countries. Who did it? By what methods? What were the samples? Who funded it? Always follow the money.
Your hand-waving argument versus my hand-waving argument. Nothing is really proved.
In any case, African American IQs are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
And, if African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Perhaps you can supply some data to support yours?
Second, IQ predicts equally well within each race. IQ OVERpredicts success for black americans compared to whites, which is, however, easily explained by affirmative action.
Third, the fact that predictor is not 100% accurate does not mean it is useless. There is no better predictor than IQ - if it is useless, then you are left with pretty much nothing.
Their last archived Table (August, 2016) is actually closer to the time I started writing (September or October), and it is off by just one or two Nigerians. It's quite possible that WESPA cleaned up its list very recently by removing the unpaid members or inactive members or something, besides the tournament participation possibility:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819013026/http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
And yes, the other countries did have some Nigerian names on that list, although I did not count them as part of Nigeria (yes, I always prefer to take the conservative approach to data: I slightly disadvantage my own case, quantitatively, so that the argument is won on logic alone). The second highest rated player on that list for Team US is originally Nigerian, for example. England also has at least one Nigerian name that I found on the top 100 of the world.
As for Farhar's "reasonable" comment, I do not personally find reasonable or "civil" anyone who throws around words like "dishonest" and "disingenuous" the moment they just find some discrepancy on the opposing side of the debate (and I owe them no civil discussion -- or any discussion -- at that point; Why assume the worst about someone?)
Chanda Chisala, could tell us what is/was the reality of IQ testing in some African countries. Who did it? By what methods? What were the samples? Who funded it? Always follow the money.
Where did Flynn got his numbers from? In case of some European countries as was pointed out by Ron Unz Flynn was very creative in inventing IQ scores for countries.
ex-unit’sdicLies!
Women are not genetically disadvantaged at swimming compared to men?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the IQ scores or estimates are where the problem is. The problem is the interpretation of those scores. It’s plausible that those scores could be telling us exactly how deprived Africans are, educationally etc (compared to the rest of the world). They tell us nothing about how they would be without those deprivations.
That’s the point of my article(s): If you pick a field where brain power is required and there are few non-cognitive barriers to entry, African experts appear to be performing (relative to elite performers from other populations in better environments) as if they come from populations whose average IQ is way above those IQ scores of 70, and even way above IQ scores of 85, and arguably even above population IQ scores of 100.
That's the point of my article(s): If you pick a field where brain power is required and there are few non-cognitive barriers to entry, African experts appear to be performing (relative to elite performers from other populations in better environments) as if they come from populations whose average IQ is way above those IQ scores of 70, and even way above IQ scores of 85, and arguably even above population IQ scores of 100.
“I don’t think the IQ scores or estimates are where the problem is” – I agree but I think you should be more vigilant and adhere to scientific codes and procedures.. Rule number one is not to trust data presented by people who possibly may have a hidden agenda or bias and/or who are sloppy researchers. I suspect that national/country scores presented by Lynn and others often are made up, “interpolated”, “extrapolated” and whatnot . Basically they are not empirical data. But still they are repeated and widely circulated.
Say, Burkina Faso at this site
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country/bf-burkina-faso
is reported as IQ=68 with the following note:
“These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries.”
Do you believe that somebody did IQ testing in Burkina Faso? Where from Lynn and Vanhanen did get this number?
Anyway, Chanda Chisala, I gather that you do not know, which is OK but what is worst, you seem no to care. Imagine that the actual number of Burkina Faso is 90. How do you know it is not true? Because of Lynn? I understand your argument and what you are trying to accomplish but you might be beating the horse that is dead or horse that was never alive but nobody cared to check its pulse or existence.
Good points.
Peace.
For Burkina Faso Lynn marks it as "estimated IQ", based on IQs on neighbouring countries (Sierra Leone 64, Ghana 71, Guinea 63)
For example, for Ghana he as a source gives Glewwe & Jacoby from 1992, IQ 62, corrected up due to Flynn Effect etc. (test on 1639 adults on colored progressive matrices)
His methodology was criticised by Wicherts et al, who IIRC corrects Lynn's national IQ by 5 points up (Lynn estimate is 75 for SSA, Wicherts' was 80).
None of this is secrecy. All the data is freely available and one can easily google it up.
And, as you keep accusing IQ of "pseudoscience" without giving any arguments, let me remind you:
(1) No other phenomenon in whole psychology was replicated more consistenly and more often than works on "g". If IQ is pseudoscience, then whole psychology is just voodoo of some kind. Multiple intelligences, stereotype threats, priming, implicit association tests all have much, much, much weaker evidence for and much, much, much more evidence against.
(2) There is no better predictor of success in life than "g" extracted from IQ tests. When you measure children's "g", in western societies it predicts better their future education, future income, criminality, life span and achievements. This is a finding replicated multiple times.
(3) You keep asking questions and writing things which can be easily answered if you really read some of books. This means you are commenting on research which you have not familiarized with.
(4) No other research explains more consistenly differeing outcomes of different people. If IQ is pseudoscience, then you have no explanation at all for explaining why some people achieve more, and some other achieve less in life, as all other explanations have much weaker support than research on IQ.
In other words, you have replicated phenomenon, which can be used to predict, which can be falsified (and as yet was NOT falsified). You are saying this is a pseudoscience. This tells me you have no idea what a science is and what are criteria of determining what is science and what is not.
Most of your arguments seem to be similar to those made by Gould, who is nowadays known mostly for his dishonest manipulation of data and misquotations.This tells me you have ideological agenda and you are not here for honest discussion, but rather in order to spread propaganda.
They are essentially tests of degree of under-exposure."What does "real cognitive comparison" mean?Either you think that Africans in Africa have substantially lower mean e.g., verbal ability or not (due to whatever factors). (1) The evidence against the contra position includes:--IQ scores
--Achievement test scores (e.g., SACMED, PASEC (in French).
--International graduate test scores (e.g., the GMAT)Actual measures of cognitive ability (CA)! Of course, this could be explained by educational under-exposure. After all, African countries have commensurate general socio-economic, social progress, and Human Development index scores. But the mean ability scores would be low, nonetheless.Now, you can argue either that: (1) these measures of CA as less good measures of latent CA than e.g., scabble performance or that (2) these measures are good measures but the distribution of CA is non-normal, thus allowing large pockets of high ability Africans, etc. If it's non-normal, there must be an explanation, for example regional heterogeneity in scores, which makes difficult estimations of the smart fraction. Now the problem with you evidence in relation to 1 & 2 is that scrabble scores, at least based on the sources used, don't well predict national IQs for non-African countries. Yet, if scrabble performance indexed national/smart fraction ability, one would expect a substantial national IQ x performance correlation. (The same point, of course, would stand for other proxy measures of cognitive ability e.g., research papers per capita, math Olympiad performance, chess Olympiad performance). This lack of correlation means one of -- or a mixture of -- three things:(1) The specific metrics are not particularly good measures of cognitive ability on the individual level; for example, the meta-analystic correlation between chess performance and cognitive ability is a modest r = .25).
(2) There are national/ regional specific factors (for example, the National IQ x math Olympiad correlations is only 0.4, a low correlation which is understandable because of differences in math Olympiad training, recruiting, funding.)
(3) The samples are not representative (which is probably the case here). If so, one is not comparing the mean/elite of Africans with the mean/elite of whomever.Another way to think about this is that if you factor analyzed cognitive indexes, national scramble playing ability would probably have a low national G-loading, and thus would not have a high validity when it comes to assessing the cognitive ability of nations.In this case, you might as well use Parcheesi performance as an index.
An analogy might help you.
Suppose we want to measure which groups in Europe etc have a higher ability to make wealth. We might compare how much money has been made by members of that group so far, to give us a good idea. Let’s call that test x.
If you use the same test x in Africa, I argue that it is approximately valid and can still work: certain groups within Africa will have made more money than others, etc. under similarly difficult conditions (even though conditions might still be a bit more different accross African countries, but not by much, generally).
However, the results for Africa are *useless* when you decide to compare them with groups outside Africa with very different business environments. Will you say Africans have a lower ability to make wealth because they have made less money? What was a valid measure of “ability” for limited purposes now starts sounding ridiculous due to vastly different environments.
And so here comes someone who suggests that we test some African businessmen in an area of business where there is no substantial advantage for doing business in the West. And suddenly, the African businessmen are equaling or beating the European businessmen in that limited space. Let’s call that test y.
Your job here is to show me why test y is an invalid test that is giving African businessmen an undue advantage of sorts.
But to do that, you have to tell us why you called that same test y valid when it was used to test the wealth making ability of your men and your women, in favor of your men (just as it does even in Africa).
This is a problem for you because you told us that European women have a higher wealth making ability than African men (using test x). And yet, on that SAME purer (environment-free) test that European business males beat European business females (test y), African males equal or beat European males.
You can’t say you are not using your best businessmen, because when you are using average businessmen, they never show a great advantage over women. Only when you are using the best businessmen is when the difference with women is big on test y.
So, how do you think I should answer your question? Do I believe that Africans have a lower ability to make wealth?
(Tell me why there is a huge gender disparity in cognitive games like Scrabble and tell me why your reasons do not work to produce an even bigger racial disparity on the same games. And do it without abandoning your hereditarian credentials !)
I’ll take a break now and I hope you or someone will answer this question.
Keeping out of the debate because all points of view seem here to have already been put; as well as because I catch the scent of a nostril-flaring pack mentality among the opponents (do you have to be so offensive to the poor guy?). Keeping out, I say, but please allow me to slip in a mention of the English card game “Lexicon” of which (American invented) Scrabble is a more durable and successful rip-off.
Hey utu,
To ask the question is to have answered it.
Good points.
Peace.
Next movie
The Miracle of Flynn
Their last archived Table (August, 2016) is actually closer to the time I started writing (September or October), and it is off by just one or two Nigerians. It's quite possible that WESPA cleaned up its list very recently by removing the unpaid members or inactive members or something, besides the tournament participation possibility:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819013026/http://www.wespa.org/aardvark/cgi-bin/rating.cgi
And yes, the other countries did have some Nigerian names on that list, although I did not count them as part of Nigeria (yes, I always prefer to take the conservative approach to data: I slightly disadvantage my own case, quantitatively, so that the argument is won on logic alone). The second highest rated player on that list for Team US is originally Nigerian, for example. England also has at least one Nigerian name that I found on the top 100 of the world.
As for Farhar's "reasonable" comment, I do not personally find reasonable or "civil" anyone who throws around words like "dishonest" and "disingenuous" the moment they just find some discrepancy on the opposing side of the debate (and I owe them no civil discussion -- or any discussion -- at that point; Why assume the worst about someone?)
Fair enough. I try to read comments on the Unz Review with my sensitivity turned down (not always with success) and I was preoccupied with trying to figure out if “disgenuine” implied someone writing in English as a second language (and doing so quite well overall IMHO) rather than noting its pejorative nature. I am much more sensitive to whether statements are accurate and have a major problem with citations that don’t say what they were purported to say (agreed about not being quick to assume the worst though).
P.S. It’s best to try to get names correct (Fanhar) when trying to be civil. I don’t always succeed myself, and you probably have people mistake yours more often than most (I hope I haven’t erred there anywhere).
P.P.S. Any thought on how much of the effect you are seeing is due to different IQ means in different populations (e.g. the Igbo)? On a related note, it would probably be worth discussing the apparent non-normality (fat tails) of IQ distributions as part of your argument.
Well, since you don’t like hand-waving here’s some data to support szopen’s argument: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/03/2008-sat-scores-by-race-by-income.html
Perhaps you can supply some data to support yours?
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I'll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
I’m 4 sd’s up in IQ and don’t do so."
How much IQ self-testing did you do? Don't you think it is also a crap not worth wasting time on? A smart person does not need IQ test to know he/she is smart. Actually a smart person thinks that IQ test is crap. So you did not know you were smart until you took a test? You did not know you were smart because you were not good in any games. Never won scrabble. Perhaps you are not smart. You are just IQ-test smart.
No self testing.
In England in the mid 60′s your future state in government schools was decided by a test called the “11 plus” It determined if you went to the “Grammar School” or a school that was basically to prepare you for a Trade- called Secondary Modern schools. In Liverpool at the time you listed your preferred schools and they filled them from the top down. I came in top of my 130 kid class and got into my number one school.
Three years later we moved to a different city and I was retested. And retested, and retested. I got into my number one school.
After a turbulent teens, I went to a temp agency who routinely performed (then legal) IQ tests, I was looking for a laboring job to get fit again, they sent me to do critical path analysis for a telephone company’s rebuild of a network. I joined a major American bank as a temp and was a Vice President 5 years later. I was offered promotions in Zurich and NYC, I foolishly took the latter.
I met a guy who pursuaded me to do the Mensa thing, did it twice- once in Brooklyn, I think, Once in Philly, I scored 163 and 162. My pal beat me by 2 points, both times.
I’m not sure of much but am certain of the 4 sd.
Crosswords aren’t really competitive, but this guy was apparently some sort of champion: http://www.word-buff.com/crossword-solver.html
And of course Fr. (later Msgr.) Ronald Knox, the Catholic chaplain at Oxford in the thirties, was legendary; he used to do the London Times crossword in his head (there is a story that once, on a train, a student observed him staring at the paper, pencil in hand, not writing, apparently puzzled, and kindly offered to help; Knox said “Thank you, but I’ve just got it.” and proceeded to fill in the entire puzzle). In later life he did play Scrabble, but unfortunately for the purposes of psychometrics, not competitively. I think I remember reading somewhere that on his (Knox’s) deathbed he began to cheat at Scrabble with his friend Evelyn Waugh; I’m not sure if that is important. Knox was of Scottish ancestry.
The train story seems to have several extant versions, so I’ll leave it as above.
RSDB
Perhaps you can supply some data to support yours?
If you have a point, state it, but don’t expect me to run around, pursuing links here or there, trying to figure out what you’re talking about.
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I’ll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
I'm not a IQ denier as many people may think. I just want to give the right weight to the IQ efficacy to measure and express intelligence, partial but efficient and useful.
The super lower IQ of Americans when it is adjusted to the current IQ calculations is not a real thing but a calculation artfact.
Someone explain me why Haitians, with the less mixed blood among all african-Americans populations, are the poorest of all...??
And please leave off the condescension. If you are incapable of understanding how my link supports szopen's argument there's really not much I can do to help you.
For anyone who is looking for a parlor game you might try playing "spot the fallacies" with CanSpeccy's point 2.
Unz did some research on the race/IQ issue, and wrote some good stuff illuminating what you're pointing out in the blockquote above -- all of which made the HBD "theorists" look like the one-track minds they are. I can't seem to find the baseline article from the Unz front-page. Perhaps, if Ron reads this, he will provide the link.
2) This statemen involves a number of claims, each of which is false for a different reason. You are essentially using income as a measure of "functional intelligence" - in this case, why bother with IQ at all? Second, do AAs earn more than whites proportional to IQ? That is, assuming there is a rough IQ "constant of proportionality" for each race, is this a) significantly higher for blacks and b) about as effective a predictor?
Further, where does the assumption "African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ" come from? If "res" is asking for data, I assume he means some substantiation of this claim.
If you can show that either 1) IQ is not an effective predictor of "X", X being the thing you desire to predict (income?) among blacks, or 2) black/white IQ comparisons are meaningless because of cultural or other differences (perhaps what you really meant in your point 1) which have little to do with "X", you will have made your point. So far you have not done so.
What is the "g" that IQ is supposed to measure? It is certainly not income, though obviously correlations have been established. Literally, what IQ measures is proficiency on an IQ test. Probably most closely related to this is general cognitive abstract-puzzle-solving skill. This appears, within limits, to be closely associated with proficiency at certain tasks.
I think you have misinterpreted the data, regardless of any population IQ issues.
Mistake #1: Scrabble is not only a cognitive game, it is coupled to randomness and imperfect information.
Randomness and imperfect information both have the effect of increasing everyone’s variance and in addition they specifically reduce the role of the very thing that IQ tests measure: the ability to solve puzzles with complete information and no randomness. This makes outcomes that seem extreme in a tested-IQ-only model, much less extreme and therefore more common (nothing like the 5.6 SD outlier as suggested in the essay). And if skills like dealing with randomness and limited information, that are not examined in puzzle-based IQ tests, do not show the same group differences as on IQ tests, then that will further equalize performance of groups that have different IQ measurements. The more dissimilar the game is to a pure IQ test, the less the IQ test patterns will apply to it.
Thus, if the board games are mostly proxies for IQ, we would expect the pattern of group representation among checker champions to be intermediate between the patterns for chess/go and the one for Scrabble. Which is exactly what your article seems to show. Crosswords should be even more closely related to IQ than chess (since IQ tests do not involve strategic thinking or guessing opponents’ thought processes). Yes, this says both that IQ tests are limited in certain ways, and that your argument has problems.
Mistake #2: Game champions who are accomplished in a related field, such as mathematics or computer programming, should be counted as smarter (in some sense, probably including IQ) than ones who only specialize in the game. Lots of chess players are good at mathematics, but to be both a grandmaster and a mathematician is more impressive than either one alone.
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I'll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
Afro Americans with same IQ levels or with the same “income” level tend to commit more crimes than: Whites and Hispanics… And I no doubt, also than east Asians. Compare behavioral trends when income and IQ levels are adjusted/equalized just showed the continuity of overall black behavioral trends.
I’m not a IQ denier as many people may think. I just want to give the right weight to the IQ efficacy to measure and express intelligence, partial but efficient and useful.
The super lower IQ of Americans when it is adjusted to the current IQ calculations is not a real thing but a calculation artfact.
Someone explain me why Haitians, with the less mixed blood among all african-Americans populations, are the poorest of all…??
My own view is that the black-white IQ gap in America is the last shred of pseudo-evidence to justify the strange notion of American exceptionalism, i.e., white American exceptionalism. But that idea seems about to die with the collapse of the Bush-Clinton treason alliance and a new direction in American politics that, with the election of Trump, will focus on, among other things, restructuring the society of the inner cities where most American blacks have had the misfortune to live.
Chisala is probably wrong about American blacks suffering from low-grade white genes. Mostly, whites mating with blacks were more likely plantation owners, people like Thomas Jefferson, rather than "white trash." However the hypothesis could be tested by comparison of IQs of American blacks of pure African descent, still a few of them around, and the rest. I doubt whether any significant difference would be found.
* Black IQ Gains in Britain, Kenya and Dominica
Miscegenation was less common amongst slaves than amongst free blacks.
We invented the atomic bomb and the computer in 1945. Where is a similar level of development in Africa?
http://newobserveronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WP-graphic.jpg
http://newobserveronline.com/povertycrime-excuse-smashed/
The place seems like it would be a little rough for Western IQ testers running around to the villages.
They’ve had a busy year:
Richard Lynn also collected IQ of university students in Africa and the results were convergent to their thinking lines.
South africans with indian descent also score lower than white south africans. Boers scored lower than anglos. Even in more selected universities, namely in South Africa, this hierarchy was found: white students score higher than indian students who score higher than african black students…
There is a global pattern of this racial hierarchy in intelligence and it’s not all pure breed african diasporas who are well succesful. Indeed this well succesful groups are likely to be a volumous exceptions than a rule.
http://newobserveronline.com/south-africa-85-university-failure-rate/
http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/04/university-study-on-iqs-in-sub-saharan-africa/
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I'll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
My request was very explicit. Please provide data to support your arguments. Starting with your points 1 and 2 in the previous post.
And please leave off the condescension. If you are incapable of understanding how my link supports szopen’s argument there’s really not much I can do to help you.
For anyone who is looking for a parlor game you might try playing “spot the fallacies” with CanSpeccy’s point 2.
You guys and your demands for data -- you crack me up. "What? The floor needs sweeping???!!! Show me the data!!"
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I'll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
Correct.
Unz did some research on the race/IQ issue, and wrote some good stuff illuminating what you’re pointing out in the blockquote above — all of which made the HBD “theorists” look like the one-track minds they are. I can’t seem to find the baseline article from the Unz front-page. Perhaps, if Ron reads this, he will provide the link.
http://www.unz.com/topic/race-iq/
And here's the article link itself:
http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/
And please leave off the condescension. If you are incapable of understanding how my link supports szopen's argument there's really not much I can do to help you.
For anyone who is looking for a parlor game you might try playing "spot the fallacies" with CanSpeccy's point 2.
LOL. It’s like the old joke about the racist CPO and the sinking of the Titanic. What date? is the question to white sailor. How many casualties? is the question to the latino sailor. What were their names? is the question to the black sailor.
You guys and your demands for data — you crack me up. “What? The floor needs sweeping???!!! Show me the data!!”
My point, incidentally, was quite explicit. Actually I made two points. But since you missed them, I'll repeat them:
(1) African American IQs today are comparable to Euro-American IQs in 1945, when the US was unquestionably the leading scientific, technical, business, industrial and military power in the World. So any social, economic or educational difficulties that African Americans have today cannot be explained by a deficit in IQ.
(2) If African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ , that indicates that economic performance is unrelated to IQ, which shows that IQ as a measure of functional intelligence is entirely useless.
Hope they sink in this time.
1) Nobody ever claimed that IQ comparisons across culture (okay, maybe some idiots do claim this) or across time period have any validity. Per capita US income has also risen significantly, but nobody would say that a man earning $4000/annum in 1950 was impoverished. But income as a scale is still valid.
2) This statemen involves a number of claims, each of which is false for a different reason. You are essentially using income as a measure of “functional intelligence” – in this case, why bother with IQ at all? Second, do AAs earn more than whites proportional to IQ? That is, assuming there is a rough IQ “constant of proportionality” for each race, is this a) significantly higher for blacks and b) about as effective a predictor?
Further, where does the assumption “African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ” come from? If “res” is asking for data, I assume he means some substantiation of this claim.
If you can show that either 1) IQ is not an effective predictor of “X”, X being the thing you desire to predict (income?) among blacks, or 2) black/white IQ comparisons are meaningless because of cultural or other differences (perhaps what you really meant in your point 1) which have little to do with “X”, you will have made your point. So far you have not done so.
What is the “g” that IQ is supposed to measure? It is certainly not income, though obviously correlations have been established. Literally, what IQ measures is proficiency on an IQ test. Probably most closely related to this is general cognitive abstract-puzzle-solving skill. This appears, within limits, to be closely associated with proficiency at certain tasks.
All environments aren't equal, and all variables aren't equal.
If an Australian Aborigines can pass down and remember massive oral histories that's great, but if they can't learn algebra or diagram a sentence there's little need to educate them past the eighth grade.
We aren't interested in all possible worlds. The one we live is not secure enough for that.
Also it's not as though the dichotomy is IQ/No IQ. It's IQ/White racism is the root of all evil.
I say all this, but I enjoyed reading your comment. I'm sure I will learn much from your reply. My thoughts are those of someone knowing nothing of genetics and only really looking at history and anthropology.
Now I'll stop hogging the thread lol.
Americans tend to identify with power rather than the people ruled by power, a common tendency among earth people. US power has conducted a three century extermination of Indian Americans and the enslavement of African Americans, stealing the homes and homelands from the former, and the labor and freedom from the latter. I would guess that it would be necessary to emplace an anti-racist power system in the US before it is possible to attack US racism effectively.
Especially as the majority of births in this country is of non-White infants and the US is turning into a non-White country like most of the others. This is apparently frightening US-Americans, especially the Educated classes, so ideological denial, historical amnesia, and power delusion appears to be the norm in the racist blogs.
The author of this article is a racist. He believes different groups can have different innate intelligence levels. Like Igbo versus Hausa.
Who cares dumb ass. We’re talking about IQ here, not technological or scientific achievement.
Unz did some research on the race/IQ issue, and wrote some good stuff illuminating what you're pointing out in the blockquote above -- all of which made the HBD "theorists" look like the one-track minds they are. I can't seem to find the baseline article from the Unz front-page. Perhaps, if Ron reads this, he will provide the link.
Sure. There’s now a link on the Home page to the archive of all the various Race/IQ articles, of which my long one is near the bottom:
http://www.unz.com/topic/race-iq/
And here’s the article link itself:
http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/
It's not that I don't sympathize with the HBD "theorists" -- I do. It would be convenient if all that bullshit about genetic IQ-determinism were demonstrable, verifiable, and true. It's just that, as much as I hate to use ugly words, it's bullshit. Stark, staring, glaring bullshit. Yet, the HBD folk will just flat-out ignore absolutely controverting fact -- like the fact that a given population-normed IQ tracks/correlates with nutrition at some ridiculous degree of correlation (0.92). I don't know the numbers for factors like social interaction, education, disease control, and other factors related to environment.
Oh, well. Thanks for the links.
You know who. ;-)
According to this article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577478482432277706
"Eric Turkheimer and others at the University of Virginia have shown that in the most disadvantaged families, heritability of IQ falls and the influence attributed to the shared family environment rises to 60%."
And here is Turkheimer et al. paper:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf
"SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MODIFIES HERITABILITY OF IQ
IN YOUNG CHILDREN" Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D’Onofrio,
and Irving I. Gottesman
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
So it seems there is no contradiction and the Super-Flynn effect exists. Environment has much stronger effect on IQ test results than what Lynn and Vanhanen wants us to believe. It would be interesting to differentiate the environment factors into social and physical like being surrounded by stupid and boring people in early life (social) and poor nutrition in early development (physical).
The bottom line is that the Super-Flynn effect that you hypothesized upon critical reading of Flynn and Vanhanen undermines pretty much all contentions held by the believers of strong IQ hypothesis who do not have time or place for a "weak IQ hypothesis" as their interests in the field stems from racists ideations, vide Flynn.
Lol.
You guys and your demands for data -- you crack me up. "What? The floor needs sweeping???!!! Show me the data!!"
So how do you propose coming to meaningful conclusions about issues like this without using data? Whoever is most politically correct, yells loudest, or is paid the most wins?
Mostly, who wins is determined by the media. Media typically goes with some combination of target-audience bias (established through prior media conditioning), with an admixture of some purported "fact" that meets conditions of believability, plus some measure of high-profile popularity.
http://www.unz.com/topic/race-iq/
And here's the article link itself:
http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/
Yes, that one — the long one.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the HBD “theorists” — I do. It would be convenient if all that bullshit about genetic IQ-determinism were demonstrable, verifiable, and true. It’s just that, as much as I hate to use ugly words, it’s bullshit. Stark, staring, glaring bullshit. Yet, the HBD folk will just flat-out ignore absolutely controverting fact — like the fact that a given population-normed IQ tracks/correlates with nutrition at some ridiculous degree of correlation (0.92). I don’t know the numbers for factors like social interaction, education, disease control, and other factors related to environment.
Oh, well. Thanks for the links.
You know who.
Are we assuming you favor the “yells loudest” approach?
Mostly, who wins is determined by the media. Media typically goes with some combination of target-audience bias (established through prior media conditioning), with an admixture of some purported “fact” that meets conditions of believability, plus some measure of high-profile popularity.
Media is powerful; in fact media is pushing Equalism so hard most people still believe in it.
But the reality on the ground, which is data, is absolutely crucial.
If IQ correlates with per capita income, in EVERY society, then surely that data matters?
What motivates me is that this stuff isn't simple abstraction. It isn't an academic exercise alone.
The fate of societies depends on a clear analysis of that data.
Can the great wave of African migrants assimilate into French culture and enter the French middle class, or is it impossible?
If their IQs are 64, then no, it's not realistically possible. If IQ is an accurate tool for measurement, then we have to be very concerned about whether or not these migrants will remain a large, hopeless, eternally-defendant underclass that will burden French children twenty years from now.
That those of Bantu-Speaking ancestry are failing more or less universally is not in dispute. Haiti, Houston, TX, and Harare are largely in the same boat in terms of underperformance. Why? If IQ isn't responsible then what is?
If IQ is correlating with the level of electrical activity in the brain even, doesn't that mean something?
I don't understand how that could be dismissed. I am eager to find out why you think so, however.
If you really think letting the media decide is preferable to looking at the relevant data I don't think I have anything more to say.
explain to me then why, seems, most people with higher scores on cognitive tests are so good to think interestingly, however wrong way * and worse, morally wrong *
It's as simple reject such mass immigration idea, and without thereby leaving the impression that is racist or ignorant, and yet most people of higher IQ, it seems, just thinking very similar in relation to other cognitive levels: binary and wrong thinking... and even worse, they are not reflective enough to re-think if they are doing the right judgments.
All your reports, I can also comment because I see the same macro-patterns, correlate with higher IQ, but in fact, the key difference here is the level of rationality, and in this sense, the Europeans are historically irrational: poverty , environmental destruction, numerous wars, religion ...
Every time when a HBD-aficionado talk about racial differences in BEHAVIOR, and using IQ as a parameter, is underlied the key point here is the level of rational capacity ... regardless of their level of IQ.
In almost all societies there is a constant struggle between reason and force. In most primary societies, the force dominating the reason almost completely, even because they often the same thing. Who protects the community (strength), it is the boss, and it is those who have '' reason '' to his side.
In more extroverted societies, the most popular are usually raised to command them, and not necessarily the most competent or the strongest. We may have many rational Africans: shy, living on the margins of society, while we have those who have all the requirements to be socially successful in their society, in the position that practicaly offer them, popularity or power.
And this reality is often not only possibly epidemic in Africa, but in virtually all human societies: to rule the nations, subjective or indirect values are required, and not directly the competence or wisdom.
I admit I don’t really understand your reply. That’s not a bad thing, though. If I tried to write in a foreign language it would be ten times less clear.
As for your point about Europeans being irrational, I don’t believe this is the case, or at least not in the way you mean it. Warfare, poverty, prejudice, etc. don’t necessarily imply irrationality. There are rational cases for war. There are also limitations on resources which can lead to poverty.
But where I most definitely object is where you attribute those qualities as fundamental characteristics of European civilization. Poverty, warfare, prejudice, etc., are largely universal features of human life.
What makes societies unique however is how they address these issues. Europeans have developed great rationality over time, much greater than the global south. Europeans have experienced skyrocketed technological, philosophical, and ethical development over the last 1,000 years. There’s no comparison there with the global south. Of course, societies like China also developed along rational lines. A man on the moon proves without a shadow of a doubt that western civilization outshines non-technological civilizations, just as China’s sending an astronaut into orbit is proof of their greater sophistication versus a society like Mozambique.
It’s like with slavery. Are Europeans uniquely irrational because they participated in slavery? No, because that mode of suffering was widespread historically. You even had black Bantu slaves in China.
No, what makes Europeans actually uniquely rational in this matter is the effort to abolish slavery, which was a white European/American venture. In fact slavery continues in much of Africa today, but is absent in NA and EU.
As for the shy Africans, I don’t really think speculation leads to a more accurate picture. Regardless of who leads a society, IQ does contribute to the overall trajectory and condition of that society. Otherwise it wouldn’t correlate with SO much! If the societies with the lowest life expectancies, per capita income, access to quality healthcare, etc., all correlate with lower IQ, then “g” is a pretty important metric.
And then we have the universal character of it; how can St. Louis, MO, Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, and Monrovia display the same kind of dynamic? That’s something that should be addressed in my opinion. There is no way that societies on different continents with different influences can be so similar without a genetic cause of their shared dysfunction.
As for mass immigration, I don’t reject it because of IQ solely. I reject it because I don’t want my four children to be disenfranchised and bound to an ever-increasing population that will never allow them to reach their true potential. My most fundamental moral charism is to provide for and protect them, and mass immigration is a serious threat to their future happiness and well being (I believe).
I wish I could understand your reply more thoroughly. I admit that a lot of this is above my pay grade. I’m just offering my take on things even if I’m not the most knowledgable on this topic. Thank you for your thoughts.
Induced or tolerated poverty is never rational.
The universality of human stupidity don't make Europeans less irrational, on avg.
Based on comparative perspective I agree that Europeans has been more "rational" than other groups but civilization necessarily is not the same than rationality or rational achievement.
My harsh criticisms against white people is not destructive but constructive. I want they improved in the two most important aspects of the human life/life: Morality and rationality. Behave well, think well.
Maybe you don't understand what I have wrote here to think I'm a classical leftist??
They abolished slavery only in XIX. Why not in the XVI?? If they want really to abolish slavery they had done it earlier in "discovery era".
There are different types of sophistication social sophistication not just technological ones.
All human groups has been uniquely irrational because their unique ways to misinterpret the world where they are, of course, with good achievements too.
http://www.unz.com/topic/race-iq/
And here's the article link itself:
http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/
I’ve just finish reading your Race IQ and Wealth paper. You pose there a problem of super-Flynn effect vs. the “extreme rigidity of IQ” form adopted twins studies. Also you stated that “Lynn and Vanhanen cite several of these studies to argue that IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary.” The number is closer to 70% from Minnesota studies. One must keep in mind that results of any twins study strongly depends on the type of sample, i..e, what is the range of environment differences, which are hard to quantify, the separated twins were exposed to. The effect of different ranges of environmental factors cannot be easily normalized out from the study. If one twin is raised by Upper West Side family and the other by Upper East Side family as opposed to by a band of Gypsies the range will be small and the hereditary part of IQ will end up being inflated.
According to this article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577478482432277706
“Eric Turkheimer and others at the University of Virginia have shown that in the most disadvantaged families, heritability of IQ falls and the influence attributed to the shared family environment rises to 60%.”
And here is Turkheimer et al. paper:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf
“SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MODIFIES HERITABILITY OF IQ
IN YOUNG CHILDREN” Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D’Onofrio,
and Irving I. Gottesman
“The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.”
So it seems there is no contradiction and the Super-Flynn effect exists. Environment has much stronger effect on IQ test results than what Lynn and Vanhanen wants us to believe. It would be interesting to differentiate the environment factors into social and physical like being surrounded by stupid and boring people in early life (social) and poor nutrition in early development (physical).
The bottom line is that the Super-Flynn effect that you hypothesized upon critical reading of Flynn and Vanhanen undermines pretty much all contentions held by the believers of strong IQ hypothesis who do not have time or place for a “weak IQ hypothesis” as their interests in the field stems from racists ideations, vide Flynn.
Your assessment is also consistent with an axiom of biology; namely, that phenotype is always the product of genotype plus environment. Mozart wouldn't have been Mozart without inherent genius. But it is also true that he would not have been Mozart had his father not abandoned his own career to the cultivation of the musical talents of his children. Or to put that another way, if my father had been Leopold Mozart, I would not have been Mozart, but as composer and performer I'd have been damn good.
That has to be true of any form of mental performance including the performance of IQ tests. As Ron Unz has discussed in Race, IQ and Wealth there are almost certain to be some genetic differences among populations or races in mental capacity. For example, Australian aborigines, among the most genetically isolated of all human races, appear to have an enlarged visual cortex relative to that of caucasians, a difference related perhaps to a superior pathfinding in the bush.
But except in cases of pathological deficits, differences in the genetic basis of intelligence may be quite limited. Many animals, it now seems, more or less match humans in various reasoning tasks, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms are robust products of long evolution.
IQ tests, however, involve disciplined observing, comparing, contrasting, reconfiguring, and calculating. Such a disciplined approach to thinking is what most education is about. Therefore, one would expect vast differences in IQ test results according to the culture and especially the education in which people have been raised.
Mostly, who wins is determined by the media. Media typically goes with some combination of target-audience bias (established through prior media conditioning), with an admixture of some purported "fact" that meets conditions of believability, plus some measure of high-profile popularity.
I have to disagree, even if you have a much firmer grasp of the overall issue than I do.
Media is powerful; in fact media is pushing Equalism so hard most people still believe in it.
But the reality on the ground, which is data, is absolutely crucial.
If IQ correlates with per capita income, in EVERY society, then surely that data matters?
What motivates me is that this stuff isn’t simple abstraction. It isn’t an academic exercise alone.
The fate of societies depends on a clear analysis of that data.
Can the great wave of African migrants assimilate into French culture and enter the French middle class, or is it impossible?
If their IQs are 64, then no, it’s not realistically possible. If IQ is an accurate tool for measurement, then we have to be very concerned about whether or not these migrants will remain a large, hopeless, eternally-defendant underclass that will burden French children twenty years from now.
That those of Bantu-Speaking ancestry are failing more or less universally is not in dispute. Haiti, Houston, TX, and Harare are largely in the same boat in terms of underperformance. Why? If IQ isn’t responsible then what is?
If IQ is correlating with the level of electrical activity in the brain even, doesn’t that mean something?
I don’t understand how that could be dismissed. I am eager to find out why you think so, however.
I'm a believer in intelligence, but it is my opinion that IQ, as a metric calculated from testing, and from test designs that test IQ by definitions that can be a bit malleable ... that IQ is simply not the final arbiter that some people think. Tying intelligence to IQ, and IQ to genetic superiority in the evolutionary sense is, imo, going several steps further than evidence fully supports.
The HBD enthusiasm for genotypes that produce "evolutionally more adaptive" IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.
2) This statemen involves a number of claims, each of which is false for a different reason. You are essentially using income as a measure of "functional intelligence" - in this case, why bother with IQ at all? Second, do AAs earn more than whites proportional to IQ? That is, assuming there is a rough IQ "constant of proportionality" for each race, is this a) significantly higher for blacks and b) about as effective a predictor?
Further, where does the assumption "African-Americans earn more than Euro-Americans of the same IQ" come from? If "res" is asking for data, I assume he means some substantiation of this claim.
If you can show that either 1) IQ is not an effective predictor of "X", X being the thing you desire to predict (income?) among blacks, or 2) black/white IQ comparisons are meaningless because of cultural or other differences (perhaps what you really meant in your point 1) which have little to do with "X", you will have made your point. So far you have not done so.
What is the "g" that IQ is supposed to measure? It is certainly not income, though obviously correlations have been established. Literally, what IQ measures is proficiency on an IQ test. Probably most closely related to this is general cognitive abstract-puzzle-solving skill. This appears, within limits, to be closely associated with proficiency at certain tasks.
But it isn’t “certain tasks.” It’s the ability to function in a society with the rule of law. It’s the ability to graduate from a university. Or to effectively manage money, or to better protect children from the consequences of bad behavior.
All environments aren’t equal, and all variables aren’t equal.
If an Australian Aborigines can pass down and remember massive oral histories that’s great, but if they can’t learn algebra or diagram a sentence there’s little need to educate them past the eighth grade.
We aren’t interested in all possible worlds. The one we live is not secure enough for that.
Also it’s not as though the dichotomy is IQ/No IQ. It’s IQ/White racism is the root of all evil.
I say all this, but I enjoyed reading your comment. I’m sure I will learn much from your reply. My thoughts are those of someone knowing nothing of genetics and only really looking at history and anthropology.
Now I’ll stop hogging the thread lol.
RSDB
Just wishful thinking by blacks. History? What about it? Culture? What about it? Genetic history? See above. This garbage about Southern Italians being so different than the north needs to go. It's not based in reality.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/
Lol at the Southern European “racial realist” (with an “88″ Heil Hitler in the end of the handle, as a cherry on top) who gets triggered at the mere mention of possible differences between South Italians and North Italians, or that between South Europeans and West Europeans.
And the Lynn thesis is backed up by tons of real world effects of the IQ discrepancy. North Italian economy is vastly superior to the South, it’s inarguably and stark as can be. Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing), and the fact that South Italians’ closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s.
And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards “terroni” down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don’t arise out of thin air.
So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn’t fit your desires, lmao.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9511-cultural-recuperation-and-the-case-of-southern-italy
The northern economy wasn't superior through history buddy. What real world effects? Using garbage PISA data you'll see "intelligence differences" (PISA is an achievement test not an IQ test), but using Ravens colored progressive matrices, the "gap" closes and southern italians score higher than the north in some of them. But I guess Richard Lynn can never be wrong, right? What do you think about the IQ of Mauritania? It's the IQ of retarded Spanish school children, not Mauritania. Oh no, but we should cite bunk data and if we say otherwise than we must be triggered. Don't call out bullshit. Don't challenge claims. Just let them be said!! There is no challenging anything, once something is said it's true!
"Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing)"
PISA is an achievement test, not IQ test.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2012-damico.pdf
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/
"the fact that South Italians’ closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s."https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vittorio_Daniele/publication/234034734_Are_people_in_the_South_less_intelligent_than_in_the_North_IQ_and_the_NorthSouth_disparity_in_Italy/links/00b7d52977a5022567000000.pdf
I guess environment doesn't matter to intelligence. It's not like southern Italy and Greece have to deal with malaria (it's based on climate not race).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/
"And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards “terroni” down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don’t arise out of thin air."
Average people can tell generic differences? Nope. There is a bigger genetic difference in South and North swedes and South and North Germans than North and South Italians. Any differences between them mean they are different ethnies. See how retarded that sounds?
"So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn’t fit your desires, lmao."
On Ravens colored progressive matrices, southern italians close the gap and other times they score higher. If you want to use PISA as an IQ test, OK. But it isn't. Ravens colored progressive matrices shows otherwise.
So you're saying just take what people say as gospel without doing any research and reading in to the matter. If there WAS a difference, a genetic difference in both ethnicity and IQ I'd be the first to admit it. But there isn't. It's just Nordicist garbage.
I see South Africa chess grandmaster status (being a first) because of exposure, environment and natural affinity for the game and the mentors who taught him to play such a ‘foreign’ indulgence! Whatever his IQ was before his awareness of said game is not only BS but an indication of the mental status of those who are only capable of seeing brillance in their own ignorance.
I would not not expect a tribesman in the countryside or any place else to possess such predilection because of environment, exposure and lack thereof. Fast forward to US educational policy, where if you refuse education, pass laws forbidding education to a group or groups and then claim those people are incapable of achieving parity with x group, that is the crux of the policies that inhibited economic, social and educational advancement that we see today.
As for your point about Europeans being irrational, I don't believe this is the case, or at least not in the way you mean it. Warfare, poverty, prejudice, etc. don't necessarily imply irrationality. There are rational cases for war. There are also limitations on resources which can lead to poverty.
But where I most definitely object is where you attribute those qualities as fundamental characteristics of European civilization. Poverty, warfare, prejudice, etc., are largely universal features of human life.
What makes societies unique however is how they address these issues. Europeans have developed great rationality over time, much greater than the global south. Europeans have experienced skyrocketed technological, philosophical, and ethical development over the last 1,000 years. There's no comparison there with the global south. Of course, societies like China also developed along rational lines. A man on the moon proves without a shadow of a doubt that western civilization outshines non-technological civilizations, just as China's sending an astronaut into orbit is proof of their greater sophistication versus a society like Mozambique.
It's like with slavery. Are Europeans uniquely irrational because they participated in slavery? No, because that mode of suffering was widespread historically. You even had black Bantu slaves in China.
No, what makes Europeans actually uniquely rational in this matter is the effort to abolish slavery, which was a white European/American venture. In fact slavery continues in much of Africa today, but is absent in NA and EU.
As for the shy Africans, I don't really think speculation leads to a more accurate picture. Regardless of who leads a society, IQ does contribute to the overall trajectory and condition of that society. Otherwise it wouldn't correlate with SO much! If the societies with the lowest life expectancies, per capita income, access to quality healthcare, etc., all correlate with lower IQ, then "g" is a pretty important metric.
And then we have the universal character of it; how can St. Louis, MO, Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, and Monrovia display the same kind of dynamic? That's something that should be addressed in my opinion. There is no way that societies on different continents with different influences can be so similar without a genetic cause of their shared dysfunction.
As for mass immigration, I don't reject it because of IQ solely. I reject it because I don't want my four children to be disenfranchised and bound to an ever-increasing population that will never allow them to reach their true potential. My most fundamental moral charism is to provide for and protect them, and mass immigration is a serious threat to their future happiness and well being (I believe).
I wish I could understand your reply more thoroughly. I admit that a lot of this is above my pay grade. I'm just offering my take on things even if I'm not the most knowledgable on this topic. Thank you for your thoughts.
Almost of wars are caused by irrational inputs. Indeed there are theoretical rational cases. Europeans have believed in crap fairy tales since a very long time.
Induced or tolerated poverty is never rational.
The universality of human stupidity don’t make Europeans less irrational, on avg.
Based on comparative perspective I agree that Europeans has been more “rational” than other groups but civilization necessarily is not the same than rationality or rational achievement.
My harsh criticisms against white people is not destructive but constructive. I want they improved in the two most important aspects of the human life/life: Morality and rationality. Behave well, think well.
Maybe you don’t understand what I have wrote here to think I’m a classical leftist??
They abolished slavery only in XIX. Why not in the XVI?? If they want really to abolish slavery they had done it earlier in “discovery era”.
There are different types of sophistication social sophistication not just technological ones.
All human groups has been uniquely irrational because their unique ways to misinterpret the world where they are, of course, with good achievements too.
As for your point about Europeans being irrational, I don't believe this is the case, or at least not in the way you mean it. Warfare, poverty, prejudice, etc. don't necessarily imply irrationality. There are rational cases for war. There are also limitations on resources which can lead to poverty.
But where I most definitely object is where you attribute those qualities as fundamental characteristics of European civilization. Poverty, warfare, prejudice, etc., are largely universal features of human life.
What makes societies unique however is how they address these issues. Europeans have developed great rationality over time, much greater than the global south. Europeans have experienced skyrocketed technological, philosophical, and ethical development over the last 1,000 years. There's no comparison there with the global south. Of course, societies like China also developed along rational lines. A man on the moon proves without a shadow of a doubt that western civilization outshines non-technological civilizations, just as China's sending an astronaut into orbit is proof of their greater sophistication versus a society like Mozambique.
It's like with slavery. Are Europeans uniquely irrational because they participated in slavery? No, because that mode of suffering was widespread historically. You even had black Bantu slaves in China.
No, what makes Europeans actually uniquely rational in this matter is the effort to abolish slavery, which was a white European/American venture. In fact slavery continues in much of Africa today, but is absent in NA and EU.
As for the shy Africans, I don't really think speculation leads to a more accurate picture. Regardless of who leads a society, IQ does contribute to the overall trajectory and condition of that society. Otherwise it wouldn't correlate with SO much! If the societies with the lowest life expectancies, per capita income, access to quality healthcare, etc., all correlate with lower IQ, then "g" is a pretty important metric.
And then we have the universal character of it; how can St. Louis, MO, Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, and Monrovia display the same kind of dynamic? That's something that should be addressed in my opinion. There is no way that societies on different continents with different influences can be so similar without a genetic cause of their shared dysfunction.
As for mass immigration, I don't reject it because of IQ solely. I reject it because I don't want my four children to be disenfranchised and bound to an ever-increasing population that will never allow them to reach their true potential. My most fundamental moral charism is to provide for and protect them, and mass immigration is a serious threat to their future happiness and well being (I believe).
I wish I could understand your reply more thoroughly. I admit that a lot of this is above my pay grade. I'm just offering my take on things even if I'm not the most knowledgable on this topic. Thank you for your thoughts.
In my country Brazil force/masculine truculence and popularity dominates reason in almost all social spheres. I ask myself how many young Africans feel the same impotency.
Are you old enough to remember the slogan "Ouro para o bem do Brasil!"?
Mostly, who wins is determined by the media. Media typically goes with some combination of target-audience bias (established through prior media conditioning), with an admixture of some purported "fact" that meets conditions of believability, plus some measure of high-profile popularity.
Based on my earlier comments I think it’s easy to see I favor looking to see what the data indicate. But since you don’t like data I was trying to understand what was your preferred alternative.
If you really think letting the media decide is preferable to looking at the relevant data I don’t think I have anything more to say.
I was saying that "data" shows the media has a far greater impact on what happens, and on what gets accomplished, than does the "intelligence" of some defined group. Yes, it was necessary that you think about what I wrote in order to understand that.
Score very lower in IQ tests can be:
Errors in calculation
Correct and you have partial mental "retardation"
Correct and you no have any retardation degree because you're just like older humans, with lower "IQ" and with "normal" behavior.
Genetic differences between human populations showed that all of us derived from Africans,
LOL at 2 standard deviation depression in IQ mean being “calculation noise”.
Learn some stats doofus.
P.S. you just discovered what’s called the Flynn effect
If you have evidence what you are talking...
According to this article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577478482432277706
"Eric Turkheimer and others at the University of Virginia have shown that in the most disadvantaged families, heritability of IQ falls and the influence attributed to the shared family environment rises to 60%."
And here is Turkheimer et al. paper:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf
"SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS MODIFIES HERITABILITY OF IQ
IN YOUNG CHILDREN" Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D’Onofrio,
and Irving I. Gottesman
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
So it seems there is no contradiction and the Super-Flynn effect exists. Environment has much stronger effect on IQ test results than what Lynn and Vanhanen wants us to believe. It would be interesting to differentiate the environment factors into social and physical like being surrounded by stupid and boring people in early life (social) and poor nutrition in early development (physical).
The bottom line is that the Super-Flynn effect that you hypothesized upon critical reading of Flynn and Vanhanen undermines pretty much all contentions held by the believers of strong IQ hypothesis who do not have time or place for a "weak IQ hypothesis" as their interests in the field stems from racists ideations, vide Flynn.
Interesting comment on twin studies. That the effect of genes may not be nearly as strong as some might like to believe is consistent with the fact that Sir Cyril Burt, one-time President of the British Psychological Society and a firm believer in the genetic determination of IQ, faked some, if not most, of his twin-study results.
Your assessment is also consistent with an axiom of biology; namely, that phenotype is always the product of genotype plus environment. Mozart wouldn’t have been Mozart without inherent genius. But it is also true that he would not have been Mozart had his father not abandoned his own career to the cultivation of the musical talents of his children. Or to put that another way, if my father had been Leopold Mozart, I would not have been Mozart, but as composer and performer I’d have been damn good.
That has to be true of any form of mental performance including the performance of IQ tests. As Ron Unz has discussed in Race, IQ and Wealth there are almost certain to be some genetic differences among populations or races in mental capacity. For example, Australian aborigines, among the most genetically isolated of all human races, appear to have an enlarged visual cortex relative to that of caucasians, a difference related perhaps to a superior pathfinding in the bush.
But except in cases of pathological deficits, differences in the genetic basis of intelligence may be quite limited. Many animals, it now seems, more or less match humans in various reasoning tasks, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms are robust products of long evolution.
IQ tests, however, involve disciplined observing, comparing, contrasting, reconfiguring, and calculating. Such a disciplined approach to thinking is what most education is about. Therefore, one would expect vast differences in IQ test results according to the culture and especially the education in which people have been raised.
Now imagine we place all 1000 babies in similar families of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Obviously then k would be small. It seems that by a proper selection of environments we can make k arbitrarily small. Then one could make a claim that "IQ is at least 99% percent hereditary", right? Conversely we place the babies in widely different environments: some we would give to traveling Gypsies, some to Burkina Faso, one to Donald Trump and some to Upper West Side Jews, some to Amish...you get the point. What will happen to k? Obviously it would get larger. Could k=0.2 or k=0.3 or k=0.4? What is the maximal possible value? Actually, it is possible for k to approach the value of 1. I can place 500 babies in decent but identical environments (say Ulster families from previous case) that they would attain similar value of IQ on test, and 500 babies in stimulation deprived dark basements turning them into retarded idiots with IQ≈0 scores. This will make MEAN= IQ/2 and SD=MEAN and thus k=1.
Now reflect, what possible statements like "IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary" or " "IQ is at least 50 percent hereditary" can mean? Is there a scientific basis form making such statements? I keep repeating, that the whole business is a pseudo-science not just because I want to upset some True Believers (vide @szopen) but because as @MCPO USN very mildly stated "IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable."
All environments aren't equal, and all variables aren't equal.
If an Australian Aborigines can pass down and remember massive oral histories that's great, but if they can't learn algebra or diagram a sentence there's little need to educate them past the eighth grade.
We aren't interested in all possible worlds. The one we live is not secure enough for that.
Also it's not as though the dichotomy is IQ/No IQ. It's IQ/White racism is the root of all evil.
I say all this, but I enjoyed reading your comment. I'm sure I will learn much from your reply. My thoughts are those of someone knowing nothing of genetics and only really looking at history and anthropology.
Now I'll stop hogging the thread lol.
These are certain tasks, no? I didn’t say they were simple tasks.
I’m afraid I’m not really too well-informed on this issue; I’m not a specialist in anything pertaining to IQ, and I really am only reacting to the things I’ve read or heard said about the topic. Based on that I tend to think IQ is a reasonable predictor of relative “success” (over several meanings of the term) in a society, but I think, also, that IQ is very sensitive to artifacts, the Flynn effect being of course the most well-known, and I’m especially suspicious of the way international IQ seems to track the current world order. Perhaps we’ve reached the apex of world development, and all men are finally achieving to their full potential for the first time in history, but I tend somehow to doubt it. I suspect the same testing done cross-culturally in 1800 or 1900 would produce different results.
This is true. But though I don’t live in Australia, I would be quite surprised to hear that high-school education is such a valuable commodity that it must be carefully rationed. Surely in a modern Western society we can afford to educate the smart blacks and aborigines?
And I agree that IQ cannot be simply dismissed; it is a very useful tool, and, indeed, it is very probable that some groups (I’m thinking mostly of American blacks) seem to be at a severe disadvantage in “g”, and this poses a problem for race relations.
Nevertheless I am also skeptical of claims that blacks (or whoever) can’t live by law in a stable society. Ants manage it, and they’re pretty dumb. More to the point, don’t almost all races live, most of the time, in a reasonably stable society? Many American blacks get away with not doing this because the surrounding society is stable enough to support them- but that wouldn’t be true of a tribe in Africa, which would starve or get wiped out by its neighbors if it behaved in the way many American blacks do.
The point of my comment above was that “CanSpeccy” really wasn’t making any sense, which was a pity, because it seemed like he might have interesting things to say but wasn’t saying them. I rather doubt you’ll “learn much from this reply”, unfortunately , and I’m sorry if I disappoint.
Thanks,
RSDB
All environments aren't equal, and all variables aren't equal.
If an Australian Aborigines can pass down and remember massive oral histories that's great, but if they can't learn algebra or diagram a sentence there's little need to educate them past the eighth grade.
We aren't interested in all possible worlds. The one we live is not secure enough for that.
Also it's not as though the dichotomy is IQ/No IQ. It's IQ/White racism is the root of all evil.
I say all this, but I enjoyed reading your comment. I'm sure I will learn much from your reply. My thoughts are those of someone knowing nothing of genetics and only really looking at history and anthropology.
Now I'll stop hogging the thread lol.
I am not sure if you imply that Australian aborigines are too dumb to do math, but apparently they have a quite sophisticated mathematical culture of their own.
Media is powerful; in fact media is pushing Equalism so hard most people still believe in it.
But the reality on the ground, which is data, is absolutely crucial.
If IQ correlates with per capita income, in EVERY society, then surely that data matters?
What motivates me is that this stuff isn't simple abstraction. It isn't an academic exercise alone.
The fate of societies depends on a clear analysis of that data.
Can the great wave of African migrants assimilate into French culture and enter the French middle class, or is it impossible?
If their IQs are 64, then no, it's not realistically possible. If IQ is an accurate tool for measurement, then we have to be very concerned about whether or not these migrants will remain a large, hopeless, eternally-defendant underclass that will burden French children twenty years from now.
That those of Bantu-Speaking ancestry are failing more or less universally is not in dispute. Haiti, Houston, TX, and Harare are largely in the same boat in terms of underperformance. Why? If IQ isn't responsible then what is?
If IQ is correlating with the level of electrical activity in the brain even, doesn't that mean something?
I don't understand how that could be dismissed. I am eager to find out why you think so, however.
All that such a correlation shows is that mental competence in one field tends to correlate with mental competence in another, which is not surprising since mental competence in most fields of endeavor involves many of a single set of mental functions: observing, comparing, contrasting, rearranging, learning, projecting, calculating, etc.
Why would you want millions of Africans to assimilate into French culture, whatever their IQ’s? What if their IQ’s were higher than those of the French? It would mean the even more rapid displacement of the French from their homeland by people from elsewhere. Why is that a good thing?
Humans, like many animals are territorial. But the division of the world into self-governing geographically defined states does not serve the Money Power, so they have set out to destroy the nation states: a process that means the destruction of the European peoples, through mass immigration inflicted on populations that are suffering reproductive dysfunction due to a toxic culture, imposed upon them by a globalist elite.
Whether the replacement immigrant population has a high of low IQ seems an entirely trivial question compared with the issue of national genocide.
Induced or tolerated poverty is never rational.
The universality of human stupidity don't make Europeans less irrational, on avg.
Based on comparative perspective I agree that Europeans has been more "rational" than other groups but civilization necessarily is not the same than rationality or rational achievement.
My harsh criticisms against white people is not destructive but constructive. I want they improved in the two most important aspects of the human life/life: Morality and rationality. Behave well, think well.
Maybe you don't understand what I have wrote here to think I'm a classical leftist??
They abolished slavery only in XIX. Why not in the XVI?? If they want really to abolish slavery they had done it earlier in "discovery era".
There are different types of sophistication social sophistication not just technological ones.
All human groups has been uniquely irrational because their unique ways to misinterpret the world where they are, of course, with good achievements too.
My dear fellow, your expectations are totally unreasonable. White people did it, for God’s sake. They made slavery illegal. No one did it before them.
The Muslims practiced slavery, and still do in some places so it is alleged. The Africans practiced slavery, still do in some places so it is alleged. The Chinese practiced slavery, and still do if you count having people work in factories with anti-suicide nets. The Amerindians practiced slavery, while some of them were cannibals too.
The abolition of slavery was a true aberration in human history, the result of a strange liberal delusion that the Anglos have now entirely overcome, although the slavery they practice today is of a modern form in accordance with which brainwashing under the guise of education and entertainment, and minimal wages combined with maximum debt makes the slave uncomplainingly responsible for his or her own maintenance.
Media is powerful; in fact media is pushing Equalism so hard most people still believe in it.
But the reality on the ground, which is data, is absolutely crucial.
If IQ correlates with per capita income, in EVERY society, then surely that data matters?
What motivates me is that this stuff isn't simple abstraction. It isn't an academic exercise alone.
The fate of societies depends on a clear analysis of that data.
Can the great wave of African migrants assimilate into French culture and enter the French middle class, or is it impossible?
If their IQs are 64, then no, it's not realistically possible. If IQ is an accurate tool for measurement, then we have to be very concerned about whether or not these migrants will remain a large, hopeless, eternally-defendant underclass that will burden French children twenty years from now.
That those of Bantu-Speaking ancestry are failing more or less universally is not in dispute. Haiti, Houston, TX, and Harare are largely in the same boat in terms of underperformance. Why? If IQ isn't responsible then what is?
If IQ is correlating with the level of electrical activity in the brain even, doesn't that mean something?
I don't understand how that could be dismissed. I am eager to find out why you think so, however.
In fields where intelligence has operational effect, it stands to reason (and fact) that individuals of greater intelligence will have greater effect, or greater efficiency, or some related parameter affected by intelligence. That is, of course, IF “better” is possible, since you can’t grow corn on a desert atoll, much less produce higher yields. Some of the advantages held by intelligence are limited, by circumstance and environment.
I’m a believer in intelligence, but it is my opinion that IQ, as a metric calculated from testing, and from test designs that test IQ by definitions that can be a bit malleable … that IQ is simply not the final arbiter that some people think. Tying intelligence to IQ, and IQ to genetic superiority in the evolutionary sense is, imo, going several steps further than evidence fully supports.
The HBD enthusiasm for genotypes that produce “evolutionally more adaptive” IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.
The HBD enthusiasm for genotypes that produce “evolutionally more adaptive” IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable."
I concur.
If you really think letting the media decide is preferable to looking at the relevant data I don't think I have anything more to say.
Thus, your net “say” content so far is zero.
I was saying that “data” shows the media has a far greater impact on what happens, and on what gets accomplished, than does the “intelligence” of some defined group. Yes, it was necessary that you think about what I wrote in order to understand that.
That’s true everywhere, specific characteristics being dependent upon the culture.
Are you old enough to remember the slogan “Ouro para o bem do Brasil!”?
Are you old enough to remember the slogan "Ouro para o bem do Brasil!"?
No. I have 28 years old.
For a few months, huge public promotions were held, usually sponsored by some rica -- wife of the mayor, or governor, or some such notable. She would pluck some piece of costume jewelry from around her neck, toss it in one of the collection barrels. The common people would rally round and fill the barrels.
Obviously, Brazilians aren't THAT stupid, but, nevertheless, a substantial amount of gold was collected and, supposedly, delivered to os oficios. It was never seen again. No one knows what happened to the gold. The program disappeared from the media overnight.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and that's been good enough to keep making the rich richer since the dawn of history.
“They” did it… In the middle of XIX century!!!! Since 1500- ~1850 “they” use it to their own advantage. And today we have multinationals using/exploiting the cheap work force in the third world…. Do you really read my comment?? Read it and refute point by point. You just repeat what mister Brooks argued.
I am sorry but you picked on the wrong person. I am not a self-hating whitey, like the Euro-American morons, mostly women it seems, who support Hillary.
But anyway, how come a Hispanic lectures the Anglos on the subject of slavery? I just don't understand that.
The Spanish in Latin America were vastly more cruel in their exploitation of the indigenous population than the Anglos and the French in North America — and that is saying something.
Learn some stats doofus.
P.S. you just discovered what's called the Flynn effect
Yes. Impossible that Americans in 40′s scored around 70.
If you have evidence what you are talking…
Lynn provides references to all sources he uses. If you would read his book or article, you would knew. But once again you are commenting on the issue you have on idea about, using the same arguments.
For Burkina Faso Lynn marks it as “estimated IQ”, based on IQs on neighbouring countries (Sierra Leone 64, Ghana 71, Guinea 63)
For example, for Ghana he as a source gives Glewwe & Jacoby from 1992, IQ 62, corrected up due to Flynn Effect etc. (test on 1639 adults on colored progressive matrices)
His methodology was criticised by Wicherts et al, who IIRC corrects Lynn’s national IQ by 5 points up (Lynn estimate is 75 for SSA, Wicherts’ was 80).
None of this is secrecy. All the data is freely available and one can easily google it up.
And, as you keep accusing IQ of “pseudoscience” without giving any arguments, let me remind you:
(1) No other phenomenon in whole psychology was replicated more consistenly and more often than works on “g”. If IQ is pseudoscience, then whole psychology is just voodoo of some kind. Multiple intelligences, stereotype threats, priming, implicit association tests all have much, much, much weaker evidence for and much, much, much more evidence against.
(2) There is no better predictor of success in life than “g” extracted from IQ tests. When you measure children’s “g”, in western societies it predicts better their future education, future income, criminality, life span and achievements. This is a finding replicated multiple times.
(3) You keep asking questions and writing things which can be easily answered if you really read some of books. This means you are commenting on research which you have not familiarized with.
(4) No other research explains more consistenly differeing outcomes of different people. If IQ is pseudoscience, then you have no explanation at all for explaining why some people achieve more, and some other achieve less in life, as all other explanations have much weaker support than research on IQ.
In other words, you have replicated phenomenon, which can be used to predict, which can be falsified (and as yet was NOT falsified). You are saying this is a pseudoscience. This tells me you have no idea what a science is and what are criteria of determining what is science and what is not.
Most of your arguments seem to be similar to those made by Gould, who is nowadays known mostly for his dishonest manipulation of data and misquotations.This tells me you have ideological agenda and you are not here for honest discussion, but rather in order to spread propaganda.
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
BTW, there are other countries that have large discrepancies between children and adult results in Lynn table.
What did Lynn used? The average or weighted average of 92 and 106 or whichever produced lower residual from his linear regression fit?
Do you buy Ron Unz speculations that the drop from 106 to 92 in 10 years was caused by economy falling apart during transition from communism to capitalism? (While reading it in his paper I was wondering whether it was Unz's sense of humor or he really meant it?)
Were there more recent studies of IQ in Poland? They must have improved since 1989, right?
Hey, szopen you are a hopeless true believer in what amounts to be a true BS. You are too smart for this whether your IQ is 106 or 92. Get a life.
First of all, we are talking about people coming from SES (i.e. gap exists between children from blacks and whites coming from similar SES).
Second, IQ predicts equally well within each race. IQ OVERpredicts success for black americans compared to whites, which is, however, easily explained by affirmative action.
Third, the fact that predictor is not 100% accurate does not mean it is useless. There is no better predictor than IQ – if it is useless, then you are left with pretty much nothing.
And the Lynn thesis is backed up by tons of real world effects of the IQ discrepancy. North Italian economy is vastly superior to the South, it's inarguably and stark as can be. Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing), and the fact that South Italians' closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s.
And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards "terroni" down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don't arise out of thin air.
So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn't fit your desires, lmao.
“And the Lynn thesis is backed up by tons of real world effects of the IQ discrepancy. North Italian economy is vastly superior to the South, it’s inarguably and stark as can be.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9511-cultural-recuperation-and-the-case-of-southern-italy
The northern economy wasn’t superior through history buddy. What real world effects? Using garbage PISA data you’ll see “intelligence differences” (PISA is an achievement test not an IQ test), but using Ravens colored progressive matrices, the “gap” closes and southern italians score higher than the north in some of them. But I guess Richard Lynn can never be wrong, right? What do you think about the IQ of Mauritania? It’s the IQ of retarded Spanish school children, not Mauritania. Oh no, but we should cite bunk data and if we say otherwise than we must be triggered. Don’t call out bullshit. Don’t challenge claims. Just let them be said!! There is no challenging anything, once something is said it’s true!
“Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing)”
PISA is an achievement test, not IQ test.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2012-damico.pdf
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/
“the fact that South Italians’ closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vittorio_Daniele/publication/234034734_Are_people_in_the_South_less_intelligent_than_in_the_North_IQ_and_the_NorthSouth_disparity_in_Italy/links/00b7d52977a5022567000000.pdf
I guess environment doesn’t matter to intelligence. It’s not like southern Italy and Greece have to deal with malaria (it’s based on climate not race).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/
“And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards “terroni” down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don’t arise out of thin air.”
Average people can tell generic differences? Nope. There is a bigger genetic difference in South and North swedes and South and North Germans than North and South Italians. Any differences between them mean they are different ethnies. See how retarded that sounds?
“So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn’t fit your desires, lmao.”
On Ravens colored progressive matrices, southern italians close the gap and other times they score higher. If you want to use PISA as an IQ test, OK. But it isn’t. Ravens colored progressive matrices shows otherwise.
So you’re saying just take what people say as gospel without doing any research and reading in to the matter. If there WAS a difference, a genetic difference in both ethnicity and IQ I’d be the first to admit it. But there isn’t. It’s just Nordicist garbage.
If you have evidence what you are talking...
This is true. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, I think Flynn cites this and it’s in Rushton and Jensen’s 2005 paper.
In 1963, 1964, the Goulart government was contending with extreme inflation and virtual economic collapse. When Goulart was forced out, Castelo Branco took over, along with a few other military and the rich. One of the most shameful programs I have ever seen enacted against the working class was “Ouro para o bem do Brasil”. The trick was to convince the people that a massive collection of gold jewelry, (mostly from the poor and the small middle class), would be used to create gold stores that would back up the cruzeiro, thereby saving Brasil and stabilizing its currency forever.
For a few months, huge public promotions were held, usually sponsored by some rica — wife of the mayor, or governor, or some such notable. She would pluck some piece of costume jewelry from around her neck, toss it in one of the collection barrels. The common people would rally round and fill the barrels.
Obviously, Brazilians aren’t THAT stupid, but, nevertheless, a substantial amount of gold was collected and, supposedly, delivered to os oficios. It was never seen again. No one knows what happened to the gold. The program disappeared from the media overnight.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and that’s been good enough to keep making the rich richer since the dawn of history.
For Burkina Faso Lynn marks it as "estimated IQ", based on IQs on neighbouring countries (Sierra Leone 64, Ghana 71, Guinea 63)
For example, for Ghana he as a source gives Glewwe & Jacoby from 1992, IQ 62, corrected up due to Flynn Effect etc. (test on 1639 adults on colored progressive matrices)
His methodology was criticised by Wicherts et al, who IIRC corrects Lynn's national IQ by 5 points up (Lynn estimate is 75 for SSA, Wicherts' was 80).
None of this is secrecy. All the data is freely available and one can easily google it up.
And, as you keep accusing IQ of "pseudoscience" without giving any arguments, let me remind you:
(1) No other phenomenon in whole psychology was replicated more consistenly and more often than works on "g". If IQ is pseudoscience, then whole psychology is just voodoo of some kind. Multiple intelligences, stereotype threats, priming, implicit association tests all have much, much, much weaker evidence for and much, much, much more evidence against.
(2) There is no better predictor of success in life than "g" extracted from IQ tests. When you measure children's "g", in western societies it predicts better their future education, future income, criminality, life span and achievements. This is a finding replicated multiple times.
(3) You keep asking questions and writing things which can be easily answered if you really read some of books. This means you are commenting on research which you have not familiarized with.
(4) No other research explains more consistenly differeing outcomes of different people. If IQ is pseudoscience, then you have no explanation at all for explaining why some people achieve more, and some other achieve less in life, as all other explanations have much weaker support than research on IQ.
In other words, you have replicated phenomenon, which can be used to predict, which can be falsified (and as yet was NOT falsified). You are saying this is a pseudoscience. This tells me you have no idea what a science is and what are criteria of determining what is science and what is not.
Most of your arguments seem to be similar to those made by Gould, who is nowadays known mostly for his dishonest manipulation of data and misquotations.This tells me you have ideological agenda and you are not here for honest discussion, but rather in order to spread propaganda.
Wrong. Success and/or wealth status of an individual’s parents is by far the best predictor of individual success.
Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127
Full text available at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf
A book chapter from the same researcher is available at https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf
I think this provides a good summary of the paper's intent:Regarding the question at hand (SES vs IQ as a predictor of success) the paper states (long quotes so I can't be accused of taking anything out of context):and this summarizes their conclusions (from section 6.2):See Table 1 for the quantitative results. The discussion in section 7.1 contains this which may be a little more palatable to fans of SES as a predictor:Relating all of this back to the earlier discussion, it is easy to see that szopen's statement "There is no better predictor of success in life than “g” extracted from IQ tests" is supported by this large and thorough meta-analysis.
On the other hand, MCPO USN's statement "Success and/or wealth status of an individual’s parents is by far the best predictor of individual success" is shown to be (to use a technical term he seems to like): Wrong.
I'm a believer in intelligence, but it is my opinion that IQ, as a metric calculated from testing, and from test designs that test IQ by definitions that can be a bit malleable ... that IQ is simply not the final arbiter that some people think. Tying intelligence to IQ, and IQ to genetic superiority in the evolutionary sense is, imo, going several steps further than evidence fully supports.
The HBD enthusiasm for genotypes that produce "evolutionally more adaptive" IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.
“I’m a believer in intelligence, but it is my opinion that IQ, as a metric calculated from testing, and from test designs that test IQ by definitions that can be a bit malleable … that IQ is simply not the final arbiter that some people think. Tying intelligence to IQ, and IQ to genetic superiority in the evolutionary sense is, imo, going several steps further than evidence fully supports.
The HBD enthusiasm for genotypes that produce “evolutionally more adaptive” IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.”
I concur.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9511-cultural-recuperation-and-the-case-of-southern-italy
The northern economy wasn't superior through history buddy. What real world effects? Using garbage PISA data you'll see "intelligence differences" (PISA is an achievement test not an IQ test), but using Ravens colored progressive matrices, the "gap" closes and southern italians score higher than the north in some of them. But I guess Richard Lynn can never be wrong, right? What do you think about the IQ of Mauritania? It's the IQ of retarded Spanish school children, not Mauritania. Oh no, but we should cite bunk data and if we say otherwise than we must be triggered. Don't call out bullshit. Don't challenge claims. Just let them be said!! There is no challenging anything, once something is said it's true!
"Then there is the vast discrepancies in the Pisa scores (despite your little blog that disproves nothing)"
PISA is an achievement test, not IQ test.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2012-damico.pdf
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/
"the fact that South Italians’ closest genetic relatives that are the Greeks also score similarly low IQ in the low 90s or high 80s."https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vittorio_Daniele/publication/234034734_Are_people_in_the_South_less_intelligent_than_in_the_North_IQ_and_the_NorthSouth_disparity_in_Italy/links/00b7d52977a5022567000000.pdf
I guess environment doesn't matter to intelligence. It's not like southern Italy and Greece have to deal with malaria (it's based on climate not race).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/
"And finally, the acknowledgement of such a stark difference by North Italians themselves, who are always quick to distance themselves from the backwards “terroni” down south. Such stereotypes and tensions don’t arise out of thin air."
Average people can tell generic differences? Nope. There is a bigger genetic difference in South and North swedes and South and North Germans than North and South Italians. Any differences between them mean they are different ethnies. See how retarded that sounds?
"So much for so called race realism when the realism doesn’t fit your desires, lmao."
On Ravens colored progressive matrices, southern italians close the gap and other times they score higher. If you want to use PISA as an IQ test, OK. But it isn't. Ravens colored progressive matrices shows otherwise.
So you're saying just take what people say as gospel without doing any research and reading in to the matter. If there WAS a difference, a genetic difference in both ethnicity and IQ I'd be the first to admit it. But there isn't. It's just Nordicist garbage.
Mostly, yes. Mostly, you’re talking about an HBD agenda on IQ that is based in small fragments of fact and big honking chunks of bullshit.
RR believe in most of what you are defining as a ''HBD agenda''. Less in the part in wich their cognitive biases are threatened, for example, southern/northern italian differences.
Actualization tests explain this noise. I know this noise was found but it don’t reflect real IQ scores.
For a few months, huge public promotions were held, usually sponsored by some rica -- wife of the mayor, or governor, or some such notable. She would pluck some piece of costume jewelry from around her neck, toss it in one of the collection barrels. The common people would rally round and fill the barrels.
Obviously, Brazilians aren't THAT stupid, but, nevertheless, a substantial amount of gold was collected and, supposedly, delivered to os oficios. It was never seen again. No one knows what happened to the gold. The program disappeared from the media overnight.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and that's been good enough to keep making the rich richer since the dawn of history.
I disagree,
Yup, human and white ”history”. Sometimes burn ”history books” is not bad at all.
I know RR, he’s not trustworthy (but i thought if you also are not) .
RR believe in most of what you are defining as a ”HBD agenda”. Less in the part in wich their cognitive biases are threatened, for example, southern/northern italian differences.
“Wrong.” is not an argument (but it is a conclusion, see below). For anyone actually interested in the reality of this issue (rather than just reciting favored talking points without evidence). This paper provides a large meta-analysis:
Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127
Full text available at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf
A book chapter from the same researcher is available at https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf
I think this provides a good summary of the paper’s intent:
Regarding the question at hand (SES vs IQ as a predictor of success) the paper states (long quotes so I can’t be accused of taking anything out of context):
and this summarizes their conclusions (from section 6.2):
See Table 1 for the quantitative results. The discussion in section 7.1 contains this which may be a little more palatable to fans of SES as a predictor:
Relating all of this back to the earlier discussion, it is easy to see that szopen’s statement “There is no better predictor of success in life than “g” extracted from IQ tests” is supported by this large and thorough meta-analysis.
On the other hand, MCPO USN’s statement “Success and/or wealth status of an individual’s parents is by far the best predictor of individual success” is shown to be (to use a technical term he seems to like): Wrong.
You are, of course, welcome to any "research" you find to your liking. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer, and the children of the rich follow suit. College graduates of today are unlikely to find employment in their "degree" fields -- education, in our economy, really means very little. It's who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time.
Certainly, there is grossly-overpaid government employment to consider as an option, an option that invalidates all claims to expertise, education, experience and intelligence. It will be interesting to see how the role of government plays out, as the American economy crashes and burns. Your fave researchers will have to do it all over again.
RR believe in most of what you are defining as a ''HBD agenda''. Less in the part in wich their cognitive biases are threatened, for example, southern/northern italian differences.
Quem? RR?
I’ll take a break from my break to briefly deal with this post that I’ve just seen.
The reason I give the anecdotes is to assist common sense in our analyses and hopefully to discourage total rationalism.
1. If randomness (and personal variance) was as significant as you say, do you think we would have the ability to predict the names of the people who will be at the top of the tournament (among the experts) based on past performances? What are the chances that someone could even be world champion three times? (Remember, it is NEVER because he has played some words which the other top experts have never heard of).
2. What about the dominance of Ashkenazi Jews in Scrabble awards — the same people who dominate awards in “non-random” cognitive fields? Do they just happen to also be the highest skilled in “dealing with randomness”?
3. We have the story of the “national champion” of young people (Mack Meller) in Scrabble being also the national champion of a mathematical contest that has zero randomness. Does that sound like his strongest Scrabble skill is dealing with randomness?
4. Is there a reason why randomness would favor males over females the more you go high in expertise? (And in exactly the same way it does in non-random cognitive fields).
5. Or the most obvious: The abundance of mathematicians at the top. Wouldn’t the game be more favorable to the more random/imperfect-information professions (social “sciences,” abstract art, etc)? (If you decide to argue that dealing with math is in some sense dealing with randomness then perhaps there is a correlation between dealing with randomness and general intelligence, which would make your point irrelevant?)
FWIW, from my experience playing Scrabble one of the things that really separates the best players is the ability to "turn lemons into lemonade", in other words making the best of a difficult rack of tiles. Even though the tile draw is random, the ability to deal with that is clearly both intelligence and practice (e.g. memorizing lists of obscure two and three letter words) related. There is also significant skill in ensuring good "leaves" to minimize the effect of randomness (pool is a good analogy here).
For everyone here questioning the relationship of Scrabble and IQ: Have you actually played Scrabble with smart (e.g. IQ > 130) people?
Second, IQ predicts equally well within each race. IQ OVERpredicts success for black americans compared to whites, which is, however, easily explained by affirmative action.
Third, the fact that predictor is not 100% accurate does not mean it is useless. There is no better predictor than IQ - if it is useless, then you are left with pretty much nothing.
All other things being equal, ability in any field of employment will be more or less related to success, or what your refer to as SES. But there are many ways of getting money. There are dumb ways and smart ways. Being a whore requires little more than a warm body, but rocket science is rocket science. That being the so, obviously, those of lower general ability will succeed economically more often in the dumb occupations than the smart occupations. But what this has to do with the question of whether intelligence is largely racially determined as opposed to being determined by culture and education I don’t see.
RR believe in most of what you are defining as a ''HBD agenda''. Less in the part in wich their cognitive biases are threatened, for example, southern/northern italian differences.
More correctly, the “HBD agenda” minus the Sicilians. Can we hypothesize that RR88 has a soft spot for Southern Italians that he even dares to question Lynn’s supreme authority? (RR88: But I guess Richard Lynn can never be wrong, right?) RR88 exemplifies the problem with the IQ business. It is populated by people w/o scientific rigor and discipline who came to it mainly to find confirmations for their biases and prejudices. I suspect that majority of them apart from few Mensa freaks have mediocre IQ scores.
I don't understand your comment.
RR is a quite contradictory and sometimes funny guy who think he can debate with who he want. He defend some left-leaning point of views, for example, "evolution is not progressive. No there such thing superiority". And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack, he start to behave just like Chisala here.
I have no biases. I used to believe the so-called" intelligence differences "cited by Lynn. However upon further examination I realized it was wrong. PISA is not an IQ test but a test of achievement. If I'm wrong, as in on purer measures of intelligence (Ravens Progressive Matrices for one) that Southern Italians scored lower I would retract everything I've ever written on the matter and I would admit I was wrong. So far I've yet to come across that data.
I have no biases or prejudices. Just a want to discover truth and an objective look at data. But that must mean that I'm "biased" and "prejudiced".
Yes, but it made no sense. Neither does your latest comment.
I am sorry but you picked on the wrong person. I am not a self-hating whitey, like the Euro-American morons, mostly women it seems, who support Hillary.
But anyway, how come a Hispanic lectures the Anglos on the subject of slavery? I just don’t understand that.
The Spanish in Latin America were vastly more cruel in their exploitation of the indigenous population than the Anglos and the French in North America — and that is saying something.
Of course not , you're a "redpilled" one who think don't have any guilt about the past mistakes of the group you are belonging is perfectly normal, noble, the correct to do... From the extreme of self flagellation to the extreme of of stupid pride. Both stupid, both unwise. The rule among whites.
Your assessment is also consistent with an axiom of biology; namely, that phenotype is always the product of genotype plus environment. Mozart wouldn't have been Mozart without inherent genius. But it is also true that he would not have been Mozart had his father not abandoned his own career to the cultivation of the musical talents of his children. Or to put that another way, if my father had been Leopold Mozart, I would not have been Mozart, but as composer and performer I'd have been damn good.
That has to be true of any form of mental performance including the performance of IQ tests. As Ron Unz has discussed in Race, IQ and Wealth there are almost certain to be some genetic differences among populations or races in mental capacity. For example, Australian aborigines, among the most genetically isolated of all human races, appear to have an enlarged visual cortex relative to that of caucasians, a difference related perhaps to a superior pathfinding in the bush.
But except in cases of pathological deficits, differences in the genetic basis of intelligence may be quite limited. Many animals, it now seems, more or less match humans in various reasoning tasks, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms are robust products of long evolution.
IQ tests, however, involve disciplined observing, comparing, contrasting, reconfiguring, and calculating. Such a disciplined approach to thinking is what most education is about. Therefore, one would expect vast differences in IQ test results according to the culture and especially the education in which people have been raised.
What does Lynn’s claim that “IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary” possibly could mean? If we could clone Richard Lynn and produce 1000 identical little Richard Lynn babies and place them in different environments what would be mean and standard deviations of IQ’s scores when they are 18 years old? More exactly what would be the relation between SD and MEAN? Say, we define the parameter k=SD/MEAN, what value should be k to make the claim “IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary” valid? I am trying to figure out the meaning of the “80%” in Lynn’s claim.
Now imagine we place all 1000 babies in similar families of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Obviously then k would be small. It seems that by a proper selection of environments we can make k arbitrarily small. Then one could make a claim that “IQ is at least 99% percent hereditary”, right? Conversely we place the babies in widely different environments: some we would give to traveling Gypsies, some to Burkina Faso, one to Donald Trump and some to Upper West Side Jews, some to Amish…you get the point. What will happen to k? Obviously it would get larger. Could k=0.2 or k=0.3 or k=0.4? What is the maximal possible value? Actually, it is possible for k to approach the value of 1. I can place 500 babies in decent but identical environments (say Ulster families from previous case) that they would attain similar value of IQ on test, and 500 babies in stimulation deprived dark basements turning them into retarded idiots with IQ≈0 scores. This will make MEAN= IQ/2 and SD=MEAN and thus k=1.
Now reflect, what possible statements like “IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary” or ” “IQ is at least 50 percent hereditary” can mean? Is there a scientific basis form making such statements? I keep repeating, that the whole business is a pseudo-science not just because I want to upset some True Believers (vide ) but because as @MCPO USN very mildly stated “IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.”
But if we did this experiment multiple times with clones of a Burkino Fasist, an Irish Presbyterian, Donald Trump, and Isaac Newton (there must be a hair sample or a thumb print among his papers from which we could get the DNA) we might find some variation in means score over a range of environments. Then we would have some idea of how important genes are in determining mental capacity.
I include Isaac Newton because the mildly autistic personality seem's associated with exceptional mental abilities (and disabilities), perhaps due to a defect in the GABAergic signalling pathway, which prevents normal inhibition of neurological activity and thus results in obsessive thinking, which in Newton's case, meant solving a problem by "keeping it constantly before my mind until, little by little, it opened up."
Now imagine we place all 1000 babies in similar families of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Obviously then k would be small. It seems that by a proper selection of environments we can make k arbitrarily small. Then one could make a claim that "IQ is at least 99% percent hereditary", right? Conversely we place the babies in widely different environments: some we would give to traveling Gypsies, some to Burkina Faso, one to Donald Trump and some to Upper West Side Jews, some to Amish...you get the point. What will happen to k? Obviously it would get larger. Could k=0.2 or k=0.3 or k=0.4? What is the maximal possible value? Actually, it is possible for k to approach the value of 1. I can place 500 babies in decent but identical environments (say Ulster families from previous case) that they would attain similar value of IQ on test, and 500 babies in stimulation deprived dark basements turning them into retarded idiots with IQ≈0 scores. This will make MEAN= IQ/2 and SD=MEAN and thus k=1.
Now reflect, what possible statements like "IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary" or " "IQ is at least 50 percent hereditary" can mean? Is there a scientific basis form making such statements? I keep repeating, that the whole business is a pseudo-science not just because I want to upset some True Believers (vide @szopen) but because as @MCPO USN very mildly stated "IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable."
Editing ate up MCPO USN who mildly stated “IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.” and by the True Believer I meant szopen.
lol. Unz.com racists are confirmed shook.
Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127
Full text available at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf
A book chapter from the same researcher is available at https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-strenze.pdf
I think this provides a good summary of the paper's intent:Regarding the question at hand (SES vs IQ as a predictor of success) the paper states (long quotes so I can't be accused of taking anything out of context):and this summarizes their conclusions (from section 6.2):See Table 1 for the quantitative results. The discussion in section 7.1 contains this which may be a little more palatable to fans of SES as a predictor:Relating all of this back to the earlier discussion, it is easy to see that szopen's statement "There is no better predictor of success in life than “g” extracted from IQ tests" is supported by this large and thorough meta-analysis.
On the other hand, MCPO USN's statement "Success and/or wealth status of an individual’s parents is by far the best predictor of individual success" is shown to be (to use a technical term he seems to like): Wrong.
No. As I said, success and/or wealth status of an individual’s parents is by far the best predictor (not determinant) of individual success. Always has been, always will be.
You are, of course, welcome to any “research” you find to your liking. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer, and the children of the rich follow suit. College graduates of today are unlikely to find employment in their “degree” fields — education, in our economy, really means very little. It’s who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time.
Certainly, there is grossly-overpaid government employment to consider as an option, an option that invalidates all claims to expertise, education, experience and intelligence. It will be interesting to see how the role of government plays out, as the American economy crashes and burns. Your fave researchers will have to do it all over again.
For anyone who might be taking what you say seriously, think about the 99% comment in: "It’s who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time."
And again, for anyone who cares about understanding reality, please read the paper and decide for yourself.
I knew it ever since, Chisala.
Races differ in everything, from height to teeth shape to waist hip ratio to hair thickness, but they don’t in intelligence, crime rates and the likes.
A little training, some gratis Go and Chess boards, and world rankings will teem with black champions, even Hottentots.
Equality always wins.
Agreed, Chanda. Some comments though. Give academic gossip some credit. At least his(?) statement “Scrabble is not only a cognitive game, it is coupled to randomness and imperfect information” is literally true. It serves more as misleading “squid ink” than as the outright lies and inversions of reality that are far too common (see my last reply to MCPO USN for an example of that). It strikes me as being written in the standard form of academic obfuscation (amazing how frequently that style shows up in IQ conversations, I wonder if that is a coincidence ; ).
FWIW, from my experience playing Scrabble one of the things that really separates the best players is the ability to “turn lemons into lemonade”, in other words making the best of a difficult rack of tiles. Even though the tile draw is random, the ability to deal with that is clearly both intelligence and practice (e.g. memorizing lists of obscure two and three letter words) related. There is also significant skill in ensuring good “leaves” to minimize the effect of randomness (pool is a good analogy here).
For everyone here questioning the relationship of Scrabble and IQ: Have you actually played Scrabble with smart (e.g. IQ > 130) people?
In differing degrees the point of that observation could apply widely. It could apply to doing IQ tests - even those which just involve shape matching won't be done as well by a person doing his first ever test so he doesn't even know precisely what the language of a question means. Then there is every possibility that a bright 12 year old won't see any advantage in showing that he is better than his 14 year old classmates at everything he touches all the time. He gets 90 per cent when he could get 99 per cent and gets all the teacher approval he wants/can stand!
So, sure, you would expect a fair correlation between measured IQ and success at Scrabble but a far higher proportion of people would be taking seriously the maximising of their IQ scores than maximising their skills at Scrabble.
So CC's article is perhaps best seen as support for the view that African diversity extends to diversity in the cognitive abilities of different ethnic groups.
I am sorry but you picked on the wrong person. I am not a self-hating whitey, like the Euro-American morons, mostly women it seems, who support Hillary.
But anyway, how come a Hispanic lectures the Anglos on the subject of slavery? I just don't understand that.
The Spanish in Latin America were vastly more cruel in their exploitation of the indigenous population than the Anglos and the French in North America — and that is saying something.
Exactly because Spaniards and Portugueses are whites too,
Of course not , you’re a “redpilled” one who think don’t have any guilt about the past mistakes of the group you are belonging is perfectly normal, noble, the correct to do… From the extreme of self flagellation to the extreme of of stupid pride. Both stupid, both unwise. The rule among whites.
Ele mesmo.
Utu,
I don’t understand your comment.
RR is a quite contradictory and sometimes funny guy who think he can debate with who he want. He defend some left-leaning point of views, for example, “evolution is not progressive. No there such thing superiority”. And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack, he start to behave just like Chisala here.
I can.
" for example, “evolution is not progressive"
It isn't.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
"No there such thing superiority"
Not scientifically quantifiable. Organisms evolve for their environment and to say you can objectively say that organism a is superior to organism b is not based in reality.
"And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack,"
Are certain things not up for debate then? I should just accept Lynn's non-IQ numbers as gospel even when there are great critiques on it and how wrong he is? ..... I see.
You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on the non-progressiveness of evolution. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on superiority in biology. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on "the concept of more evolved" that PumpkinPerson likes to spew. But it's not a "leftist viewpoint", it's a scientific one.
Superior, more evolved, progressive evolution, all stupid and baseless terms in evolutionary biology. If you believe otherwise you're a fool.
You are, of course, welcome to any "research" you find to your liking. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer, and the children of the rich follow suit. College graduates of today are unlikely to find employment in their "degree" fields -- education, in our economy, really means very little. It's who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time.
Certainly, there is grossly-overpaid government employment to consider as an option, an option that invalidates all claims to expertise, education, experience and intelligence. It will be interesting to see how the role of government plays out, as the American economy crashes and burns. Your fave researchers will have to do it all over again.
“No.” is also not an argument. Look, I get that you can’t be bothered to read the paper (and probably wouldn’t understand it if you did). But please don’t confuse that with being correct. The “by far” part of your statement disqualifies it from being anything resembling accurate.
For anyone who might be taking what you say seriously, think about the 99% comment in: “It’s who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time.”
And again, for anyone who cares about understanding reality, please read the paper and decide for yourself.
No, I won't read the paper. Sorry. If peer review eventually amounts to acknowledgement that results of the paper, as written, cannot be challenged, I may review a summary.
Your attempt to insult me by suggesting that I could not understand the paper is a bit juvenile, don't you think?
Now imagine we place all 1000 babies in similar families of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Obviously then k would be small. It seems that by a proper selection of environments we can make k arbitrarily small. Then one could make a claim that "IQ is at least 99% percent hereditary", right? Conversely we place the babies in widely different environments: some we would give to traveling Gypsies, some to Burkina Faso, one to Donald Trump and some to Upper West Side Jews, some to Amish...you get the point. What will happen to k? Obviously it would get larger. Could k=0.2 or k=0.3 or k=0.4? What is the maximal possible value? Actually, it is possible for k to approach the value of 1. I can place 500 babies in decent but identical environments (say Ulster families from previous case) that they would attain similar value of IQ on test, and 500 babies in stimulation deprived dark basements turning them into retarded idiots with IQ≈0 scores. This will make MEAN= IQ/2 and SD=MEAN and thus k=1.
Now reflect, what possible statements like "IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary" or " "IQ is at least 50 percent hereditary" can mean? Is there a scientific basis form making such statements? I keep repeating, that the whole business is a pseudo-science not just because I want to upset some True Believers (vide @szopen) but because as @MCPO USN very mildly stated "IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable."
Good question.
But if we did this experiment multiple times with clones of a Burkino Fasist, an Irish Presbyterian, Donald Trump, and Isaac Newton (there must be a hair sample or a thumb print among his papers from which we could get the DNA) we might find some variation in means score over a range of environments. Then we would have some idea of how important genes are in determining mental capacity.
I include Isaac Newton because the mildly autistic personality seem’s associated with exceptional mental abilities (and disabilities), perhaps due to a defect in the GABAergic signalling pathway, which prevents normal inhibition of neurological activity and thus results in obsessive thinking, which in Newton’s case, meant solving a problem by “keeping it constantly before my mind until, little by little, it opened up.”
Of course not , you're a "redpilled" one who think don't have any guilt about the past mistakes of the group you are belonging is perfectly normal, noble, the correct to do... From the extreme of self flagellation to the extreme of of stupid pride. Both stupid, both unwise. The rule among whites.
Yes.
And right now we are at an extreme of imbecile self-flagellation when what we need is pride and a determination to survive in the face of the machinations of Hillary and her corporate-owned European counterparts, the likes of Merkel, Hollande, Bliar, Camoron and May, who are driving the Western nations to destruction.
“RR88 exemplifies the problem with the IQ business. It is populated by people w/o scientific rigor and discipline who came to it mainly to find confirmations for their biases and prejudices.”
I have no biases. I used to believe the so-called” intelligence differences “cited by Lynn. However upon further examination I realized it was wrong. PISA is not an IQ test but a test of achievement. If I’m wrong, as in on purer measures of intelligence (Ravens Progressive Matrices for one) that Southern Italians scored lower I would retract everything I’ve ever written on the matter and I would admit I was wrong. So far I’ve yet to come across that data.
I have no biases or prejudices. Just a want to discover truth and an objective look at data. But that must mean that I’m “biased” and “prejudiced”.
I don't understand your comment.
RR is a quite contradictory and sometimes funny guy who think he can debate with who he want. He defend some left-leaning point of views, for example, "evolution is not progressive. No there such thing superiority". And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack, he start to behave just like Chisala here.
“who think he can debate with who he want.”
I can.
” for example, “evolution is not progressive”
It isn’t.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
“No there such thing superiority”
Not scientifically quantifiable. Organisms evolve for their environment and to say you can objectively say that organism a is superior to organism b is not based in reality.
“And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack,”
Are certain things not up for debate then? I should just accept Lynn’s non-IQ numbers as gospel even when there are great critiques on it and how wrong he is? ….. I see.
You say I hold “leftist viewpoints” on the non-progressiveness of evolution. You say I hold “leftist viewpoints” on superiority in biology. You say I hold “leftist viewpoints” on “the concept of more evolved” that PumpkinPerson likes to spew. But it’s not a “leftist viewpoint”, it’s a scientific one.
Superior, more evolved, progressive evolution, all stupid and baseless terms in evolutionary biology. If you believe otherwise you’re a fool.
- Razib Kahn, 2016.So humans are not evolved than primates*A beautiful rose is not evolved than a simple bush*
I prefer to say that evolution is not a process of optimization. There is no issue of "superiority". When whales were land animals, were they inferior to their role as sea animals? No. Adaptation, selection, etc., does not mean "superior" in any qualitative sense. It means "exhibits reproductive success".
But if we did this experiment multiple times with clones of a Burkino Fasist, an Irish Presbyterian, Donald Trump, and Isaac Newton (there must be a hair sample or a thumb print among his papers from which we could get the DNA) we might find some variation in means score over a range of environments. Then we would have some idea of how important genes are in determining mental capacity.
I include Isaac Newton because the mildly autistic personality seem's associated with exceptional mental abilities (and disabilities), perhaps due to a defect in the GABAergic signalling pathway, which prevents normal inhibition of neurological activity and thus results in obsessive thinking, which in Newton's case, meant solving a problem by "keeping it constantly before my mind until, little by little, it opened up."
I have no problem with that intelligence exhibited at IQ testing is a function H-heredity and E-environment: IQ(H,E). We can safely stipulate that for each H there exists Eopt for which IQ(H,E) attains maximum value IQ(H), so IQ(H)≥IQ(H,E) and IQ(H)=IQ(H,Eopt). It is possible that Eopt is not the same for all H. Also some heredity can be more robust and some more fragile, i.e., for H1 IQ(H1,E)>0.85*IQ(H1) for, say 50% of all possible environments while for H2 this is true only for 10% environments.
Anyway, my point is what was the meaning and scientific validity of statements like “IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary.” At best we can interpret it as follow: Mr. Richard Llynn’s IQ is 80% of his maximally attainable IQ given his heredity. Perhaps for Llynn it was more than 80%, perhaps he was operating on the maximum of his potential. Besides individual case the statement “IQ is at least X percent hereditary” is really meaningless because there is no subject in this statement and w/o the subject the statement is not true. Nevertheless the statement and its unavoidable misconceptions fly around among IQ pseudo-scientists. Even Ron Unz tossed it around in his paper w/o reflecting on its meaning.
Basically what you are asking is what is IQ(H) where H=Newton heredity and what is IQ(H) for typical guy with H=Burkina Faso heredity. This is correctly posed question but we can’t answer it w/o taking 1000+ babies from Burkina Faso and having them adopted by upper class British scientists who are absolutely color blind and think the babies are theirs. Or sending baby clones of Newton to Burkina Faso.
[…] writer I don’t know much about, one Chanda Chisala, is doing […]
For Burkina Faso Lynn marks it as "estimated IQ", based on IQs on neighbouring countries (Sierra Leone 64, Ghana 71, Guinea 63)
For example, for Ghana he as a source gives Glewwe & Jacoby from 1992, IQ 62, corrected up due to Flynn Effect etc. (test on 1639 adults on colored progressive matrices)
His methodology was criticised by Wicherts et al, who IIRC corrects Lynn's national IQ by 5 points up (Lynn estimate is 75 for SSA, Wicherts' was 80).
None of this is secrecy. All the data is freely available and one can easily google it up.
And, as you keep accusing IQ of "pseudoscience" without giving any arguments, let me remind you:
(1) No other phenomenon in whole psychology was replicated more consistenly and more often than works on "g". If IQ is pseudoscience, then whole psychology is just voodoo of some kind. Multiple intelligences, stereotype threats, priming, implicit association tests all have much, much, much weaker evidence for and much, much, much more evidence against.
(2) There is no better predictor of success in life than "g" extracted from IQ tests. When you measure children's "g", in western societies it predicts better their future education, future income, criminality, life span and achievements. This is a finding replicated multiple times.
(3) You keep asking questions and writing things which can be easily answered if you really read some of books. This means you are commenting on research which you have not familiarized with.
(4) No other research explains more consistenly differeing outcomes of different people. If IQ is pseudoscience, then you have no explanation at all for explaining why some people achieve more, and some other achieve less in life, as all other explanations have much weaker support than research on IQ.
In other words, you have replicated phenomenon, which can be used to predict, which can be falsified (and as yet was NOT falsified). You are saying this is a pseudoscience. This tells me you have no idea what a science is and what are criteria of determining what is science and what is not.
Most of your arguments seem to be similar to those made by Gould, who is nowadays known mostly for his dishonest manipulation of data and misquotations.This tells me you have ideological agenda and you are not here for honest discussion, but rather in order to spread propaganda.
OK, Burkina Faso was interpolated. What about Poland. Two studies:
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
BTW, there are other countries that have large discrepancies between children and adult results in Lynn table.
What did Lynn used? The average or weighted average of 92 and 106 or whichever produced lower residual from his linear regression fit?
Do you buy Ron Unz speculations that the drop from 106 to 92 in 10 years was caused by economy falling apart during transition from communism to capitalism? (While reading it in his paper I was wondering whether it was Unz’s sense of humor or he really meant it?)
Were there more recent studies of IQ in Poland? They must have improved since 1989, right?
Hey, szopen you are a hopeless true believer in what amounts to be a true BS. You are too smart for this whether your IQ is 106 or 92. Get a life.
(2) Re Polish IQ: First study was from 1979 (Jaworowska) and was based on 4000 children from all over the Poland. Second was from 1981 (Buj) and based on 835 adults from urban area. Once again, it seems you have not actually read Lynn's study, you've just read Ron Unz essay, which from unknown reasons took the values for studies backwards. As such, Ron Unz speculations are wrong. The difference in results in expected, especially since there was Flynn effect (in RPM, 20 points increase in raw scores over last 60 years in 15y/o category!)
(3)Yes, there are more recent studies on POlish IQ. You can google them. You can also try to estimate national IQ using PISA and TIMSS scores (per Rinderman). Surprisingly, TIMSS and PISA gives very similar scores to Lynn's rough average. As such, I think Polish National IQ is in 94-96 range.
Do you think everything in psychology is BS? Or can you please give an example of some real science in psychology, something tangible, real and scientifically accurate? I would know what is your golden standard for science, then.
I have no biases. I used to believe the so-called" intelligence differences "cited by Lynn. However upon further examination I realized it was wrong. PISA is not an IQ test but a test of achievement. If I'm wrong, as in on purer measures of intelligence (Ravens Progressive Matrices for one) that Southern Italians scored lower I would retract everything I've ever written on the matter and I would admit I was wrong. So far I've yet to come across that data.
I have no biases or prejudices. Just a want to discover truth and an objective look at data. But that must mean that I'm "biased" and "prejudiced".
Your lack of shame in your face is deplorable!!! Or higher levels of cynicism or mental issues…
Already refutated in Pumpkin Person blog… it’s but is a indirect intelligence test.
pre-memorized sentence, you already use it…
Of course not , you're a "redpilled" one who think don't have any guilt about the past mistakes of the group you are belonging is perfectly normal, noble, the correct to do... From the extreme of self flagellation to the extreme of of stupid pride. Both stupid, both unwise. The rule among whites.
O que? O Português disse que não.
I'm mostly portuguese descent, that extremely stubborn people!!!!
I can.
" for example, “evolution is not progressive"
It isn't.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
"No there such thing superiority"
Not scientifically quantifiable. Organisms evolve for their environment and to say you can objectively say that organism a is superior to organism b is not based in reality.
"And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack,"
Are certain things not up for debate then? I should just accept Lynn's non-IQ numbers as gospel even when there are great critiques on it and how wrong he is? ..... I see.
You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on the non-progressiveness of evolution. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on superiority in biology. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on "the concept of more evolved" that PumpkinPerson likes to spew. But it's not a "leftist viewpoint", it's a scientific one.
Superior, more evolved, progressive evolution, all stupid and baseless terms in evolutionary biology. If you believe otherwise you're a fool.
u can.
I will not read it again.
improvise at least once in your life.
Humans are superior than a rock. Humans, a macro-organism, is not superior than a bacteria, a micro-organism**
PERSONAL OPINIONS
you confuse all the time your personal opinions with arguments.
A organism A can or not to be superior than a organism B. There millions of superiorities, similarities and inferiorities in the food chain. Science all the time quantify, classify and analyse the contrasts of the reality = superior, similar, equal, inferior…
Would perfectly reasonable if you don’t try to fit it with your emotionally-based/biased agenda.
Southern italians are less inteligent than Northern italians.. on avg.
You accept quickly studies that prove your point without the necessary scrutiny, what i showed for you in the PP blog.
Other personal opinion.
A desert of arguments.
Superior, more evolved, progressive evolution, all stupid and baseless terms in evolutionary biology. If you believe otherwise you’re a fool
- Razib Kahn, 2016.
So humans are not evolved than primates*
A beautiful rose is not evolved than a simple bush*
Stick a human in the waters of the Arctic, where the orca thrive. Will the human die? Yup, pretty damn quick. Is a human superior to an orca? Sure as all hell, NOT in arctic waters.
No offense, but there's people arguing here over things about which they know very little.
There are no unidirectional trends in evolution due to the frequency of environmental change, the multitude of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependant epistatic interactions amongst features, and selection occurring within populations.Horrible example. Rocks are not biological organisms. Bateria make up more than half of the biomass on Earth, who/what is "superior"?Citation needed.
Any trait looked at for 'superiority' will be arbitrary. Why look at intelligence, brain size or whatever other trait and not photosynthetic ability? Then plants would be "the most evolved" "superior" "progressive" organisms on the planet. This isn't so. Frankly, it's not a scientific question and is not scientifically quantifiable.I am not emotionally biased nor do I have an agenda. Well, my 'agenda' is the truth. As I've said previously, I used to believe Lynn's data but upon further examination it's false.Again, I used to believe the opposite until I read into it more. I didn't "quickly accept it", just as I didn't "quickly accept" human racial differences when I got in to this type of stuff.Statement of fact.
I asked Razib his opinion, to which he said:
people who talk in those terms about population genetics are inferior and less evolved. sabine’s statement in my other posts applies: you’re not a serious thinker and label yourself as stupid or ignorant.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-8142016/#comment-1531983Humans evolved differently than other primates. On what grounds can you say that chimps are 'more evolved' than humans? Because whatever arbitrary traits you choose for humans, I can quickly say that chimps can climb trees better and better survive in the wild than humans who have absolutely no tools and the like. Chimps wouldn't survive in first-world societies. So to compare "more evolved" organisms on their environment is idiotic and, again, not scientific.Funny you bring this up. Let's use the rose as linear, progressive evolution and the bush as branching evolution.
The branching evolutionary tree shows that organisms are fit enoughfor their environment and incur the relevant phenotypic traits to survive in that environment. The Rose shows just a straight line of 'progress'. How does that make any sense? The fact that erectus/habilis evolved into floresiensis who had a smaller stature and brain size due to lower energy (around 1100 kcal with 1400 kcal while nursing) compared to erectus (2300 kcal and 2800 while nursing) proves my point. Darwin's Finches prove my point since each Finch evolved the necessary traits to better survive in their little niche on the island. Which of Darwin's Finches has "progressed" more, which is "more evolved", which is "superior"?
I can.
" for example, “evolution is not progressive"
It isn't.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
"No there such thing superiority"
Not scientifically quantifiable. Organisms evolve for their environment and to say you can objectively say that organism a is superior to organism b is not based in reality.
"And yes, he is prone to believe in almost of hbd point of views less when their people are in attack,"
Are certain things not up for debate then? I should just accept Lynn's non-IQ numbers as gospel even when there are great critiques on it and how wrong he is? ..... I see.
You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on the non-progressiveness of evolution. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on superiority in biology. You say I hold "leftist viewpoints" on "the concept of more evolved" that PumpkinPerson likes to spew. But it's not a "leftist viewpoint", it's a scientific one.
Superior, more evolved, progressive evolution, all stupid and baseless terms in evolutionary biology. If you believe otherwise you're a fool.
Use a different word, as “progressive” does apply, in the sense that an adaptation, mutation, or selection begins with a “previous version” and “progresses” to the “current version,” so to speak.
I prefer to say that evolution is not a process of optimization. There is no issue of “superiority”. When whales were land animals, were they inferior to their role as sea animals? No. Adaptation, selection, etc., does not mean “superior” in any qualitative sense. It means “exhibits reproductive success”.
The nervous system of the tape worm, if it has a nervous system — I forget, no doubt adapts it to its environment at least as well as the human brain adapts mankind to his environment. Probably better, since humans appear on the brink of intelligence-driven self destruction by WMD's.
For anyone who might be taking what you say seriously, think about the 99% comment in: "It’s who you know, who your parents know, and how much money they have that determines your fate, 99% of the time."
And again, for anyone who cares about understanding reality, please read the paper and decide for yourself.
Were you under the impression I intend to present an HBD enthusiast with “argument”? Don’t be silly.
No, I won’t read the paper. Sorry. If peer review eventually amounts to acknowledgement that results of the paper, as written, cannot be challenged, I may review a summary.
Your attempt to insult me by suggesting that I could not understand the paper is a bit juvenile, don’t you think?
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
- Razib Kahn, 2016.So humans are not evolved than primates*A beautiful rose is not evolved than a simple bush*
Nope, sorry. The only arbiter of evolutionary success is reproductive success.
Stick a human in the waters of the Arctic, where the orca thrive. Will the human die? Yup, pretty damn quick. Is a human superior to an orca? Sure as all hell, NOT in arctic waters.
No offense, but there’s people arguing here over things about which they know very little.
The orca can talk with you about how superior or inferior s/he is**
NOPE.You take the words of my mouth, ;) ;)
Agreed. The technical difficulties are formidable, and the ethics committee would undoubtedly object to having babies brought up by upper class British families. And one would have to replicate the experiment many times within each group to detect racial differences in G.
I think your main point about the meaninglessness of the claim that G accounts for x% of intellectual phenotype is correct, and that your analysis of the error is useful to anyone trying to understand the determinants of intelligence and how one might go about studying them. No doubt there are simpler approaches than the one I suggested that might be instructive — If the question matters that much.
Seems their lower IQ,
I’m mostly portuguese descent, that extremely stubborn people!!!!
I prefer to say that evolution is not a process of optimization. There is no issue of "superiority". When whales were land animals, were they inferior to their role as sea animals? No. Adaptation, selection, etc., does not mean "superior" in any qualitative sense. It means "exhibits reproductive success".
Point well made: down with teleology.
The nervous system of the tape worm, if it has a nervous system — I forget, no doubt adapts it to its environment at least as well as the human brain adapts mankind to his environment. Probably better, since humans appear on the brink of intelligence-driven self destruction by WMD’s.
Natural selection can't be teleological since it's highly flexible. What's useful here isn't useful there, thus the trait gets lost. It's not teleological because it does not involve a linear process to some calculated end.
https://books.google.com/books?id=i8jx-ZyRRkkC&pg=PA121&dq=evolution+is+not+teleological&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV2KrnkpDQAhUJwYMKHfPbDxAQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=evolution%20is%20not%20teleological&f=false
Stick a human in the waters of the Arctic, where the orca thrive. Will the human die? Yup, pretty damn quick. Is a human superior to an orca? Sure as all hell, NOT in arctic waters.
No offense, but there's people arguing here over things about which they know very little.
There are many types of superiority, similarity, inferiority overlaping all the time.
You already answer.
The orca can talk with you about how superior or inferior s/he is**
NOPE.
You take the words of my mouth,
- Razib Kahn, 2016.So humans are not evolved than primates*A beautiful rose is not evolved than a simple bush*
I’m sure you’ve read mine and PP’s extensive exchange numerous times and I hate repeating myself so much which is why I direct you to where I’ve talked about it extensively, but OK.
There are no unidirectional trends in evolution due to the frequency of environmental change, the multitude of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependant epistatic interactions amongst features, and selection occurring within populations.
Horrible example. Rocks are not biological organisms. Bateria make up more than half of the biomass on Earth, who/what is “superior”?
Citation needed.
Any trait looked at for ‘superiority’ will be arbitrary. Why look at intelligence, brain size or whatever other trait and not photosynthetic ability? Then plants would be “the most evolved” “superior” “progressive” organisms on the planet. This isn’t so. Frankly, it’s not a scientific question and is not scientifically quantifiable.
I am not emotionally biased nor do I have an agenda. Well, my ‘agenda’ is the truth. As I’ve said previously, I used to believe Lynn’s data but upon further examination it’s false.
Again, I used to believe the opposite until I read into it more. I didn’t “quickly accept it”, just as I didn’t “quickly accept” human racial differences when I got in to this type of stuff.
Statement of fact.
I asked Razib his opinion, to which he said:
people who talk in those terms about population genetics are inferior and less evolved. sabine’s statement in my other posts applies: you’re not a serious thinker and label yourself as stupid or ignorant.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-8142016/#comment-1531983
Humans evolved differently than other primates. On what grounds can you say that chimps are ‘more evolved’ than humans? Because whatever arbitrary traits you choose for humans, I can quickly say that chimps can climb trees better and better survive in the wild than humans who have absolutely no tools and the like. Chimps wouldn’t survive in first-world societies. So to compare “more evolved” organisms on their environment is idiotic and, again, not scientific.
Funny you bring this up. Let’s use the rose as linear, progressive evolution and the bush as branching evolution.
The branching evolutionary tree shows that organisms are fit enoughfor their environment and incur the relevant phenotypic traits to survive in that environment. The Rose shows just a straight line of ‘progress’. How does that make any sense? The fact that erectus/habilis evolved into floresiensis who had a smaller stature and brain size due to lower energy (around 1100 kcal with 1400 kcal while nursing) compared to erectus (2300 kcal and 2800 while nursing) proves my point. Darwin’s Finches prove my point since each Finch evolved the necessary traits to better survive in their little niche on the island. Which of Darwin’s Finches has “progressed” more, which is “more evolved”, which is “superior”?
I prefer to say that evolution is not a process of optimization. There is no issue of "superiority". When whales were land animals, were they inferior to their role as sea animals? No. Adaptation, selection, etc., does not mean "superior" in any qualitative sense. It means "exhibits reproductive success".
I agree 100 percent. We only look at us as “the top of the great chain of being” because we are biased to our “supposed place” in the world and the top of this so-called “ladder”. To even think that these notions are scientifically quantifiable shows that one has no idea what they’re talking about.
Those who believe in ‘progressive’ evolution use the term ‘progress’. I’m just using their word.
You should read Adaptation and Natural Selection by George C. Williams for more.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/558.html
Now imagine we place all 1000 babies in similar families of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Obviously then k would be small. It seems that by a proper selection of environments we can make k arbitrarily small. Then one could make a claim that "IQ is at least 99% percent hereditary", right? Conversely we place the babies in widely different environments: some we would give to traveling Gypsies, some to Burkina Faso, one to Donald Trump and some to Upper West Side Jews, some to Amish...you get the point. What will happen to k? Obviously it would get larger. Could k=0.2 or k=0.3 or k=0.4? What is the maximal possible value? Actually, it is possible for k to approach the value of 1. I can place 500 babies in decent but identical environments (say Ulster families from previous case) that they would attain similar value of IQ on test, and 500 babies in stimulation deprived dark basements turning them into retarded idiots with IQ≈0 scores. This will make MEAN= IQ/2 and SD=MEAN and thus k=1.
Now reflect, what possible statements like "IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary" or " "IQ is at least 50 percent hereditary" can mean? Is there a scientific basis form making such statements? I keep repeating, that the whole business is a pseudo-science not just because I want to upset some True Believers (vide @szopen) but because as @MCPO USN very mildly stated "IQ has a bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable."
“IQ is at least 80% hereditary” means that in a given set of environment, 80% of variation in IQ scores can be explained by biology. “hereditary” has a strict definition and either you know it, and then troll pretending you don’t know (otherwise, why you are stating the obvious), or you don’t know and then you should stop commenting.
Is this the best you can do? It seems you really do not understand. You do not even know how the number 80% or Minnesota twin studies 70% was arrive at. In two previous comment I showed the meaninglessness of the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary”. The result 80% or 70% or 40% can be obtained from different samples. The result is sample dependent. Within the set of twin pairs one can find subsets of twins with small difference of IQ and a subset with large difference of IQ. Each subset will produce different hereditary fraction.One can use SES to control this effect but then you will discover that among poor the hereditary part is only 40% and certainly not 80%.
Since the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary” does not bother you and most likely you keep repeating it around during various discussions as a killer argument I must conclude you are not a very good scientist but certainly good enough for the pseudo-science.
No, I won't read the paper. Sorry. If peer review eventually amounts to acknowledgement that results of the paper, as written, cannot be challenged, I may review a summary.
Your attempt to insult me by suggesting that I could not understand the paper is a bit juvenile, don't you think?
Normally I would, but not in this case. Your refusal to engage at all with evidence I present or to present evidence of your own leads me to believe it is unlikely you read/understand papers like that.
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Evolution is not [absolutely] linear, do you remember this statement* Mine statement.
You love repeat yourself your vague, hypo-self-developed or potentially wrong statements.
Is not horrible example, it’s perfect example. Before the life what existed* Life is superior than a non-life*
Humans can take note that bacterias make more than a half of the biomass on earth. Bacterias don’t.
Bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, and humans ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, what your extremely stubborn head can’t accept.
Bacteria make up more than half of the biomass on Earth
it’s the evidence of superiority of bacteria… in this aspect*
nope, reasoning needed by your part.
ALWAYS citation is just by mediocre ones.
In this aspect, oh yesssss!!
irritatingly repetitive and pretend to be ”scientific”, please dude!!!
”Study showed northern and southern italian gap is closing”
your conclusion
”any innate southern and northern italian differences proved false”
my observation
”you need to look the % of northern italian students who have foreign and non-northern italian background… to start”
LOL.
Your repetitive quotation of Kahn is disgusting, sound ridiculous!!!
There are many aspects of genetics i’m naturally stupid to argue. But it’s not this typo ”definition of evolution”.
Differently neutral** LOL.
Bigger and complex human brains are NOTHING to you, well…
Most people who are superficially curious about this stuff know that delaying or increase the period of brain development, also, make humans smarter than primates, so called neoteny.
Deny SUPERIOR human intelligence is not only stupid but insane…
repeating what your master order you to tell…
You are inept to argue about it, you no have any substantial argument to defend your point of views, you no have fluid capacity to produce arguments by their own, all the time or is a personal opinion or a quotation or a superficial argumentation, again, without substance and originality by your part.
The fact that most of species are evolved to fit into their environment DON’T PROVE that no there such thing superiority, inferiority values. Prove that diversity of fauna and flora reflect a diversity of advantages and disadvantages and that generally superiority/inferiority will be more ponctual than generalized, human organism is not superior than any other organism, BUT human intelligence is superior than almost of the other living being intelligences, PERIOD.
There are two lines, subjective (all organisms are differently equal because all of them are efficient by their own ways) and objective (all organisms have exotic/unique developments or evolved traits that make them superior than others and sometimes considerably evolved than most of other living beings).
So again, human ORGANISM is not better than any other, but human INTELLIGENCE is superior than almost of other living being intelligence’s.
Uh-huh. So how is it linear?
"You love repeat yourself your vague, hypo-self-developed or potentially wrong statements."
Why should I type the same thing 6 million different ways? I do that to save time. I care about my time and would rather use it wisely.
"Is not horrible example, it’s perfect example. Before the life what existed* Life is superior than a non-life*"
Rocks can 'survive' closer to volcanoes. Rocks don't need anything special to 'survive' in cold climes. Muh superiority. Life is superior to non-life, but non-life was here first and will be here long after life is gone.
"Humans can take note that bacterias make more than a half of the biomass on earth. Bacterias don’t."
And? You have such an anthropocentric view of evolution. This is why you think this way.
"Bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, and humans ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, what your extremely stubborn head can’t accept."
I've been saying this for MONTHS. THIS IS WHY you can't OBJECTIVELY SAY who is 'superior'.
"it’s the evidence of superiority of bacteria… in this aspect*"
And other aspects other organisms are 'superior'. This is NOT a scientific concept. Do you understand that?
"nope, reasoning needed by your part."
Maybe it's the language barrier.
You can take 100 traits and say this is better than that. Conversely, take 100 different other traits and that is better than this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. For the 10 millionth time, it's not a scientific question. It's for the axiology of biology. Look it up.
"irritatingly repetitive and pretend to be ”scientific”, please dude!!!"
It's true. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it false.
"”you need to look the % of northern italian students who have foreign and non-northern italian background… to start”"
It's negligible. I don't have access to the cite at the moment, I'll find it in a bit.
The North barely changed from the 06 to 09 PISA. The South changed SUBSTANTIALLY.
"There are many aspects of genetics i’m naturally stupid to argue. But it’s not this typo ”definition of evolution”."
Then realize that it's stupid to argue about these things scientifically and realize that it's for the axiology of biology.
"Bigger and complex human brains are NOTHING to you, well…"
Complex isn't defineable.
"Deny SUPERIOR human intelligence is not only stupid but insane…"
Hey aren't EYES superior? Would those with EYESIGHT be 'superior' compared to those with no eyesight? Those blind animals due to no light MUST be inferior compared to animals with EYES right?
H. florisiensis proves my damn point.
"repeating what your master order you to tell…"
My brain, yes.
"You are inept to argue about it, you no have any substantial argument to defend your point of views, you no have fluid capacity to produce arguments by their own, all the time or is a personal opinion or a quotation or a superficial argumentation, again, without substance and originality by your part."
Again, here is my argument:
P1. If evolution is non progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
Point out which premise is wrong and why. Remember, premises are only true or false. Arguments aren't true or false they can only be sound or unsound.
"The fact that most of species are evolved to fit into their environment DON’T PROVE that no there such thing superiority, inferiority values. Prove that diversity of fauna and flora reflect a diversity of advantages and disadvantages and that generally superiority/inferiority will be more ponctual than generalized, human organism is not superior than any other organism, BUT human intelligence is superior than almost of the other living being intelligences, PERIOD."
Bold claim.
We eat, on average, 2500 kcal a day. What would happen if we were to eat 1000 kcal a day indefinitely, for let's say 1000 years?
"There are two lines, subjective (all organisms are differently equal because all of them are efficient by their own ways) and objective (all organisms have exotic/unique developments or evolved traits that make them superior than others and sometimes considerably evolved than most of other living beings)."
Second premise is untrue. Your argument is unsound.
"So again, human ORGANISM is not better than any other, but human INTELLIGENCE is superior than almost of other living being intelligence’s."
How would human intelligence help, for arguments sake, in the ocean? Humans aren't adapted to LIVING in the ocean, so what use would that have there? You don't seem to understand the evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration PROVE that evolution IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, nor does it prove that one organism is superior to another.
The nervous system of the tape worm, if it has a nervous system — I forget, no doubt adapts it to its environment at least as well as the human brain adapts mankind to his environment. Probably better, since humans appear on the brink of intelligence-driven self destruction by WMD's.
Organisms become less ‘complex’ (whatever that means) all the time. Parasites and, as you said, tapeworms are a good example here. Moreover, our brains are shrinking, the most “complex thing in the known universe” according to some people. Most people have an anthropocentric view of evolution, but that makes no sense.
Natural selection can’t be teleological since it’s highly flexible. What’s useful here isn’t useful there, thus the trait gets lost. It’s not teleological because it does not involve a linear process to some calculated end.
https://books.google.com/books?id=i8jx-ZyRRkkC&pg=PA121&dq=evolution+is+not+teleological&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV2KrnkpDQAhUJwYMKHfPbDxAQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=evolution%20is%20not%20teleological&f=false
The orca can talk with you about how superior or inferior s/he is**
NOPE.You take the words of my mouth, ;) ;)
You miss the point. However, I’ve gone over it several times without noticeable effect, so the point will have stay missed.
Develop more.
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
BTW, there are other countries that have large discrepancies between children and adult results in Lynn table.
What did Lynn used? The average or weighted average of 92 and 106 or whichever produced lower residual from his linear regression fit?
Do you buy Ron Unz speculations that the drop from 106 to 92 in 10 years was caused by economy falling apart during transition from communism to capitalism? (While reading it in his paper I was wondering whether it was Unz's sense of humor or he really meant it?)
Were there more recent studies of IQ in Poland? They must have improved since 1989, right?
Hey, szopen you are a hopeless true believer in what amounts to be a true BS. You are too smart for this whether your IQ is 106 or 92. Get a life.
(1) I am a scientist, and I change my mind where I find the evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to ignore the evidence.
(2) Re Polish IQ: First study was from 1979 (Jaworowska) and was based on 4000 children from all over the Poland. Second was from 1981 (Buj) and based on 835 adults from urban area. Once again, it seems you have not actually read Lynn’s study, you’ve just read Ron Unz essay, which from unknown reasons took the values for studies backwards. As such, Ron Unz speculations are wrong. The difference in results in expected, especially since there was Flynn effect (in RPM, 20 points increase in raw scores over last 60 years in 15y/o category!)
(3)Yes, there are more recent studies on POlish IQ. You can google them. You can also try to estimate national IQ using PISA and TIMSS scores (per Rinderman). Surprisingly, TIMSS and PISA gives very similar scores to Lynn’s rough average. As such, I think Polish National IQ is in 94-96 range.
Do you think everything in psychology is BS? Or can you please give an example of some real science in psychology, something tangible, real and scientifically accurate? I would know what is your golden standard for science, then.
(to be clear, since parts of this conversation are contentious, szopen I am agreeing and amplifying with what you said)
Personal opinion.
Develop more.
(2) Re Polish IQ: First study was from 1979 (Jaworowska) and was based on 4000 children from all over the Poland. Second was from 1981 (Buj) and based on 835 adults from urban area. Once again, it seems you have not actually read Lynn's study, you've just read Ron Unz essay, which from unknown reasons took the values for studies backwards. As such, Ron Unz speculations are wrong. The difference in results in expected, especially since there was Flynn effect (in RPM, 20 points increase in raw scores over last 60 years in 15y/o category!)
(3)Yes, there are more recent studies on POlish IQ. You can google them. You can also try to estimate national IQ using PISA and TIMSS scores (per Rinderman). Surprisingly, TIMSS and PISA gives very similar scores to Lynn's rough average. As such, I think Polish National IQ is in 94-96 range.
Do you think everything in psychology is BS? Or can you please give an example of some real science in psychology, something tangible, real and scientifically accurate? I would know what is your golden standard for science, then.
The thing that is most interesting about some of the comments regarding IQ is that IQ science is one of the most replicable areas of psychology: http://www.unz.com/isteve/pinker-replicability-crisis-in-psych-doesnt-apply-to-iq-huge-ns-replicable-results-but-people-hate-the-message/
(to be clear, since parts of this conversation are contentious, szopen I am agreeing and amplifying with what you said)
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
by "the most replicable area of psychology"? I hate to look into other areas of psychology.
(to be clear, since parts of this conversation are contentious, szopen I am agreeing and amplifying with what you said)
This is what you mean
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
by “the most replicable area of psychology”? I hate to look into other areas of psychology.
(2) Buj data is from Warsaw (capital of Poland). A difference between urban and rural areas in range of 10 points or more is to be expected.
““IQ is at least 80% hereditary” means that in a given set of environment, 80% of variation in IQ scores can be explained by biology.”
Is this the best you can do? It seems you really do not understand. You do not even know how the number 80% or Minnesota twin studies 70% was arrive at. In two previous comment I showed the meaninglessness of the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary”. The result 80% or 70% or 40% can be obtained from different samples. The result is sample dependent. Within the set of twin pairs one can find subsets of twins with small difference of IQ and a subset with large difference of IQ. Each subset will produce different hereditary fraction.One can use SES to control this effect but then you will discover that among poor the hereditary part is only 40% and certainly not 80%.
Since the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary” does not bother you and most likely you keep repeating it around during various discussions as a killer argument I must conclude you are not a very good scientist but certainly good enough for the pseudo-science.
I know how heritability is computed in twin studies. However you have not showed meaningless of the hereditarity; in vast area of studies, heritability was in range of 60 to 80% in adulthood (with Turkheimer being IIRC the sole researcher who found supposedly no heritability for poorest children, but then, he examined 7 years old; similarly other, who examined lower SES family mostly concentrated on children).
What one can derive from that is that yes, in certain environments theoretically one can get heritability of 0% or 100%; yes, one can theoretically can get different heritabilities by getting samples and restricting range of environments; in practice, however, it seems that it's enough to provide a very basic minimum environment providing food, normal family (i.e. no abuse) and you get consistenly high heritabilities, not matter whether using twin studies, siblings, parent-offspring, or by accounting by for real genetic differences between the siblings. Moreover, there were programs with a lot of money thrown at them aimed to improving "g" of children, and their results in the end were very modest.
Obviously, environment DOES account for some part of IQ differences between poor and affluent, urban and rural (there is a replicated finding of on average 10 point differences between urban and rural areas). After all, hereditarian position is and always was that human traits are influenced by both genes and environment (AFAIK there never was a hereditarian postulating that human traits are determined only by genes and nothing more). But it is unlikely that it does account for all IQ differences and, moreover, that it accounts for all IQ differences between whites and blacks (because the gap exist when black and whites are matched on SES i.e. poor whites with poor blacks). That means that even if heritability would be zero in very lowest socioeconomic status families, it would still not explain gaps between whites and blacks (at least, in USA; Chanda Chisala is presenting more and more arguments that something different is going on for Africa).
But, anyway, please answet some questions, so I would know what is your stand in the discussion
(1) Do you think everything in psychology and sociology is a pseudoscience?
(2) If IQ is useless, how do you explain the differences in life outcomes for whites and blacks?
(3) If IQ is useless, how do you explain that some people, despite being given roughly the same chances, get higher education, more patents, better incomes than other?
Moreover, in science you cannot handwave some findings or facts. Here are the very basic, widely replicated findings - those are the facts you just cannot handwave, they must be accounted for (the science exist to find explanations for the facts!). Below, I should have written "on average" in every statement, but it would be tiresome, so I omit that.
Do you contest those facts and consider them not to be facts? If no, why not? If you consider them facts, what explanations do you provide?
I just want to be sure what is your position.
(1) People, who got high results in one kind of tests designed for testing mental abilities, tend to get high results in other, unrelated tests
(2) When recruting for jobs, people who got better results on those tests, seemingly unrelated to the job, have better performance, learn faster and commit less errors than people who got worse results
(3) People who got high results on those tests, are more likely to get higher education
(4) For those majors, who have reputation of being harder, the average results of those tests (often unrelated to the major in question) are higher than for those majors who have reputation of being easier
(5) One can intuitively divide tests in into harder and easier; the harder tests are better at predicting results in other tests, job results, income and so on
(6) The differences between whites and blacks are higher on "more harder" tests than in "easier" tests
(7) The results 1-5 are the same for whites and blacks
(8) When testing reaction times on basic cognitive tasks (like "release button A and press button B when seeing a dot on a screen"), one can divide into motion time and reaction time (MT and RT). Blacks tend to get better MT and worse RT than whites. RT is correlated with mental tests, MT is not
(9) The results on mental tests tend to correlate with physical properties of neurological system
(10) The results on mental tests tend to correlate with related people; MZ twins results are more similar than DZ twins,siblings scores are more related than for strangers (even when separated and raised by different families). The results for twins are not results of their appearance, as the study found no similarity in tests results between people unrelated, but physically looking the same.
“Evolution is not [absolutely] linear, do you remember this statement* Mine statement.”
Uh-huh. So how is it linear?
“You love repeat yourself your vague, hypo-self-developed or potentially wrong statements.”
Why should I type the same thing 6 million different ways? I do that to save time. I care about my time and would rather use it wisely.
“Is not horrible example, it’s perfect example. Before the life what existed* Life is superior than a non-life*”
Rocks can ‘survive’ closer to volcanoes. Rocks don’t need anything special to ‘survive’ in cold climes. Muh superiority. Life is superior to non-life, but non-life was here first and will be here long after life is gone.
“Humans can take note that bacterias make more than a half of the biomass on earth. Bacterias don’t.”
And? You have such an anthropocentric view of evolution. This is why you think this way.
“Bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, and humans ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, what your extremely stubborn head can’t accept.”
I’ve been saying this for MONTHS. THIS IS WHY you can’t OBJECTIVELY SAY who is ‘superior’.
“it’s the evidence of superiority of bacteria… in this aspect*”
And other aspects other organisms are ‘superior’. This is NOT a scientific concept. Do you understand that?
“nope, reasoning needed by your part.”
Maybe it’s the language barrier.
You can take 100 traits and say this is better than that. Conversely, take 100 different other traits and that is better than this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. For the 10 millionth time, it’s not a scientific question. It’s for the axiology of biology. Look it up.
“irritatingly repetitive and pretend to be ”scientific”, please dude!!!”
It’s true. Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t make it false.
“”you need to look the % of northern italian students who have foreign and non-northern italian background… to start””
It’s negligible. I don’t have access to the cite at the moment, I’ll find it in a bit.
The North barely changed from the 06 to 09 PISA. The South changed SUBSTANTIALLY.
“There are many aspects of genetics i’m naturally stupid to argue. But it’s not this typo ”definition of evolution”.”
Then realize that it’s stupid to argue about these things scientifically and realize that it’s for the axiology of biology.
“Bigger and complex human brains are NOTHING to you, well…”
Complex isn’t defineable.
“Deny SUPERIOR human intelligence is not only stupid but insane…”
Hey aren’t EYES superior? Would those with EYESIGHT be ‘superior’ compared to those with no eyesight? Those blind animals due to no light MUST be inferior compared to animals with EYES right?
H. florisiensis proves my damn point.
“repeating what your master order you to tell…”
My brain, yes.
“You are inept to argue about it, you no have any substantial argument to defend your point of views, you no have fluid capacity to produce arguments by their own, all the time or is a personal opinion or a quotation or a superficial argumentation, again, without substance and originality by your part.”
Again, here is my argument:
P1. If evolution is non progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
Point out which premise is wrong and why. Remember, premises are only true or false. Arguments aren’t true or false they can only be sound or unsound.
“The fact that most of species are evolved to fit into their environment DON’T PROVE that no there such thing superiority, inferiority values. Prove that diversity of fauna and flora reflect a diversity of advantages and disadvantages and that generally superiority/inferiority will be more ponctual than generalized, human organism is not superior than any other organism, BUT human intelligence is superior than almost of the other living being intelligences, PERIOD.”
Bold claim.
We eat, on average, 2500 kcal a day. What would happen if we were to eat 1000 kcal a day indefinitely, for let’s say 1000 years?
“There are two lines, subjective (all organisms are differently equal because all of them are efficient by their own ways) and objective (all organisms have exotic/unique developments or evolved traits that make them superior than others and sometimes considerably evolved than most of other living beings).”
Second premise is untrue. Your argument is unsound.
“So again, human ORGANISM is not better than any other, but human INTELLIGENCE is superior than almost of other living being intelligence’s.”
How would human intelligence help, for arguments sake, in the ocean? Humans aren’t adapted to LIVING in the ocean, so what use would that have there? You don’t seem to understand the evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration PROVE that evolution IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, nor does it prove that one organism is superior to another.
Thousand times.... If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not. It's impossible because you're too dumb to understand it. Please, I don't want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes, abundant personal opinions with polite name calling... I don't want!!! Your argumentation are same thing since August. It's boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong. You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right. Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!
Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
My pleasure, young sirrah. My patience in dealing with your asinine, juvenile arrogance is as serene at this moment as it was the first time I dealt with your adolescent schtick. See how that works? Now, go tell Dad you absolutely, positively, must have the Lexus tonight.
Develop more.
Puta merda, mas que besteira. Va! Sai d’aqui, menino!
A leftoid with retard???? X_X
Agora está comentando em todo lugar no Unz!!!
Está desempregado**
E só diz as mesmas bobagens esquerdofrênicas,
isso mesmo Deuxxxxx, design ''inteligenti''!!!
I think I have read it already, long time ago. I was more focused on evolution arguments back then. To tell the truth, encountering this Lamarckian crap here recently, what with the HBD nonsense being all roiled up in sociopolitical issues for which there is zero relevance, I’m starting to not really give a damn. Let the idiots pound their imaginary podiums.
(2) Re Polish IQ: First study was from 1979 (Jaworowska) and was based on 4000 children from all over the Poland. Second was from 1981 (Buj) and based on 835 adults from urban area. Once again, it seems you have not actually read Lynn's study, you've just read Ron Unz essay, which from unknown reasons took the values for studies backwards. As such, Ron Unz speculations are wrong. The difference in results in expected, especially since there was Flynn effect (in RPM, 20 points increase in raw scores over last 60 years in 15y/o category!)
(3)Yes, there are more recent studies on POlish IQ. You can google them. You can also try to estimate national IQ using PISA and TIMSS scores (per Rinderman). Surprisingly, TIMSS and PISA gives very similar scores to Lynn's rough average. As such, I think Polish National IQ is in 94-96 range.
Do you think everything in psychology is BS? Or can you please give an example of some real science in psychology, something tangible, real and scientifically accurate? I would know what is your golden standard for science, then.
Well, although I certainly haven’t read this 50,000 word comment-thread, I noticed this claim that I’d made a serious mistake in my big 2012 Race/IQ paper. I always try to be careful, but nobody’s perfect, so I checked my references, and I think I was correct.
Just look on p. 216 of the 2002 hardcover edition of IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Lynn/Vanhanen. The Buj study of 835 Polish adults was published in 1981 and after adjustment for the Flynn Effect indicated an IQ of 106. Meanwhile, the later Jaworowska study of 4006 Polish children was published in 1991 and after adjustment for the Flynn Effect indicated an IQ of 92. In each case, the scores were taken two years before the study was published.
While I can’t vouch for the details of the studies themselves, those were the figures that Lynn and his co-author provided and which I quoted.
But still, Buj data is for Warsaw, and though he claims to consider also SES, urban populations around the world are more affluent. Acc. to quick google, in 1979 there was a difference of 12 points between Athens and rural area in Greece; in 1942 10 point difference existed in USA betwen rural and urban areas. It means that 10 point difference between Warsaw and sample of children in all Poland maybe should not be surprising.
Damn, you are right, and I was sloppy reader. This is embarassing. The study indeed is from 1991, but it was _standarized_ to 1979 British norms to get value of 92 (facepalm). I have to apologise to utu.
But still, Buj data is for Warsaw, and though he claims to consider also SES, urban populations around the world are more affluent. Acc. to quick google, in 1979 there was a difference of 12 points between Athens and rural area in Greece; in 1942 10 point difference existed in USA betwen rural and urban areas. It means that 10 point difference between Warsaw and sample of children in all Poland maybe should not be surprising.
It's interesting to hear that the Buj sample was urban, which I hadn't realized. Actually, one of my follow-up Race/IQ columns focused on the strong evidence that until quite recently rural IQs had usually been artificially depressed relative to those of their urban counterparts and your additional examples certainly support my conclusions. I think it considerably strengthens the case for my "Weak IQ Hypothesis":
http://www.unz.com/runz/unz-on-raceiq-the-ruralurban-divide/
IQ=106, 1979 (835 adults)
IQ=92, 1989 (4006 age 6-15)
by "the most replicable area of psychology"? I hate to look into other areas of psychology.
(1) Indeed, Jaworowska is from 1991, not 1979. I apologise
(2) Buj data is from Warsaw (capital of Poland). A difference between urban and rural areas in range of 10 points or more is to be expected.
Is this the best you can do? It seems you really do not understand. You do not even know how the number 80% or Minnesota twin studies 70% was arrive at. In two previous comment I showed the meaninglessness of the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary”. The result 80% or 70% or 40% can be obtained from different samples. The result is sample dependent. Within the set of twin pairs one can find subsets of twins with small difference of IQ and a subset with large difference of IQ. Each subset will produce different hereditary fraction.One can use SES to control this effect but then you will discover that among poor the hereditary part is only 40% and certainly not 80%.
Since the statement “IQ is at least 80% hereditary” does not bother you and most likely you keep repeating it around during various discussions as a killer argument I must conclude you are not a very good scientist but certainly good enough for the pseudo-science.
What part of “why you are stating the obvious” you don’t understand?
I know how heritability is computed in twin studies. However you have not showed meaningless of the hereditarity; in vast area of studies, heritability was in range of 60 to 80% in adulthood (with Turkheimer being IIRC the sole researcher who found supposedly no heritability for poorest children, but then, he examined 7 years old; similarly other, who examined lower SES family mostly concentrated on children).
What one can derive from that is that yes, in certain environments theoretically one can get heritability of 0% or 100%; yes, one can theoretically can get different heritabilities by getting samples and restricting range of environments; in practice, however, it seems that it’s enough to provide a very basic minimum environment providing food, normal family (i.e. no abuse) and you get consistenly high heritabilities, not matter whether using twin studies, siblings, parent-offspring, or by accounting by for real genetic differences between the siblings. Moreover, there were programs with a lot of money thrown at them aimed to improving “g” of children, and their results in the end were very modest.
Obviously, environment DOES account for some part of IQ differences between poor and affluent, urban and rural (there is a replicated finding of on average 10 point differences between urban and rural areas). After all, hereditarian position is and always was that human traits are influenced by both genes and environment (AFAIK there never was a hereditarian postulating that human traits are determined only by genes and nothing more). But it is unlikely that it does account for all IQ differences and, moreover, that it accounts for all IQ differences between whites and blacks (because the gap exist when black and whites are matched on SES i.e. poor whites with poor blacks). That means that even if heritability would be zero in very lowest socioeconomic status families, it would still not explain gaps between whites and blacks (at least, in USA; Chanda Chisala is presenting more and more arguments that something different is going on for Africa).
But, anyway, please answet some questions, so I would know what is your stand in the discussion
(1) Do you think everything in psychology and sociology is a pseudoscience?
(2) If IQ is useless, how do you explain the differences in life outcomes for whites and blacks?
(3) If IQ is useless, how do you explain that some people, despite being given roughly the same chances, get higher education, more patents, better incomes than other?
Moreover, in science you cannot handwave some findings or facts. Here are the very basic, widely replicated findings – those are the facts you just cannot handwave, they must be accounted for (the science exist to find explanations for the facts!). Below, I should have written “on average” in every statement, but it would be tiresome, so I omit that.
Do you contest those facts and consider them not to be facts? If no, why not? If you consider them facts, what explanations do you provide?
I just want to be sure what is your position.
(1) People, who got high results in one kind of tests designed for testing mental abilities, tend to get high results in other, unrelated tests
(2) When recruting for jobs, people who got better results on those tests, seemingly unrelated to the job, have better performance, learn faster and commit less errors than people who got worse results
(3) People who got high results on those tests, are more likely to get higher education
(4) For those majors, who have reputation of being harder, the average results of those tests (often unrelated to the major in question) are higher than for those majors who have reputation of being easier
(5) One can intuitively divide tests in into harder and easier; the harder tests are better at predicting results in other tests, job results, income and so on
(6) The differences between whites and blacks are higher on “more harder” tests than in “easier” tests
(7) The results 1-5 are the same for whites and blacks
(8) When testing reaction times on basic cognitive tasks (like “release button A and press button B when seeing a dot on a screen”), one can divide into motion time and reaction time (MT and RT). Blacks tend to get better MT and worse RT than whites. RT is correlated with mental tests, MT is not
(9) The results on mental tests tend to correlate with physical properties of neurological system
(10) The results on mental tests tend to correlate with related people; MZ twins results are more similar than DZ twins,siblings scores are more related than for strangers (even when separated and raised by different families). The results for twins are not results of their appearance, as the study found no similarity in tests results between people unrelated, but physically looking the same.
Uh-huh. So how is it linear?
"You love repeat yourself your vague, hypo-self-developed or potentially wrong statements."
Why should I type the same thing 6 million different ways? I do that to save time. I care about my time and would rather use it wisely.
"Is not horrible example, it’s perfect example. Before the life what existed* Life is superior than a non-life*"
Rocks can 'survive' closer to volcanoes. Rocks don't need anything special to 'survive' in cold climes. Muh superiority. Life is superior to non-life, but non-life was here first and will be here long after life is gone.
"Humans can take note that bacterias make more than a half of the biomass on earth. Bacterias don’t."
And? You have such an anthropocentric view of evolution. This is why you think this way.
"Bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, and humans ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, what your extremely stubborn head can’t accept."
I've been saying this for MONTHS. THIS IS WHY you can't OBJECTIVELY SAY who is 'superior'.
"it’s the evidence of superiority of bacteria… in this aspect*"
And other aspects other organisms are 'superior'. This is NOT a scientific concept. Do you understand that?
"nope, reasoning needed by your part."
Maybe it's the language barrier.
You can take 100 traits and say this is better than that. Conversely, take 100 different other traits and that is better than this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. For the 10 millionth time, it's not a scientific question. It's for the axiology of biology. Look it up.
"irritatingly repetitive and pretend to be ”scientific”, please dude!!!"
It's true. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it false.
"”you need to look the % of northern italian students who have foreign and non-northern italian background… to start”"
It's negligible. I don't have access to the cite at the moment, I'll find it in a bit.
The North barely changed from the 06 to 09 PISA. The South changed SUBSTANTIALLY.
"There are many aspects of genetics i’m naturally stupid to argue. But it’s not this typo ”definition of evolution”."
Then realize that it's stupid to argue about these things scientifically and realize that it's for the axiology of biology.
"Bigger and complex human brains are NOTHING to you, well…"
Complex isn't defineable.
"Deny SUPERIOR human intelligence is not only stupid but insane…"
Hey aren't EYES superior? Would those with EYESIGHT be 'superior' compared to those with no eyesight? Those blind animals due to no light MUST be inferior compared to animals with EYES right?
H. florisiensis proves my damn point.
"repeating what your master order you to tell…"
My brain, yes.
"You are inept to argue about it, you no have any substantial argument to defend your point of views, you no have fluid capacity to produce arguments by their own, all the time or is a personal opinion or a quotation or a superficial argumentation, again, without substance and originality by your part."
Again, here is my argument:
P1. If evolution is non progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
Point out which premise is wrong and why. Remember, premises are only true or false. Arguments aren't true or false they can only be sound or unsound.
"The fact that most of species are evolved to fit into their environment DON’T PROVE that no there such thing superiority, inferiority values. Prove that diversity of fauna and flora reflect a diversity of advantages and disadvantages and that generally superiority/inferiority will be more ponctual than generalized, human organism is not superior than any other organism, BUT human intelligence is superior than almost of the other living being intelligences, PERIOD."
Bold claim.
We eat, on average, 2500 kcal a day. What would happen if we were to eat 1000 kcal a day indefinitely, for let's say 1000 years?
"There are two lines, subjective (all organisms are differently equal because all of them are efficient by their own ways) and objective (all organisms have exotic/unique developments or evolved traits that make them superior than others and sometimes considerably evolved than most of other living beings)."
Second premise is untrue. Your argument is unsound.
"So again, human ORGANISM is not better than any other, but human INTELLIGENCE is superior than almost of other living being intelligence’s."
How would human intelligence help, for arguments sake, in the ocean? Humans aren't adapted to LIVING in the ocean, so what use would that have there? You don't seem to understand the evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration PROVE that evolution IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, nor does it prove that one organism is superior to another.
You’re the dumbest person I know in hbd because you buy many wrong thinking lines and you still think you can debate with everyone about everything and surprise you CAN’T!!!! Your last “argument” is just the repetition of something you don’t understand, you can’t accept retarded Guido!!! My last argument was PERFECT, it was a conclusive statement. You can’t argue that I’m wrong because I’m not. Every organisms are the same in their capacity to survive, period. But there are some traits that are hyper developed and make most of them uniquely superior as well inferior, period.
You’re right BUT INCOMPLETE when you say evolution is not linear. You’re wrong when you say BECAUSE this fact is impossible there is superiority or inferiority, period.
Thousand times…. If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not. It’s impossible because you’re too dumb to understand it. Please, I don’t want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes, abundant personal opinions with polite name calling… I don’t want!!! Your argumentation are same thing since August. It’s boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong. You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right. Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!
You're a parody of yourself but i don't think funny parodies.
P2. Evolution is non-progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.This is a real argument. Take a logic class bro. I definitely understand it, it's you that does not understand. See, how this works, is you have to choose which premise is wrong and why. Then provide a counterargument. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-279-management-communication-for-undergraduates-fall-2012/lecture-notes/MIT15_279F12_cnstrctArgmnt.pdfhttps://www.uno.edu/lrc/writingcenter/documents/MAKING-LOGICAL-ARGUMENTS.pdfRead these, learn what I'm talking about THEN get back to me."My last argument was PERFECT, it was a conclusive statement."What? This makes no sense. An ARGUMENT is not a STATEMENT. PLEASE learn what an ARGUMENT is. People believe that, say "you're red" is an argument. It's not. It's a statement. An argument like that would be, for the most basic argument: "P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a mortal." Do you see how the conclusion follows the premises? THAT is an argument. What I wrote about non-progressive evolution IS AN ARGUMENT. Learn the different between premise and argument, lest you look ignorant."You can’t argue that I’m wrong because I’m not."You've no idea how this works. You think a back and forth is an 'argument', yet I've shown you how to structure and argument with true premises and a sound conclusion. I HAVE argued that you're wrong. I've shown that you're wrong. You just don't see it because you're stubborn."Every organisms are the same in their capacity to survive, period."Not "the same in their capacity to survive" but unique to survive in their ecosystem. This is what you don't understand. Is a polar bear "more evolved" or "superior" or "more progressed" from the last common ancestor than the brown bear? That's the perfect thing to say to people who believe in this idiotic notion. Like people who think that East Asians are "too evolved for their own good". That stupid idiotic notion that no serious researcher believes. So is a polar bear 'superior' to a brown bear? Every organism isn't the same in its capacity to survive THEY ARE UNIQUE based on selection pressures and this is why it's not 'progressive'."But there are some traits that are hyper developed and make most of them uniquely superior as well inferior, period."Anything chosen is arbitray, period. What would happen if these so-called 'hyper-developed' organisms with these traits ventured into a new environment? They'd lose these 'hyper-developed traits'. Like eyesight. Let's say an asteroid crashed into Earth blocking out the Sun for 2 thousand years. Let's then say that it got pitch black, literally black, would we continue to have eyesight or would we lose it because it'd require so much energy and it'd be more efficient to lose eyesight as it would save kcal which could be used for other pertinent functions? Now think of any other type of scenario where we lose what makes us 'unique' compared to other animals. Such progress! More evolved! Superior! Dumb notions in evolutionary biology, MAN-MADE notions. Anthropocentric views of evolution. Can't quantify superior/inferior. Period."You’re right BUT INCOMPLETE when you say evolution is not linear."No I'm not. I'm complete with my statements. See my argument with true premises and sound conclusion above."You’re wrong when you say BECAUSE this fact is impossible there is superiority or inferiority, period."This isn't an argument. Most people have an anthropocentric view of evolution. Most people think humans are the apex, the top of the "great chain of being". Evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. Many different paths to take, not just one. Evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration shows that evolution isn't progress and that evolution JUST HAPPENS."If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not."Are you serious? Go back and reread my last response to you, maybe you didn't understand it. I rebutted you point by point and for this reply I literally took every one of your sentences and rebutted them. You just saying to me "refute my comments point by point" is meaningless as I've done so already and am doing so now, but whatever."It’s impossible because you’re too dumb to understand it."Ad hoimem."Please, I don’t want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes""Refute me point by point!!!" "I don't want to read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes!!" Do you see how this makes no sense? Do you see how there's no LOGIC in this statement? Learn some basic logic and argumentation and get back to me because I'm destroying you right now."Your argumentation are same thing since August."It's really not. You just don't get it because you're too close-minded. I used to believe in this garbage. East Asians and Europeans "superior" and "more evolved" and "progressed more" from the common ancestor than eqautorial races, then I actually started reading books about evolution and, guess what? I realized I was wrong. Intelligent people change their minds all the time, it's the morons who stay in their same paradigms repeating the same shit never giving any other forms of argumentation any time. That's you. You say it's "the same since August" yet I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying."It’s boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong."How is it contradictory and wrong? Point it out. Actually do it and don't backtrack on your baseless claim. Provide evidence. "You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right."How do you know this? I've changed my mind countless times, but you, some guy from Brazil, must know me and how I think and have developed my views over the course of my life. Take what you said to me and use it on yourself."Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!"Changed to biology. I don't need a degree to give people nutrition advice and personally train them. Back to idiocy and ad hominem arguments because you can't refute and give a counterargument to my flawless argument because it's a sound argument!!"You mix the worst of the thinking on the right and on the left, the classical ”independent thinker” that almost decently rational people hate."I think for myself. You've no idea how much I read (when I can find the time) to develop my worldview. I can only assume that you don't read due to how ignorant you are on certain subjects."You’re a parody of yourself but i don’t think funny parodies."Ad hominem. What is it with you and fallacies?I just destroyed you. Don't even respond bro.
Develop your nonsense or shut up…
A leftoid with retard???? X_X
Hey man, don't start fights in a language at which you are not adept. It's a perpetually losing proposition.
Always, always keep in mind that you might be wrong.
Quem foi que te libertou do hospício me diga**
Agora está comentando em todo lugar no Unz!!!
Está desempregado**
E só diz as mesmas bobagens esquerdofrênicas,
isso mesmo Deuxxxxx, design ”inteligenti”!!!
Thousand times.... If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not. It's impossible because you're too dumb to understand it. Please, I don't want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes, abundant personal opinions with polite name calling... I don't want!!! Your argumentation are same thing since August. It's boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong. You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right. Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!
You mix the worst of the thinking on the right and on the left, the classical ”independent thinker” that almost decently rational people hate.
You’re a parody of yourself but i don’t think funny parodies.
You're a parody of yourself but i don't think funny parodies.
To the SULrealist.
Thousand times.... If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not. It's impossible because you're too dumb to understand it. Please, I don't want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes, abundant personal opinions with polite name calling... I don't want!!! Your argumentation are same thing since August. It's boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong. You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right. Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!
How is it that sometimes your comment is coherent and written in decent English and more frequently it is not the case. Are there two of you? Do you easily tire? Do you drink?
I already read some of your comments and it's just the same afrocentrist nonsense.
(if you can't understand this comments above...)
Probably because i'm your ''enemy'', i'm defending ''rightist'' point of views, you concluded that i just can be stupid. Of course, ''we'' know what is factually correct to conclude about it.
I hate alcohol.
Zopen,
what do you think about ”heritability of IQ increase with age”
Heritability**
I thought IQ become more fixed and not ”heritable” with age because brain development.
The rising heritability of all human traits is a replicable finding and fact; why this happens, is quite another thing.
WHy do you call me Zopen? Is this an insult of some kind?
My english is minimalistic, understandable, it’s horrible, anti-aesthetic, but understandable.
I already read some of your comments and it’s just the same afrocentrist nonsense.
(if you can’t understand this comments above…)
Probably because i’m your ”enemy”, i’m defending ”rightist” point of views, you concluded that i just can be stupid. Of course, ”we” know what is factually correct to conclude about it.
I hate alcohol.
"I already read some of your comments and it’s just the same afrocentrist nonsense" - You totally misread me. While some of my criticisms and arguments may serve the "afrocentrist" (whatever it means) point, my motive does not stem from my racial sympathies or antipathies. In my opinion, HBD aficionados (IQ enthusiasts) overstate their case because of flaws in their methodologies and imprecision of concepts they created. They are often mediocre empiricists who compound their errors with theorizing that overreaches beyond its scope and validity. But I agree with, what by know is pretty well established hypothesis, that there are innate differences among races that result in different IQ scores and different accomplishments in society. The devil is in the detail. I concur with MCPO USN that HBD crowd has a "bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.” I identify with the "disciplined scientist" in his statement.
Just wishful thinking by blacks. History? What about it? Culture? What about it? Genetic history? See above. This garbage about Southern Italians being so different than the north needs to go. It's not based in reality.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/
Those guys claim every civilization. I was in an argument recently with a guy who claimed the Vikings were black, along with the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese.
Basically everyone is black, sub-Saharan Bantu African, except for whites that pathetic ideology is aimed at.
After reading the Discussion thus far, I have to say I am in awe of the knowledge and intelligence displayed in these arguments, both for and against heredity and I.Q. I have learned much, which is good because I lack knowledge the sciences in general, even though I find them fascinating.
One point of contention I have is the dismissal of tests (SAT, ACT, AP, etc.).
Maybe it’s purely anecdotal, but virtually all of the more intelligent of my friends and acquaintances, as well as my many students over the years, have scored tremendously well on the SAT and/or ACT. The same with grades. Better grades seems to mirror stronger intellects. I sort of get the impression that the dismissal of testing is similar to the “Bill Gates didn’t finish college, why then should I” argument that is thrown around by slacker kids nowadays. Gates dropped out to pursue a clear, promising idea. He didn’t reject a B.A. or B.S. out of sloth.
I feel like those who often claim that the tests are meaningless, also aren’t acknowledging just how rare and how particular those intelligent poor performers on tests are.
I already read some of your comments and it's just the same afrocentrist nonsense.
(if you can't understand this comments above...)
Probably because i'm your ''enemy'', i'm defending ''rightist'' point of views, you concluded that i just can be stupid. Of course, ''we'' know what is factually correct to conclude about it.
I hate alcohol.
Thanks for your response.
“I already read some of your comments and it’s just the same afrocentrist nonsense” – You totally misread me. While some of my criticisms and arguments may serve the “afrocentrist” (whatever it means) point, my motive does not stem from my racial sympathies or antipathies. In my opinion, HBD aficionados (IQ enthusiasts) overstate their case because of flaws in their methodologies and imprecision of concepts they created. They are often mediocre empiricists who compound their errors with theorizing that overreaches beyond its scope and validity. But I agree with, what by know is pretty well established hypothesis, that there are innate differences among races that result in different IQ scores and different accomplishments in society. The devil is in the detail. I concur with MCPO USN that HBD crowd has a “bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.” I identify with the “disciplined scientist” in his statement.
Uh-huh. So how is it linear?
"You love repeat yourself your vague, hypo-self-developed or potentially wrong statements."
Why should I type the same thing 6 million different ways? I do that to save time. I care about my time and would rather use it wisely.
"Is not horrible example, it’s perfect example. Before the life what existed* Life is superior than a non-life*"
Rocks can 'survive' closer to volcanoes. Rocks don't need anything special to 'survive' in cold climes. Muh superiority. Life is superior to non-life, but non-life was here first and will be here long after life is gone.
"Humans can take note that bacterias make more than a half of the biomass on earth. Bacterias don’t."
And? You have such an anthropocentric view of evolution. This is why you think this way.
"Bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, and humans ARE SUPERIOR than humans in many aspects, what your extremely stubborn head can’t accept."
I've been saying this for MONTHS. THIS IS WHY you can't OBJECTIVELY SAY who is 'superior'.
"it’s the evidence of superiority of bacteria… in this aspect*"
And other aspects other organisms are 'superior'. This is NOT a scientific concept. Do you understand that?
"nope, reasoning needed by your part."
Maybe it's the language barrier.
You can take 100 traits and say this is better than that. Conversely, take 100 different other traits and that is better than this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. For the 10 millionth time, it's not a scientific question. It's for the axiology of biology. Look it up.
"irritatingly repetitive and pretend to be ”scientific”, please dude!!!"
It's true. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it false.
"”you need to look the % of northern italian students who have foreign and non-northern italian background… to start”"
It's negligible. I don't have access to the cite at the moment, I'll find it in a bit.
The North barely changed from the 06 to 09 PISA. The South changed SUBSTANTIALLY.
"There are many aspects of genetics i’m naturally stupid to argue. But it’s not this typo ”definition of evolution”."
Then realize that it's stupid to argue about these things scientifically and realize that it's for the axiology of biology.
"Bigger and complex human brains are NOTHING to you, well…"
Complex isn't defineable.
"Deny SUPERIOR human intelligence is not only stupid but insane…"
Hey aren't EYES superior? Would those with EYESIGHT be 'superior' compared to those with no eyesight? Those blind animals due to no light MUST be inferior compared to animals with EYES right?
H. florisiensis proves my damn point.
"repeating what your master order you to tell…"
My brain, yes.
"You are inept to argue about it, you no have any substantial argument to defend your point of views, you no have fluid capacity to produce arguments by their own, all the time or is a personal opinion or a quotation or a superficial argumentation, again, without substance and originality by your part."
Again, here is my argument:
P1. If evolution is non progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
Point out which premise is wrong and why. Remember, premises are only true or false. Arguments aren't true or false they can only be sound or unsound.
"The fact that most of species are evolved to fit into their environment DON’T PROVE that no there such thing superiority, inferiority values. Prove that diversity of fauna and flora reflect a diversity of advantages and disadvantages and that generally superiority/inferiority will be more ponctual than generalized, human organism is not superior than any other organism, BUT human intelligence is superior than almost of the other living being intelligences, PERIOD."
Bold claim.
We eat, on average, 2500 kcal a day. What would happen if we were to eat 1000 kcal a day indefinitely, for let's say 1000 years?
"There are two lines, subjective (all organisms are differently equal because all of them are efficient by their own ways) and objective (all organisms have exotic/unique developments or evolved traits that make them superior than others and sometimes considerably evolved than most of other living beings)."
Second premise is untrue. Your argument is unsound.
"So again, human ORGANISM is not better than any other, but human INTELLIGENCE is superior than almost of other living being intelligence’s."
How would human intelligence help, for arguments sake, in the ocean? Humans aren't adapted to LIVING in the ocean, so what use would that have there? You don't seem to understand the evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration PROVE that evolution IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, nor does it prove that one organism is superior to another.
Why do you bother? Too much work. All of these, er, “arguers” are in single-minded search for constant affirmation of what they believe and know to be true. Perhaps, someday, they may achieve some breakthrough that allows them an opportunity to reassess, to learn perspective, balance, what constitutes “proof”, etc. Unlikely, yes, but possible. Once demonstrated, I keep my output to those fellows at a minimum.
One point of contention I have is the dismissal of tests (SAT, ACT, AP, etc.).
Maybe it's purely anecdotal, but virtually all of the more intelligent of my friends and acquaintances, as well as my many students over the years, have scored tremendously well on the SAT and/or ACT. The same with grades. Better grades seems to mirror stronger intellects. I sort of get the impression that the dismissal of testing is similar to the "Bill Gates didn't finish college, why then should I" argument that is thrown around by slacker kids nowadays. Gates dropped out to pursue a clear, promising idea. He didn't reject a B.A. or B.S. out of sloth.
I feel like those who often claim that the tests are meaningless, also aren't acknowledging just how rare and how particular those intelligent poor performers on tests are.
Those tests are designed for that purpose — to show the “intelligence” of those whose responses conform to definition.
I already read some of your comments and it's just the same afrocentrist nonsense.
(if you can't understand this comments above...)
Probably because i'm your ''enemy'', i'm defending ''rightist'' point of views, you concluded that i just can be stupid. Of course, ''we'' know what is factually correct to conclude about it.
I hate alcohol.
FYI, “posso somente” = “I can only”, not “I just can”.
what do you think about ''heritability of IQ increase with age''
Heritability**
I thought IQ become more fixed and not ''heritable'' with age because brain development.
Frankly, I have no idea. Your idea that it is because of ending of the brain development is a decent argument. ANother possibility raised for other traits (i.e. not IQ) is that we seek some environments, and as we age, we have relatively more control on our environment than during childhood (think about a guy who don’t like to read, but is forced by parents).
The rising heritability of all human traits is a replicable finding and fact; why this happens, is quite another thing.
WHy do you call me Zopen? Is this an insult of some kind?
I have semantic problem with this term: Heritable. You know that most of words with this termination able pass the idea of something can/might happen in the future.
I think in heritability instead this term have a concept while "prediction/probability to the inheritance".
I mean, the heritability/potential to the inheritance of X trait is 40%. So when the being born the heritability ceased and become a inheritance.
The heritability based on this model would be fixed in all ages. Of course I can be totally wrong but I like to risk.
I also think in the idea of intrinsicability. I look to the personality variation throughout the ages. Seems people become less behaviorally plastic with the aging. Maybe the reduction of hormonal fluctuations have a impact. Well just thoughts.
Basically everyone is black, sub-Saharan Bantu African, except for whites that pathetic ideology is aimed at.
Yeah, interesting phenomenon of absolute denial, isn’t it? Can you imagine what is (or is not) going on in the minds of those blackists? What can happen inside a mind to do that much damage?
That is a remark uncalled-for among civilized men. How about you respond to Santo in fluent Portuguese, just to show how it should be done, eh?
Agora está comentando em todo lugar no Unz!!!
Está desempregado**
E só diz as mesmas bobagens esquerdofrênicas,
isso mesmo Deuxxxxx, design ''inteligenti''!!!
LOL. You will mature some day, Santinho.
A leftoid with retard???? X_X
LOL. Yes, indeed, your personal nonsense seems to be well-developed.
Hey man, don’t start fights in a language at which you are not adept. It’s a perpetually losing proposition.
Always, always keep in mind that you might be wrong.
(to be clear, since parts of this conversation are contentious, szopen I am agreeing and amplifying with what you said)
Thanks. Actually I think I read this entry; but sometimes it’s good to refresh some goldies from the past.
The rising heritability of all human traits is a replicable finding and fact; why this happens, is quite another thing.
WHy do you call me Zopen? Is this an insult of some kind?
Sorry it’s not a insult.
I have semantic problem with this term: Heritable. You know that most of words with this termination able pass the idea of something can/might happen in the future.
I think in heritability instead this term have a concept while “prediction/probability to the inheritance”.
I mean, the heritability/potential to the inheritance of X trait is 40%. So when the being born the heritability ceased and become a inheritance.
The heritability based on this model would be fixed in all ages. Of course I can be totally wrong but I like to risk.
I also think in the idea of intrinsicability. I look to the personality variation throughout the ages. Seems people become less behaviorally plastic with the aging. Maybe the reduction of hormonal fluctuations have a impact. Well just thoughts.
E.g. imagine that in some culture some people from that culture have their one or more fingers cut off at a birth, determined by high priests based on combination of whim, star constalation position etc. The heritability of a trait "how many fingers people have" in that culture would be then essentially 0.
Personally I think that the term is misleading, but we are stuck with it.
I thought the Utu comment was directed to me… I thought…
The rising heritability of all human traits is a replicable finding and fact; why this happens, is quite another thing.
WHy do you call me Zopen? Is this an insult of some kind?
Yes the end of brain development more less hormonal influence logically speaking tend to result in more self control.
Pensou? That’s progress!
I hope you are better at guessing people’s characteristics in real life than you show here. I’ll note again you provided no evidence regarding my statement (serenity is not the same as the ability to read and understand research papers, in fact I would guess the two are if anything anti-correlated ; ).
And as for complaining about me insulting you. I’ll finish with your initial response to me in this thread (comment #321). Clearly a landmark in serene, adult, and non-insulting conversation (just like the comment I am responding to now).
For anyone here who doesn’t like my manner in this exchange, I’ll just note (if you are familiar with game theory) that I am a big fan of the “tit for tat” strategy in the iterated prisoners dilemma game. If you want me to treat you better try doing the same to me.
"I already read some of your comments and it’s just the same afrocentrist nonsense" - You totally misread me. While some of my criticisms and arguments may serve the "afrocentrist" (whatever it means) point, my motive does not stem from my racial sympathies or antipathies. In my opinion, HBD aficionados (IQ enthusiasts) overstate their case because of flaws in their methodologies and imprecision of concepts they created. They are often mediocre empiricists who compound their errors with theorizing that overreaches beyond its scope and validity. But I agree with, what by know is pretty well established hypothesis, that there are innate differences among races that result in different IQ scores and different accomplishments in society. The devil is in the detail. I concur with MCPO USN that HBD crowd has a "bit of religious fervor to it that should make a disciplined scientist more than a little uncomfortable.” I identify with the "disciplined scientist" in his statement.
I’m not fully sympathizer with hbd but you can’t say that (all) hbd scientists have religious pretensions. Yes you can say many hbd aficionados have because it’s a common place in conservative landscapes.
I have semantic problem with this term: Heritable. You know that most of words with this termination able pass the idea of something can/might happen in the future.
I think in heritability instead this term have a concept while "prediction/probability to the inheritance".
I mean, the heritability/potential to the inheritance of X trait is 40%. So when the being born the heritability ceased and become a inheritance.
The heritability based on this model would be fixed in all ages. Of course I can be totally wrong but I like to risk.
I also think in the idea of intrinsicability. I look to the personality variation throughout the ages. Seems people become less behaviorally plastic with the aging. Maybe the reduction of hormonal fluctuations have a impact. Well just thoughts.
Actually heritability is a statistic describing a population in a given environment and should not be used when talking about one person. Simply put, we have some trait in some people. People differ in measures on this trait. Why they differ? What are the factors causing differences between the people on this trait? Heritability of 60% means that 60% of variance is caused by biological factors. If there are no differences in trait, then you cannot even talk about heritability.
E.g. imagine that in some culture some people from that culture have their one or more fingers cut off at a birth, determined by high priests based on combination of whim, star constalation position etc. The heritability of a trait “how many fingers people have” in that culture would be then essentially 0.
Personally I think that the term is misleading, but we are stuck with it.
Do you understand my ideas? I hope the language barrier Do not affect your understanding.
I'm looking for heritability as the prediction/probability of inheritance. The comparison between identical twins in my not so humble opinion is not showing how biologically influenced is certain behavioral trait or phenotype. It's showing how identical the twins can be and how plastic or less intrinsic is this behavioral trait or phenotype. For example. You have two homossexual individuals. One of them is not only someone who have attraction to the same sex but he still have protuberant androgynous physical traits (lower stature, feminine voice, facial similarities with its mother..). Based on this hypothetical comparison this individual will be more biologically homossexual. What make some traits more biological in certain individual as well in certain groups of individuals is not "environmental factors", necessarily, but how intense/characteristic is that trait or phenotype. We seems have a spectrum of intensity for every behavioral trait and some people will be more intense, in the middle (more plastic and influenced by environment) or less intense.
I can be wrong? Absolutely ;)
Thousand times.... If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not. It's impossible because you're too dumb to understand it. Please, I don't want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes, abundant personal opinions with polite name calling... I don't want!!! Your argumentation are same thing since August. It's boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong. You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right. Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!
“You’re the dumbest person I know in hbd”
Ad hominem. Try again.
“you buy many wrong thinking lines”
You’ve yet to show me I’m wrong. What wrong thinking lines?
“you can debate with everyone about everything and surprise you CAN’T!!!!”
What does this even mean? I clearly am right now and do damn near every day.
” Your last “argument” is just the repetition of something you don’t understand”
P1. If evolution is non-progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non-progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
This is a real argument. Take a logic class bro. I definitely understand it, it’s you that does not understand. See, how this works, is you have to choose which premise is wrong and why. Then provide a counterargument.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-279-management-communication-for-undergraduates-fall-2012/lecture-notes/MIT15_279F12_cnstrctArgmnt.pdf
https://www.uno.edu/lrc/writingcenter/documents/MAKING-LOGICAL-ARGUMENTS.pdf
Read these, learn what I’m talking about THEN get back to me.
“My last argument was PERFECT, it was a conclusive statement.”
What? This makes no sense. An ARGUMENT is not a STATEMENT. PLEASE learn what an ARGUMENT is. People believe that, say “you’re red” is an argument. It’s not. It’s a statement. An argument like that would be, for the most basic argument: “P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.” Do you see how the conclusion follows the premises? THAT is an argument. What I wrote about non-progressive evolution IS AN ARGUMENT. Learn the different between premise and argument, lest you look ignorant.
“You can’t argue that I’m wrong because I’m not.”
You’ve no idea how this works. You think a back and forth is an ‘argument’, yet I’ve shown you how to structure and argument with true premises and a sound conclusion. I HAVE argued that you’re wrong. I’ve shown that you’re wrong. You just don’t see it because you’re stubborn.
“Every organisms are the same in their capacity to survive, period.”
Not “the same in their capacity to survive” but unique to survive in their ecosystem. This is what you don’t understand. Is a polar bear “more evolved” or “superior” or “more progressed” from the last common ancestor than the brown bear? That’s the perfect thing to say to people who believe in this idiotic notion. Like people who think that East Asians are “too evolved for their own good”. That stupid idiotic notion that no serious researcher believes. So is a polar bear ‘superior’ to a brown bear? Every organism isn’t the same in its capacity to survive THEY ARE UNIQUE based on selection pressures and this is why it’s not ‘progressive’.
“But there are some traits that are hyper developed and make most of them uniquely superior as well inferior, period.”
Anything chosen is arbitray, period. What would happen if these so-called ‘hyper-developed’ organisms with these traits ventured into a new environment? They’d lose these ‘hyper-developed traits’. Like eyesight. Let’s say an asteroid crashed into Earth blocking out the Sun for 2 thousand years. Let’s then say that it got pitch black, literally black, would we continue to have eyesight or would we lose it because it’d require so much energy and it’d be more efficient to lose eyesight as it would save kcal which could be used for other pertinent functions? Now think of any other type of scenario where we lose what makes us ‘unique’ compared to other animals. Such progress! More evolved! Superior! Dumb notions in evolutionary biology, MAN-MADE notions. Anthropocentric views of evolution. Can’t quantify superior/inferior. Period.
“You’re right BUT INCOMPLETE when you say evolution is not linear.”
No I’m not. I’m complete with my statements. See my argument with true premises and sound conclusion above.
“You’re wrong when you say BECAUSE this fact is impossible there is superiority or inferiority, period.”
This isn’t an argument. Most people have an anthropocentric view of evolution. Most people think humans are the apex, the top of the “great chain of being”. Evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. Many different paths to take, not just one. Evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration shows that evolution isn’t progress and that evolution JUST HAPPENS.
“If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not.”
Are you serious? Go back and reread my last response to you, maybe you didn’t understand it. I rebutted you point by point and for this reply I literally took every one of your sentences and rebutted them. You just saying to me “refute my comments point by point” is meaningless as I’ve done so already and am doing so now, but whatever.
“It’s impossible because you’re too dumb to understand it.”
Ad hoimem.
“Please, I don’t want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes”
“Refute me point by point!!!” “I don’t want to read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes!!” Do you see how this makes no sense? Do you see how there’s no LOGIC in this statement? Learn some basic logic and argumentation and get back to me because I’m destroying you right now.
“Your argumentation are same thing since August.”
It’s really not. You just don’t get it because you’re too close-minded. I used to believe in this garbage. East Asians and Europeans “superior” and “more evolved” and “progressed more” from the common ancestor than eqautorial races, then I actually started reading books about evolution and, guess what? I realized I was wrong. Intelligent people change their minds all the time, it’s the morons who stay in their same paradigms repeating the same shit never giving any other forms of argumentation any time. That’s you. You say it’s “the same since August” yet I don’t think you fully understand what I’m saying.
“It’s boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong.”
How is it contradictory and wrong? Point it out. Actually do it and don’t backtrack on your baseless claim. Provide evidence.
“You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right.”
How do you know this? I’ve changed my mind countless times, but you, some guy from Brazil, must know me and how I think and have developed my views over the course of my life. Take what you said to me and use it on yourself.
“Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!”
Changed to biology. I don’t need a degree to give people nutrition advice and personally train them. Back to idiocy and ad hominem arguments because you can’t refute and give a counterargument to my flawless argument because it’s a sound argument!!
“You mix the worst of the thinking on the right and on the left, the classical ”independent thinker” that almost decently rational people hate.”
I think for myself. You’ve no idea how much I read (when I can find the time) to develop my worldview. I can only assume that you don’t read due to how ignorant you are on certain subjects.
“You’re a parody of yourself but i don’t think funny parodies.”
Ad hominem. What is it with you and fallacies?
I just destroyed you. Don’t even respond bro.
Argumentation is always for the audience, not to convince the one you’re arguing with. It also makes me sharper for the future and I always learn something new. If someone doesn’t want to concede to a logical argument or show which premises are wrong then it’s on them. They’ve shown how illogical they are for not choosing a premise and showing how it’s wrong with a counterexample. They just dig their own holes not addressing the argument and throwing ad hominem. It’s easy after that.
E.g. imagine that in some culture some people from that culture have their one or more fingers cut off at a birth, determined by high priests based on combination of whim, star constalation position etc. The heritability of a trait "how many fingers people have" in that culture would be then essentially 0.
Personally I think that the term is misleading, but we are stuck with it.
Szopen,
Do you understand my ideas? I hope the language barrier Do not affect your understanding.
I’m looking for heritability as the prediction/probability of inheritance. The comparison between identical twins in my not so humble opinion is not showing how biologically influenced is certain behavioral trait or phenotype. It’s showing how identical the twins can be and how plastic or less intrinsic is this behavioral trait or phenotype. For example. You have two homossexual individuals. One of them is not only someone who have attraction to the same sex but he still have protuberant androgynous physical traits (lower stature, feminine voice, facial similarities with its mother..). Based on this hypothetical comparison this individual will be more biologically homossexual. What make some traits more biological in certain individual as well in certain groups of individuals is not “environmental factors”, necessarily, but how intense/characteristic is that trait or phenotype. We seems have a spectrum of intensity for every behavioral trait and some people will be more intense, in the middle (more plastic and influenced by environment) or less intense.
I can be wrong? Absolutely
P2. Evolution is non-progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.This is a real argument. Take a logic class bro. I definitely understand it, it's you that does not understand. See, how this works, is you have to choose which premise is wrong and why. Then provide a counterargument. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-279-management-communication-for-undergraduates-fall-2012/lecture-notes/MIT15_279F12_cnstrctArgmnt.pdfhttps://www.uno.edu/lrc/writingcenter/documents/MAKING-LOGICAL-ARGUMENTS.pdfRead these, learn what I'm talking about THEN get back to me."My last argument was PERFECT, it was a conclusive statement."What? This makes no sense. An ARGUMENT is not a STATEMENT. PLEASE learn what an ARGUMENT is. People believe that, say "you're red" is an argument. It's not. It's a statement. An argument like that would be, for the most basic argument: "P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a mortal." Do you see how the conclusion follows the premises? THAT is an argument. What I wrote about non-progressive evolution IS AN ARGUMENT. Learn the different between premise and argument, lest you look ignorant."You can’t argue that I’m wrong because I’m not."You've no idea how this works. You think a back and forth is an 'argument', yet I've shown you how to structure and argument with true premises and a sound conclusion. I HAVE argued that you're wrong. I've shown that you're wrong. You just don't see it because you're stubborn."Every organisms are the same in their capacity to survive, period."Not "the same in their capacity to survive" but unique to survive in their ecosystem. This is what you don't understand. Is a polar bear "more evolved" or "superior" or "more progressed" from the last common ancestor than the brown bear? That's the perfect thing to say to people who believe in this idiotic notion. Like people who think that East Asians are "too evolved for their own good". That stupid idiotic notion that no serious researcher believes. So is a polar bear 'superior' to a brown bear? Every organism isn't the same in its capacity to survive THEY ARE UNIQUE based on selection pressures and this is why it's not 'progressive'."But there are some traits that are hyper developed and make most of them uniquely superior as well inferior, period."Anything chosen is arbitray, period. What would happen if these so-called 'hyper-developed' organisms with these traits ventured into a new environment? They'd lose these 'hyper-developed traits'. Like eyesight. Let's say an asteroid crashed into Earth blocking out the Sun for 2 thousand years. Let's then say that it got pitch black, literally black, would we continue to have eyesight or would we lose it because it'd require so much energy and it'd be more efficient to lose eyesight as it would save kcal which could be used for other pertinent functions? Now think of any other type of scenario where we lose what makes us 'unique' compared to other animals. Such progress! More evolved! Superior! Dumb notions in evolutionary biology, MAN-MADE notions. Anthropocentric views of evolution. Can't quantify superior/inferior. Period."You’re right BUT INCOMPLETE when you say evolution is not linear."No I'm not. I'm complete with my statements. See my argument with true premises and sound conclusion above."You’re wrong when you say BECAUSE this fact is impossible there is superiority or inferiority, period."This isn't an argument. Most people have an anthropocentric view of evolution. Most people think humans are the apex, the top of the "great chain of being". Evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. Many different paths to take, not just one. Evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration shows that evolution isn't progress and that evolution JUST HAPPENS."If you just refutate point by point my comments at least we can have some synchronization, the debate could be improved but not."Are you serious? Go back and reread my last response to you, maybe you didn't understand it. I rebutted you point by point and for this reply I literally took every one of your sentences and rebutted them. You just saying to me "refute my comments point by point" is meaningless as I've done so already and am doing so now, but whatever."It’s impossible because you’re too dumb to understand it."Ad hoimem."Please, I don’t want read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes""Refute me point by point!!!" "I don't want to read AGAIN your pseudo-argumentation with abundant quotes!!" Do you see how this makes no sense? Do you see how there's no LOGIC in this statement? Learn some basic logic and argumentation and get back to me because I'm destroying you right now."Your argumentation are same thing since August."It's really not. You just don't get it because you're too close-minded. I used to believe in this garbage. East Asians and Europeans "superior" and "more evolved" and "progressed more" from the common ancestor than eqautorial races, then I actually started reading books about evolution and, guess what? I realized I was wrong. Intelligent people change their minds all the time, it's the morons who stay in their same paradigms repeating the same shit never giving any other forms of argumentation any time. That's you. You say it's "the same since August" yet I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying."It’s boring, uncreative, pedantic, contradictory and wrong."How is it contradictory and wrong? Point it out. Actually do it and don't backtrack on your baseless claim. Provide evidence. "You no have self awareness or introspection to think if you are wrong or right."How do you know this? I've changed my mind countless times, but you, some guy from Brazil, must know me and how I think and have developed my views over the course of my life. Take what you said to me and use it on yourself."Back to the nutrition university!!11!!!"Changed to biology. I don't need a degree to give people nutrition advice and personally train them. Back to idiocy and ad hominem arguments because you can't refute and give a counterargument to my flawless argument because it's a sound argument!!"You mix the worst of the thinking on the right and on the left, the classical ”independent thinker” that almost decently rational people hate."I think for myself. You've no idea how much I read (when I can find the time) to develop my worldview. I can only assume that you don't read due to how ignorant you are on certain subjects."You’re a parody of yourself but i don’t think funny parodies."Ad hominem. What is it with you and fallacies?I just destroyed you. Don't even respond bro.
No.
You don’t have a shy idea who you’re talking about. A primitive mind incapable to introspection.
I have pity of you. And pity of this planet. How common is types as you??
OK. Now admit you’re wrong because I just destroyed you two times and you didn’t respond. Take a logic class and get back to me. I destroyed you. Why did you even respond to me?
You’re wrong. I blew up your ‘argument’.
Pick a premise and show a counterexample on why it’s wrong. If you can’t you must concede. That’s how this works.
More and more logical fallacies. That’s all you can do.
You're extremely stupid. I don't want "debate" with a disqualified. Ok?
Do you understand my ideas? I hope the language barrier Do not affect your understanding.
I'm looking for heritability as the prediction/probability of inheritance. The comparison between identical twins in my not so humble opinion is not showing how biologically influenced is certain behavioral trait or phenotype. It's showing how identical the twins can be and how plastic or less intrinsic is this behavioral trait or phenotype. For example. You have two homossexual individuals. One of them is not only someone who have attraction to the same sex but he still have protuberant androgynous physical traits (lower stature, feminine voice, facial similarities with its mother..). Based on this hypothetical comparison this individual will be more biologically homossexual. What make some traits more biological in certain individual as well in certain groups of individuals is not "environmental factors", necessarily, but how intense/characteristic is that trait or phenotype. We seems have a spectrum of intensity for every behavioral trait and some people will be more intense, in the middle (more plastic and influenced by environment) or less intense.
I can be wrong? Absolutely ;)
BUt this is not a definition of heritability. DO you mean that you would want have another measure different from heritability, and call it heritability?
Any other definition is wrong.
And the other thoughts? What do you think?
No.
You’re extremely stupid. I don’t want “debate” with a disqualified. Ok?
Heritability–The ratio of the genetic variance of a population to its phenotypic variance; i.e. the proportion of variability that is genetic in origin
Any other definition is wrong.
Szopen and myself know very well what is the official concept for heritability.
Just shup up!! Your stupidity is losing the control.
Be at least educated if you can.
Exactly it was what I told to you.
And the other thoughts? What do you think?
Chisala,
You don’t accept my comments in Portuguese, why??
Any other definition is wrong.
None ask your pseudo personal opinion here.
Szopen and myself know very well what is the official concept for heritability.
Just shup up!! Your stupidity is losing the control.
Be at least educated if you can.
You're extremely stupid. I don't want "debate" with a disqualified. Ok?
I’ve summarily destroyed you. Admit it. Don’t even repeat the same garbage I’ve rebutted, it’s not intellectually honest (though I don’t think you’re too intellectual).
Szopen and myself know very well what is the official concept for heritability.
Just shup up!! Your stupidity is losing the control.
Be at least educated if you can.
I am educated. You’re telling me to shut up–a dictionary definition is not an opinion bro. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, you’re showing your idiocy by not responding and throwing ad hominems. Because you can’t respond because you know you’re wrong but too stubborn to admit it even though you won’t respond to my rebuttal of your word salad.
Do you even think before whatever word salad jumps from your fingers to the keyboard or not?
You’re the uneducated one giving me ‘k’ ‘arguments’ to my 2000 word destruction of your ‘arguments’.
If you knew what ‘heritability’ was you wouldn’t be saying the wrong definition.
And the other thoughts? What do you think?
No thoughts. While it would be useful that such measure would exist, I have no idea how to create it.
But still, Buj data is for Warsaw, and though he claims to consider also SES, urban populations around the world are more affluent. Acc. to quick google, in 1979 there was a difference of 12 points between Athens and rural area in Greece; in 1942 10 point difference existed in USA betwen rural and urban areas. It means that 10 point difference between Warsaw and sample of children in all Poland maybe should not be surprising.
Well, it’s very nice to know I hadn’t made such a careless mistake in my Race/IQ article.
It’s interesting to hear that the Buj sample was urban, which I hadn’t realized. Actually, one of my follow-up Race/IQ columns focused on the strong evidence that until quite recently rural IQs had usually been artificially depressed relative to those of their urban counterparts and your additional examples certainly support my conclusions. I think it considerably strengthens the case for my “Weak IQ Hypothesis”:
http://www.unz.com/runz/unz-on-raceiq-the-ruralurban-divide/
Usually, yes, but not always. Too much confetti obscures the view.
Pass.
Stick a human in the waters of the Arctic, where the orca thrive. Will the human die? Yup, pretty damn quick. Is a human superior to an orca? Sure as all hell, NOT in arctic waters.
No offense, but there's people arguing here over things about which they know very little.
There are humans in the Arctic who thrive and they’re called Eskimoes. Modern man with his fishing trawlers can sweep up all the fish in a large area much more effectively than an orca can. A man in a submarine can travel underwater faster than an orca can swim.
It's interesting to hear that the Buj sample was urban, which I hadn't realized. Actually, one of my follow-up Race/IQ columns focused on the strong evidence that until quite recently rural IQs had usually been artificially depressed relative to those of their urban counterparts and your additional examples certainly support my conclusions. I think it considerably strengthens the case for my "Weak IQ Hypothesis":
http://www.unz.com/runz/unz-on-raceiq-the-ruralurban-divide/
“rural IQs had usually been artificially depressed relative to those of their urban” – This is just semantics but there is nothing artificial about it. It’s a reflection of environment just as IQ=107 in the city is a reflection of environment that is more conducive to IQ scores increase. Unlike plants the IQ score grows better in concrete and asphalt jungle than in a real jungle though some plants grow better in artificial greenhouses. One can imagine further IQ scores in the future though it depends on the future. Wars and famine won’t do it. I would suspect that the Flynn effect (and Unz’s super-Flynn effect) is a manifestation of that process. The question is how far up can it go? What is human potential? To answer this we would have to have a more complex model for intelligence than the simplistic model used in separated twin studies (the model mathematically amounts to two variable linear regression which does not include feedbacks that would make the model nonlinear). Most people interpret the twin studies results incorrectly thinking that we got only, say 20% room left before we hit the ceiling, meaning that the “average” twin that has higher IQ has already reached his/her max potential.
Is a human superior to an orca? Sure as all hell, NOT in arctic waters.
Evolution is specifically/punctually progressive and generally "neutral' baby!!
Orca is specifically SUPERIOR (oi?) to humans SPECIALLY in arctic sea.
Humans have SUPERIOR intelligence (not "all" them, :#) if it is compared with Orca intelligence, $specifically speaking...
Even better
No organism is entirely superior to other.
But all organisms will have some particular superiority or inferiority.
I'm not anthropocentric. Humans can be quite dumb, specially many of the supposed "smartiers".....
Your diagnosis: Excess of Disney movies.
Thank you doc, "less Disney movies, less zootopia".
“There is a bigger genetic difference in South and North swedes and South and North Germans than North and South Italians. Any differences between them mean they are different ethnies. See how retarded that sounds?”
I always laugh when I read something similar to this. What do you mean, bigger genetic difference? Do you mean difference in the number of alleles? Do you mean difference in traits? Only people that are desperate to convince themselves that HBD can’t possibly be true use this argument. Why? Because it has to be wrong because of what the media tells us? Is hair color a genetic difference? Of course! Therefore a group of people with blonde (various shades), red (various shades), brown (various shades), black (various shades), gray (various shades), white (differing degrees), would have a bigger genetic difference than, say, a group of hair with coarse, elliptical (oval), black hair. Right? What other traits and or genetic difference would you care to enlighten us about?
Lamarque ex plain ~_~
Evolution is specifically/punctually progressive and generally “neutral’ baby!!
Orca is specifically SUPERIOR (oi?) to humans SPECIALLY in arctic sea.
Humans have SUPERIOR intelligence (not “all” them, :#) if it is compared with Orca intelligence, $specifically speaking…
Even better
No organism is entirely superior to other.
But all organisms will have some particular superiority or inferiority.
I’m not anthropocentric. Humans can be quite dumb, specially many of the supposed “smartiers”…..
Your diagnosis: Excess of Disney movies.
Thank you doc, “less Disney movies, less zootopia”.
Why suppose that an increase in IQ is “up”?
You’ve indicated that the urban environment raises IQ scores, but that does not mean that intellectual capacity or potential are raised by the urban environment, merely that urban existence raises the capacity to do some paper and pencil tests involving more or less formal logic.
The country bred certainly know a lot that the city bred never grasp — how to drive a bull safely from a to b, for example, a task that requires subtle awareness of animal psychology. There are many other ways in which those from the backwoods may outperform those who hardly know a cow from a bull, and there many circumstances in which I would rather depend on the advice of a countryman than an expert in symbol manipulation whatever their IQ.
"You’ve indicated that the urban environment raises IQ scores, but that does not mean that intellectual capacity"
is true or not as long as I remain within the strictly empirical realm.
The Flynn effect poses a very serious challenge to the whole intelligence research via IQ tests. IQ practitioners after Flynn decided to introduce IQ score correction subtracting circa 3 points per decade. Implicitly they admit that their method to measure intelligence uses a tape measure that keeps shrinking. Their decision to correct implies they do not believe that human intelligence increases by 3 points per decade but rather people just get more savvy about testing, I presume. I do not think they would agree, though I have no clue how would they argue it, that the differences between rural and urban populations in IQ scores is an effect that has similar nature as the Flynn effect, but Ron Unz when discussing differences between Austria and Croatia alluded to it as a super Flynn effect. Are city folks more intelligent than country folks (within the same ethnic group)? They seem to have higher IQ scores. But is it controlled for education?
FYI: Just found out that psychologist in criminal justice system are very keen on Flynn effect correction. They do not want to miss the correction. Apparently the lower the IQ score higher chance for a more lenient sentence. Imagine getting a death penalty instead of life in prison because your attorney and psychologist forgot to correct the Flynn effect. At least we have one tangible evidence that the Flynn effect correction is important.
Evolution is specifically/punctually progressive and generally "neutral' baby!!
Orca is specifically SUPERIOR (oi?) to humans SPECIALLY in arctic sea.
Humans have SUPERIOR intelligence (not "all" them, :#) if it is compared with Orca intelligence, $specifically speaking...
Even better
No organism is entirely superior to other.
But all organisms will have some particular superiority or inferiority.
I'm not anthropocentric. Humans can be quite dumb, specially many of the supposed "smartiers".....
Your diagnosis: Excess of Disney movies.
Thank you doc, "less Disney movies, less zootopia".
Proving the point. Evolution has organisms be ‘good enough’ for that ecosystem.
“I’m not anthropocentric.”
Your view of evolution is.
I always laugh when I read something similar to this. What do you mean, bigger genetic difference? Do you mean difference in the number of alleles? Do you mean difference in traits? Only people that are desperate to convince themselves that HBD can't possibly be true use this argument. Why? Because it has to be wrong because of what the media tells us? Is hair color a genetic difference? Of course! Therefore a group of people with blonde (various shades), red (various shades), brown (various shades), black (various shades), gray (various shades), white (differing degrees), would have a bigger genetic difference than, say, a group of hair with coarse, elliptical (oval), black hair. Right? What other traits and or genetic difference would you care to enlighten us about?
The point is, people (re: idiots) say that North and South Italians are a “different ethnic group” which has no basis in reality. The point is to show the holes in their logic. If they want to say it about Italians then they have to say it about everywhere else this cline is noticed. It’s the only logical conclusion.
Specifically, what are the relationships, if any, among environment, IQ, creativity, judgement and empathy?
No one knows do they?
So making so much fuss about IQ seems not very intelligent, really.
Almost anyone with adequate schooling can learn to observe carefully, perform basic logical processes, make comparisons, draw more or less obvious inferences, and perform all the other operations that underlie appropriate responses to IQ test questions. Hence test sophistication, the Flynn effect, and the rural versus urban IQ gap.
But not everyone is creative, sound in judgement, or possessed of the power of empathy.
How useful is an abnormally high IQ without those other qualities of intellect? Not very, it seems to me.
In fact, the idea of rating intellect on a single linear scale is hardly sensible or useful and almost certainly seriously misleading and, therefore, harmful.
Moreover, let me remind you that "g" can be also inferred from digital forward span and digitial backward span, or simple reaction times. It's really hard to argue that in those cases people remember less numbers because they had worse education and no access to public libraries...
Some thoughts
IQ measured potential based on the simulations to the real world. But our intelligences are absolutely impregnated with cultural influences in the way seems unrealistic try to measure it without culture... Don't forget that techniques or signals of the technological job are also cultural,
IQ measured superficially well verbal, g (pattern recognition), mathematical, spatial and other aspects of the intellect AND NOT how it can be used in creative and in wise/rational ways. IQ measure capacity to memorize and replicate known knowledge.
IQ Don't measured interpersonal intelligence (one of the most important aspects of the intelligence and human intelligence, after all, what make us essentially smarter than other beings if not highly developed self awareness??), intrapersonal or emotional intelligence, musical, moral skills, exactly what lacks among our politicians, for example,
Yes humans are diverse and showed a diversity of intelligence's,
Modern psychology divided itself in "cognitive" and "psychological" and IQ tests are being used as "measurement of INTELLIGENCE" while in the true it measure the cognitive part of the intellect, superficial well, in other words, we are being treated as machines or workers while we are complete beings,
Intelligence, creativity and wisdom are poorly but possibly reducible to the quantitative values, so analyze seems better to understand this subject than "measure". Measure always filtered what must be analyzed in their original integrity,
Some IQ tests results reflect perfectly or quasi perfectly the cognitive levels of some individuals but it's not universal. Some individuals are too smart than their IQ tests results are showing. They have mental problems?? Sometimes it's possible but some people have well developed this intelligence types that are not measured by IQ tests, so it's logical that for them IQ tests don't reflect accurately well their cognitive levels,
Rationality underlies every idiocratic lament made by vaguely speaking smarter people. Yes, intellectual/cultural intelligence matters!!! Rationality matters!!! What make people disgusted with the idea to see irrational foreigners invading the west (of course it's not all of them who are irrational...and west never was the perfect example of rational culture) is exactly their savage behavior and not only because they scored lower in IQ or scholastic aptitude tests.
One more thing: what is your definition of “useful”, if IQ actually is the BEST predictor we have to estimate various, unrelated life outcomes?
As for creativity:
You can also find the evidence that creativity and IQ are correlated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/
I doubt it.
Your best bet for being Prime Minister of Britain, for example, is to attend the University of Oxford. Better still, attend Christchurch college Oxford (13 Prime Ministers), including Sir Alec Douglas Home who obtained a third class degree and said that he worked out economic sums using matchsticks.
Not bad at cricket, though, playing ten first class matches, scoring an average of 16 runs – his best score 37 not out.
No, not almost everyone. I’ve met countless people, who seem to be perfectly normal in face-to-face communication, yet where organically unable to get the basics of the math and logic, despite doing their best to learn it.
Moreover, let me remind you that “g” can be also inferred from digital forward span and digitial backward span, or simple reaction times. It’s really hard to argue that in those cases people remember less numbers because they had worse education and no access to public libraries…
Certainly, my Dad had fast reflexes. He was a champion tennis player and an RAF pilot during WW2. But he was also successful academically, leaving grammar school with a testimonial from the Head, which stated that he was the most able student that the had taught. So which would have best indicated his later success as a business executive, his reaction times, and IQ test or his academic achievement? the academic achievement would probably have been as useful as anything.
Come to think of it, have not academic tests been found at least as useful as the SAT for predicting university performance?
At this point I am coming to this issue from a strictly empirical position. Thus when I say “IQ” I always mean the “IQ score”. I try not to conflate the IQ score with intelligence or intelligence capacity chiefly because I do not have a definition of intelligence or intelligent capacity that would have empirical suitability at this point. So I cannot decide whether your statement:
“You’ve indicated that the urban environment raises IQ scores, but that does not mean that intellectual capacity”
is true or not as long as I remain within the strictly empirical realm.
The Flynn effect poses a very serious challenge to the whole intelligence research via IQ tests. IQ practitioners after Flynn decided to introduce IQ score correction subtracting circa 3 points per decade. Implicitly they admit that their method to measure intelligence uses a tape measure that keeps shrinking. Their decision to correct implies they do not believe that human intelligence increases by 3 points per decade but rather people just get more savvy about testing, I presume. I do not think they would agree, though I have no clue how would they argue it, that the differences between rural and urban populations in IQ scores is an effect that has similar nature as the Flynn effect, but Ron Unz when discussing differences between Austria and Croatia alluded to it as a super Flynn effect. Are city folks more intelligent than country folks (within the same ethnic group)? They seem to have higher IQ scores. But is it controlled for education?
FYI: Just found out that psychologist in criminal justice system are very keen on Flynn effect correction. They do not want to miss the correction. Apparently the lower the IQ score higher chance for a more lenient sentence. Imagine getting a death penalty instead of life in prison because your attorney and psychologist forgot to correct the Flynn effect. At least we have one tangible evidence that the Flynn effect correction is important.
Aaand :
But hey, the fact that brain structure is related to your IQ scores means that brain structure is actually meaningless, right?
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
- I should really put it into a previous comment instead of spamming the thread with three separate comments, but I found this article far too late.
Perhaps the connectome will help to decide wether the Flynn effect should be corrected or not. If the Flynn effect results from increased numbers of connection then it would be hard to argue that it is not a part of some hard wired intelligence.
So I welcome this developments because they will help to sort out some of the mumbo jumbo created by IQ pseudo scientists.
Is IQ, perhaps, a reliable predictor of gullibility?
I agree about almost of things you said here. Less IQ is not useful.
Some thoughts
IQ measured potential based on the simulations to the real world. But our intelligences are absolutely impregnated with cultural influences in the way seems unrealistic try to measure it without culture… Don’t forget that techniques or signals of the technological job are also cultural,
IQ measured superficially well verbal, g (pattern recognition), mathematical, spatial and other aspects of the intellect AND NOT how it can be used in creative and in wise/rational ways. IQ measure capacity to memorize and replicate known knowledge.
IQ Don’t measured interpersonal intelligence (one of the most important aspects of the intelligence and human intelligence, after all, what make us essentially smarter than other beings if not highly developed self awareness??), intrapersonal or emotional intelligence, musical, moral skills, exactly what lacks among our politicians, for example,
Yes humans are diverse and showed a diversity of intelligence’s,
Modern psychology divided itself in “cognitive” and “psychological” and IQ tests are being used as “measurement of INTELLIGENCE” while in the true it measure the cognitive part of the intellect, superficial well, in other words, we are being treated as machines or workers while we are complete beings,
Intelligence, creativity and wisdom are poorly but possibly reducible to the quantitative values, so analyze seems better to understand this subject than “measure”. Measure always filtered what must be analyzed in their original integrity,
Some IQ tests results reflect perfectly or quasi perfectly the cognitive levels of some individuals but it’s not universal. Some individuals are too smart than their IQ tests results are showing. They have mental problems?? Sometimes it’s possible but some people have well developed this intelligence types that are not measured by IQ tests, so it’s logical that for them IQ tests don’t reflect accurately well their cognitive levels,
Rationality underlies every idiocratic lament made by vaguely speaking smarter people. Yes, intellectual/cultural intelligence matters!!! Rationality matters!!! What make people disgusted with the idea to see irrational foreigners invading the west (of course it’s not all of them who are irrational…and west never was the perfect example of rational culture) is exactly their savage behavior and not only because they scored lower in IQ or scholastic aptitude tests.
Seems the problem is not what IQ measure. The problem is what IQ don’t measure and so many times make all difference.
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
- I should really put it into a previous comment instead of spamming the thread with three separate comments, but I found this article far too late.
This is a very exciting and promising research that is going in the right direction. Still it does not resolve the nurture vs. nurture dichotomy and what is the fraction of heredity in intelligence.
Perhaps the connectome will help to decide wether the Flynn effect should be corrected or not. If the Flynn effect results from increased numbers of connection then it would be hard to argue that it is not a part of some hard wired intelligence.
So I welcome this developments because they will help to sort out some of the mumbo jumbo created by IQ pseudo scientists.
Maybe, but this is a common ploy by genetic intelligence deniers. What does “bigger genetic difference” mean? This is never defined.
Is IQ “actually the BEST predictor we have to estimate various, unrelated life outcomes”?
I doubt it.
Your best bet for being Prime Minister of Britain, for example, is to attend the University of Oxford. Better still, attend Christchurch college Oxford (13 Prime Ministers), including Sir Alec Douglas Home who obtained a third class degree and said that he worked out economic sums using matchsticks.
Not bad at cricket, though, playing ten first class matches, scoring an average of 16 runs – his best score 37 not out.
Moreover, let me remind you that "g" can be also inferred from digital forward span and digitial backward span, or simple reaction times. It's really hard to argue that in those cases people remember less numbers because they had worse education and no access to public libraries...
So maybe reaction times are better than IQ’s at predicting miscellaneous outcomes.
Certainly, my Dad had fast reflexes. He was a champion tennis player and an RAF pilot during WW2. But he was also successful academically, leaving grammar school with a testimonial from the Head, which stated that he was the most able student that the had taught. So which would have best indicated his later success as a business executive, his reaction times, and IQ test or his academic achievement? the academic achievement would probably have been as useful as anything.
Come to think of it, have not academic tests been found at least as useful as the SAT for predicting university performance?
Some thoughts
IQ measured potential based on the simulations to the real world. But our intelligences are absolutely impregnated with cultural influences in the way seems unrealistic try to measure it without culture... Don't forget that techniques or signals of the technological job are also cultural,
IQ measured superficially well verbal, g (pattern recognition), mathematical, spatial and other aspects of the intellect AND NOT how it can be used in creative and in wise/rational ways. IQ measure capacity to memorize and replicate known knowledge.
IQ Don't measured interpersonal intelligence (one of the most important aspects of the intelligence and human intelligence, after all, what make us essentially smarter than other beings if not highly developed self awareness??), intrapersonal or emotional intelligence, musical, moral skills, exactly what lacks among our politicians, for example,
Yes humans are diverse and showed a diversity of intelligence's,
Modern psychology divided itself in "cognitive" and "psychological" and IQ tests are being used as "measurement of INTELLIGENCE" while in the true it measure the cognitive part of the intellect, superficial well, in other words, we are being treated as machines or workers while we are complete beings,
Intelligence, creativity and wisdom are poorly but possibly reducible to the quantitative values, so analyze seems better to understand this subject than "measure". Measure always filtered what must be analyzed in their original integrity,
Some IQ tests results reflect perfectly or quasi perfectly the cognitive levels of some individuals but it's not universal. Some individuals are too smart than their IQ tests results are showing. They have mental problems?? Sometimes it's possible but some people have well developed this intelligence types that are not measured by IQ tests, so it's logical that for them IQ tests don't reflect accurately well their cognitive levels,
Rationality underlies every idiocratic lament made by vaguely speaking smarter people. Yes, intellectual/cultural intelligence matters!!! Rationality matters!!! What make people disgusted with the idea to see irrational foreigners invading the west (of course it's not all of them who are irrational...and west never was the perfect example of rational culture) is exactly their savage behavior and not only because they scored lower in IQ or scholastic aptitude tests.
Yes, and not all, by any means, have been mentioned here. There are poets, and artists, sculptors and gymnasts, all possessed of exceptional central nervous system capabilities, which may have no bearing whatever on IQ scores, and yet involve remarkable nervous system functionality.
Does IQ predict musicality, for example? I doubt it.
Studies of individuals with various neurological disorders are instructive in this connection, as they can demonstrate exceptional ability in particular creative, artistic or analytical domains that may be almost entirely divorced from normal cognitive functioning.
IQ tests are useful mainly to save lazy academics time and effort. Grade applicants for entry to Harvard on the SAT test and you don’t have to bother with evaluating entrance exam papers. What’s more, if a student learns nothing at Harvard and hires a proxy to write their exams, so what? They have an high IQ, so however ignorant they may be, they’re better than the top graduate from a college for the hoi polloi.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/4/2/16.extractThey aren't better. After extracting "g" factor, what's left does not predict much. As I wrote numerous times in this thread, ALL tests tapping at mental abilities are correlated and you can extract very similar "g" scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous. That is, you can extract "g" using factor analysis on tests on Rection times, backward digit span, and wordsum, and you would not get radically different scores than when extracting "g" using factor analysis using tests on raven matrices and some other.
I would have to re-read all 477 comments in this thread to be sure, but I have an impression that I have already mentioned the fact that RT are "g" loaded.And attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all?
Let me remind you that if you are born to rich parents, part of the reasons is that your parents might have above the average intelligence. Which is heritable. After controlling for heritability, "g", on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES (sure, they are outliers like Clinton and Bush families, but we are talking about STATISTICS, which describe always populations, not singular people - and there are alway outliers). See comment 362 by res about relation between success, SES and IQ.
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
- I should really put it into a previous comment instead of spamming the thread with three separate comments, but I found this article far too late.
No actual quantitative evidence required.
Is IQ, perhaps, a reliable predictor of gullibility?
There is a study with a little sample of precocious children and their IQ’s varied considerably, 108-147.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
Yes, good point and an interesting article.
I, also, was beginning to think about this: the extraordinary abilities of both child and adult savants.
There is a fascinating account by Oliver Sachs (in The Man who Mistook His Wife for His Hat) of the abililties of a pair of adult twins with an estimated IQ of 60 (each, not combined). They were barely articulate, but they could factor eight digit numbers in seconds by an unknown method, and spent much time together, silent for the most part, but announcing periodically a large prime number, which they appeared to savor with great mutual satisfaction.
Almost certainly, many of the great genius likewise possessed savant abilities. Richard Feynman, fo example, one of the greatest popularizers and explainers of physics, and a Nobel Laureate, is reputed to have had an IQ of 123. One may question whether his IQ was really so ordinary, but it probably was relatively low, since his verbal skills, when applied to matters other than physics were quite poor.
Consistent with this is the fact that Princeton University was hesitant to take him as a graduate student despite the strongest recommendation from his professors at MIT, because they had never admitted someone with such low scores on subjects other than math and physics. But what’s not in doubt is that Feynman truly was a genius.
Einstein seems to have been of a similar type, endowed with great intuition about physics and capable of a Newtonian concentration on a very difficult problem, yet his writings on matters unrelated to physics seem banal at best.
So in both cases, knowledge of their IQ scores would likely have only hampered their careers since they most likely would have implied mediocre talent at best.
IQ correlates with intelligence as well Sudoku… What I love yo say: IQ is the best mental game/test.. Still a game.
To understand intelligence we need analyze it and don’t trust blindly in the IQ scores/results.
But because IQ is the best mental game it is still useful and superficially accurate.
If I do a IQ test the results will to say how well I score in the population, my superficial skill levels in verbal, spatial, logic-quantitative and other aspects.
IQ test results/scores don’t reflect my character, my rational capacity, my emotional capacity, my self-knowledge level, all of it interact integratively with verbal, spatial, maths, long term and short term memory, emotional intelligence, etc… This is the categorical concept of intelligence. What it is. The characteristic concept of intelligence/what it do or manifest itself, is: Progressive learning to do at least minimally correct analysis and judgment. If you have a greater proportion of people who scored higher in IQ tests and who are not always fighting to improved their knowledge to give a progressive constancy of correct judgments so…
Predict? Well, for sure those two are (weakly) correlated:
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/4/2/16.extract
They aren’t better. After extracting “g” factor, what’s left does not predict much. As I wrote numerous times in this thread, ALL tests tapping at mental abilities are correlated and you can extract very similar “g” scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous. That is, you can extract “g” using factor analysis on tests on Rection times, backward digit span, and wordsum, and you would not get radically different scores than when extracting “g” using factor analysis using tests on raven matrices and some other.
I would have to re-read all 477 comments in this thread to be sure, but I have an impression that I have already mentioned the fact that RT are “g” loaded.
And attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all?
Let me remind you that if you are born to rich parents, part of the reasons is that your parents might have above the average intelligence. Which is heritable. After controlling for heritability, “g”, on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES (sure, they are outliers like Clinton and Bush families, but we are talking about STATISTICS, which describe always populations, not singular people – and there are alway outliers). See comment 362 by res about relation between success, SES and IQ.
"you can extract very similar “g” scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous."
"you can extract “g” using factor analysis"
"RT are “g” loaded"
"After controlling for heritability, “g”, on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES "
__________
Do you have a link to a work where the "g" was extracted? You can postulate existence of g but you cannot extract it. Say you have X1, X2,..., Xn tests for mental abilities (tests are diverse and numerous) you can postulate a linear model for each test that
Xi=Ai*g+Bi+Ni, where Ai an Bi are constants and Ni represents noise and other unknown variables but you cannot find Ai and Aj. Instead you can establish mutual relationship between any pair of tests
Xj=Aij*Xi+Bij+Nij where you can estimate constants Aij and Bij and correlation Rij between Xj and Xi.
And that's all you can do. There does not exist magical "factor analysis" that would allow you to extract postulated "g" from these data.
In the matrix of correlations {Rij} you identify the m-th row that has the largest values or for which the sum of its elements is greatest among the rows. Then you can claim that Xm is the "strongest", the most dominant variable but still it is not g. Also you can construct a linear combination Z=C1*X1+...+Cn*Xn and find coefficients {C1,...,Cn} for which the sum of correlations cor(X1,Z)+...+cor(Xn,Z) is the greatest. Could you postulate then that Z is the surrogate of g? Sure you could but you cannot prove it.
In practice, in reality the dominant variable researchers use is IQ score. Thats' pretty much all they got. Some of these researches conflate IQ score with IQ, w/o defining what IQ is. They are guilty of reification. Some of researchers like yourself insist on using the term g in their utterance while actually all they got are IQ scores and all talk about extracting g by means of some factor analysis is a futile exercise in dreaming and phantasy, in other words a total BS. This is very pretentious of them. This pretense most likely is driven by some form of "physics envy" and a need for legitimization of their dubious endeavors. If they managed to ape any aspect of physics at all, at best it would be the physics of phlogiston.
No I didn't, did I.
But the assumptions that (a) that British Prime Ministers are particularly intelligent, or that (b) attending Oxford University means that one is especially intellectually gifted seems, well, not very intelligent.
Concerning (a) consider Tony Blair (Iraq war disaster), David Cameron (Libya war disaster), or the latest Conservative fantasist to hold the premiership, Elizabeth May, who has already signed on to a Chinese-financed, French-built nuclear reactor to generate base load power at about 50 cents a kwh, and located immediately upwind of Bristol, Oxford and London, i.e., and hence an existential threat to half the English population.
Concerning (b), I cannot locate data on the mean IQ of an Oxford graduate, but according to Harvard psychologist Shelley Carson "Eighty-six Harvard undergraduates (33 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD = 3.3) participated in [a] study. All were recruited from sign-up sheets posted on campus… The mean IQ of the sample was 128.1 points (SD = 10.3), with a range of 97 to 148 points."
Since Harvard claims to be the world'd top university, we can assume that Oxford turns out its own quota of low-, and even below average-, IQ graduates too, as the recent parade of crooks and dummies running Britain's government seems to confirm.
The faith in IQ tests, bolstered by seemingly unintelligible verbiage about some mystic entity, called "g", is amazing. Could it be a sort of compulsive obsessive mental disorder?
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/4/2/16.extractThey aren't better. After extracting "g" factor, what's left does not predict much. As I wrote numerous times in this thread, ALL tests tapping at mental abilities are correlated and you can extract very similar "g" scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous. That is, you can extract "g" using factor analysis on tests on Rection times, backward digit span, and wordsum, and you would not get radically different scores than when extracting "g" using factor analysis using tests on raven matrices and some other.
I would have to re-read all 477 comments in this thread to be sure, but I have an impression that I have already mentioned the fact that RT are "g" loaded.And attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all?
Let me remind you that if you are born to rich parents, part of the reasons is that your parents might have above the average intelligence. Which is heritable. After controlling for heritability, "g", on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES (sure, they are outliers like Clinton and Bush families, but we are talking about STATISTICS, which describe always populations, not singular people - and there are alway outliers). See comment 362 by res about relation between success, SES and IQ.
Everything is correlated with ”intelligence”.
The question is:
”everyone who attended in Oxford will be apt to govern a nation*”
NO. Even most of them.
Why**
Because most people are subconscious about their own cognitive biases
and second, because seems most of people who are conscious, don’t care too much about it OR even worse, they use it to their own selfish advantages, specially the smarter ones.
All the time ”we” are confusing wisdom and/or rationality with intelligence.
Intelligence alone, at priore, don’t require moral skills, period.
One of the most mainly disgrace of human story is exactly this, purposely or not, confusion between them.
Hillary is dumb**
I doubt.
She appear to be, if not classically smarter (book smarter) ”at least” quite astute.
She is wise or rational*
No chance.
What HBD seems don’t care too much.
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/4/2/16.extractThey aren't better. After extracting "g" factor, what's left does not predict much. As I wrote numerous times in this thread, ALL tests tapping at mental abilities are correlated and you can extract very similar "g" scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous. That is, you can extract "g" using factor analysis on tests on Rection times, backward digit span, and wordsum, and you would not get radically different scores than when extracting "g" using factor analysis using tests on raven matrices and some other.
I would have to re-read all 477 comments in this thread to be sure, but I have an impression that I have already mentioned the fact that RT are "g" loaded.And attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all?
Let me remind you that if you are born to rich parents, part of the reasons is that your parents might have above the average intelligence. Which is heritable. After controlling for heritability, "g", on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES (sure, they are outliers like Clinton and Bush families, but we are talking about STATISTICS, which describe always populations, not singular people - and there are alway outliers). See comment 362 by res about relation between success, SES and IQ.
“After extracting “g” factor”
“you can extract very similar “g” scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous.”
“you can extract “g” using factor analysis”
“RT are “g” loaded”
“After controlling for heritability, “g”, on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES ”
__________
Do you have a link to a work where the “g” was extracted? You can postulate existence of g but you cannot extract it. Say you have X1, X2,…, Xn tests for mental abilities (tests are diverse and numerous) you can postulate a linear model for each test that
Xi=Ai*g+Bi+Ni, where Ai an Bi are constants and Ni represents noise and other unknown variables but you cannot find Ai and Aj. Instead you can establish mutual relationship between any pair of tests
Xj=Aij*Xi+Bij+Nij where you can estimate constants Aij and Bij and correlation Rij between Xj and Xi.
And that’s all you can do. There does not exist magical “factor analysis” that would allow you to extract postulated “g” from these data.
In the matrix of correlations {Rij} you identify the m-th row that has the largest values or for which the sum of its elements is greatest among the rows. Then you can claim that Xm is the “strongest”, the most dominant variable but still it is not g. Also you can construct a linear combination Z=C1*X1+…+Cn*Xn and find coefficients {C1,…,Cn} for which the sum of correlations cor(X1,Z)+…+cor(Xn,Z) is the greatest. Could you postulate then that Z is the surrogate of g? Sure you could but you cannot prove it.
In practice, in reality the dominant variable researchers use is IQ score. Thats’ pretty much all they got. Some of these researches conflate IQ score with IQ, w/o defining what IQ is. They are guilty of reification. Some of researchers like yourself insist on using the term g in their utterance while actually all they got are IQ scores and all talk about extracting g by means of some factor analysis is a futile exercise in dreaming and phantasy, in other words a total BS. This is very pretentious of them. This pretense most likely is driven by some form of “physics envy” and a need for legitimization of their dubious endeavors. If they managed to ape any aspect of physics at all, at best it would be the physics of phlogiston.
In other words, I do not understand your charges/objections. Even if you are right and "g" does not reflect anything meaningful, it does not change anything - it is still a useful construct, differences in "g" between races exist (though, as I wrote above, Chanda Chisala has written very convincing arguments which lower my faith into hereditarian explanations of those differences) and they seem to explain differences in outcomes for those races.
Just found this: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html The author demolishes the concept of “g”.
Here is his conclusion:
“In primitive societies, or so Malinowski taught, myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions. Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.
The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.”
Intelligence is not everything, sure. But surely it is important.
Perhaps you could show us the importance of intelligence with graphs of mayfly IQ test performance?
"you can extract very similar “g” scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous."
"you can extract “g” using factor analysis"
"RT are “g” loaded"
"After controlling for heritability, “g”, on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES "
__________
Do you have a link to a work where the "g" was extracted? You can postulate existence of g but you cannot extract it. Say you have X1, X2,..., Xn tests for mental abilities (tests are diverse and numerous) you can postulate a linear model for each test that
Xi=Ai*g+Bi+Ni, where Ai an Bi are constants and Ni represents noise and other unknown variables but you cannot find Ai and Aj. Instead you can establish mutual relationship between any pair of tests
Xj=Aij*Xi+Bij+Nij where you can estimate constants Aij and Bij and correlation Rij between Xj and Xi.
And that's all you can do. There does not exist magical "factor analysis" that would allow you to extract postulated "g" from these data.
In the matrix of correlations {Rij} you identify the m-th row that has the largest values or for which the sum of its elements is greatest among the rows. Then you can claim that Xm is the "strongest", the most dominant variable but still it is not g. Also you can construct a linear combination Z=C1*X1+...+Cn*Xn and find coefficients {C1,...,Cn} for which the sum of correlations cor(X1,Z)+...+cor(Xn,Z) is the greatest. Could you postulate then that Z is the surrogate of g? Sure you could but you cannot prove it.
In practice, in reality the dominant variable researchers use is IQ score. Thats' pretty much all they got. Some of these researches conflate IQ score with IQ, w/o defining what IQ is. They are guilty of reification. Some of researchers like yourself insist on using the term g in their utterance while actually all they got are IQ scores and all talk about extracting g by means of some factor analysis is a futile exercise in dreaming and phantasy, in other words a total BS. This is very pretentious of them. This pretense most likely is driven by some form of "physics envy" and a need for legitimization of their dubious endeavors. If they managed to ape any aspect of physics at all, at best it would be the physics of phlogiston.
As I wrote above, “reification” argument is meaningless. It does not matter whether “g” really is a thing. Let’s define “g” simply as a measure of correlation, i.e. the result of factor analysis. And, indeed, even if one agrees that there is no “hidden variable” and “g” is simply result of factor analysis, all the findings of psychometry stands. You still have replicated finding that this “g” somehow magically predicts a whole lot of things, is correlated with things we tend to associate with intelligence and a lot of features of neurological system (neurological? hmmm “system nerwowy” in Polish).
In other words, I do not understand your charges/objections. Even if you are right and “g” does not reflect anything meaningful, it does not change anything – it is still a useful construct, differences in “g” between races exist (though, as I wrote above, Chanda Chisala has written very convincing arguments which lower my faith into hereditarian explanations of those differences) and they seem to explain differences in outcomes for those races.
Important to what? Mayflies? Several billion hatch every year. Several billion die every year after laying 100 million eggs each. Every year there are mayflies, because mayflies meet the criterion “reproductive success achieves evolutionary success”.
Perhaps you could show us the importance of intelligence with graphs of mayfly IQ test performance?
Americans of any intelligence, especially Jews and Harvard graduates, seem to be breeding themselves out of existence.
Here is his conclusion:
"In primitive societies, or so Malinowski taught, myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions. Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.
The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind."
Amply demonstrating ” Thar’s gold in them thar hills!” promise of ‘g’ and IQ testing. So much money spent by fools to achieve one thing: wealth for the circus barkers of IQ.
Here is his conclusion:
"In primitive societies, or so Malinowski taught, myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions. Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.
The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind."
The answer is in Jensen’s “G-factor, the science of mental ability”, pages 120-121. As I wrote above, go and read it, it would save us a lot of discussions.
As you may see above (comment 181), I wrote “(b) over more than 100 years no one got better concept (with one exception, there is one theory which however is unpopular),”. The THomson’s bonds theory is exactly this one exception I had in mind. Jensen in his book explains however the reasons he prefers “g” theory and finds “bonds” theory less elegant and less probable.
I would like also to point out that results of mental tests are not random. Yes, you can have array of random variables and have single factor; but it is highly unlikely that after randomly generating dozen times, dozen arrays, you would have very similar “g”-loadings on the same variable, each time – hence you cannot explain away correlations by stating that for randomly generated array there would be some correlations and that’s why you need bonds theory.
Moreover, controlling for “knowledge”, controls also for part of “g”, hence the point about black and white gap going away seems to be absurd (I have no patience to read the sourced articles, so I am going for essay author’s description).
Small explanation: I am scientists and researcher (CS) but I am not psychometrician. I like g theory because it is simple, elegant, and has large predictive and explanatory power.
M= square footage of your house
S=number of shoe pairs you poses
V=how many miles you travel during vacations
C=how many children you have
T=how many real teeth you have
I=how tooth implants you have
Let suppose you know nothing about money and money scale and a value of $1 or $1000. But you hypothesize there must be something, a hidden variable D (D=dough) that explains why some people have different values of M,S,V,C,T,I. How to find out how much dough they have?
Show me a methodology how to obtain from the variables M,S,V,C,T,I the hidden variable D. Once you have a method to calculate D you can verify how well this D is correlated with the actual incomes in dollar value. What is correlation between D and income? With different methods of factorial analysis you can construct different (because the problem has no unique solution) variables D. Which of them correlates best with actual income? This cannot be proven a priori.
Would you discover the existence of money by this process? No.
Would you learn something about money? No.
Would you find out where money comes from? No.
For these reasons I claim that "g" is superfluous, empty, useless and sometimes misleading construct. When you look at it is just a mathematical construct. It is really a very trivial construct. The triviality of it is obscured to many only because they do understand mathematical operation behind it (singular value decomposition sounds scary, right?) and Jensen's indolence and/or obfuscations do not help them in understanding.
szopen, you have to face the reality of being had. There is not shame to it. You are not the only one.
And all so utterly irrelevant. Does ‘g’ correlate to reproductive success? There is no other criterion.
I have downloaded Jensen’s book. There is nothing relevant on pp. 120-121.
“It does not matter whether “g” really is a thing.” – “g” has to be something, not necessarily a material thing. It requires a definition. It does not have to be conceptual definition. Any conceptual definition actually will be misleading and will be overreaching. It should be purely mathematical definition that is consistent with mathematical methodology of “extracting g” from the correlation matrix. Because at best “g” has legs only when it is defined mathematically in relation t the correlation matrix.
It seems that Jensen has difficulty explaining or even defining what “g” is. His chapter on factor analysis is a total mess and I suspect it may indicate his lack of understanding of mathematics behind the mathematical tools available in statistical packages (statisticians who use statistical packages often have no clue what mathematics is behind them) or it is a purposeful obfuscation (if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.). I once was reviewing a paper where they attempted to use 16 order polynomials in some fitting scheme. They were using a mathematical package that very robust because of SVD algorithm so it was able to produce 16 coefficients but they forgot to notice that the values for coefficients for powers larger than 7 were all meaningless. This happens when you give a computer to a monkey.
Any student of mathematics after the course of linear algebra should be able to do a better job on properties of symmetric matrices, various methods of decomposition and eigenvectors and eigenvalues. Apparently Jensen is unable to do it. Either he can’t or he obfuscates. His arguments got a pass only because of lack of mathematical sophistication of his audience, including his liberal (anti-IQ) critics who equally suffer from innumeracy.
#486: The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.”
Once again, I find Thomson bonds' theory the only other one which has some sense in it, but I still prefer Jensen's "g" theory.
I will quote extensively below (click MORE tag to unfold):
[..]
"It does not matter whether “g” really is a thing." - "g" has to be something, not necessarily a material thing. It requires a definition. It does not have to be conceptual definition. Any conceptual definition actually will be misleading and will be overreaching. It should be purely mathematical definition that is consistent with mathematical methodology of "extracting g" from the correlation matrix. Because at best "g" has legs only when it is defined mathematically in relation t the correlation matrix.
It seems that Jensen has difficulty explaining or even defining what "g" is. His chapter on factor analysis is a total mess and I suspect it may indicate his lack of understanding of mathematics behind the mathematical tools available in statistical packages (statisticians who use statistical packages often have no clue what mathematics is behind them) or it is a purposeful obfuscation (if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.). I once was reviewing a paper where they attempted to use 16 order polynomials in some fitting scheme. They were using a mathematical package that very robust because of SVD algorithm so it was able to produce 16 coefficients but they forgot to notice that the values for coefficients for powers larger than 7 were all meaningless. This happens when you give a computer to a monkey.
Any student of mathematics after the course of linear algebra should be able to do a better job on properties of symmetric matrices, various methods of decomposition and eigenvectors and eigenvalues. Apparently Jensen is unable to do it. Either he can't or he obfuscates. His arguments got a pass only because of lack of mathematical sophistication of his audience, including his liberal (anti-IQ) critics who equally suffer from innumeracy.
#486: The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.”
Oh, so cold, so cold …
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/4/2/16.extractThey aren't better. After extracting "g" factor, what's left does not predict much. As I wrote numerous times in this thread, ALL tests tapping at mental abilities are correlated and you can extract very similar "g" scores using any set of tests for mental abilities, as long as those tests are diverse and numerous. That is, you can extract "g" using factor analysis on tests on Rection times, backward digit span, and wordsum, and you would not get radically different scores than when extracting "g" using factor analysis using tests on raven matrices and some other.
I would have to re-read all 477 comments in this thread to be sure, but I have an impression that I have already mentioned the fact that RT are "g" loaded.And attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all?
Let me remind you that if you are born to rich parents, part of the reasons is that your parents might have above the average intelligence. Which is heritable. After controlling for heritability, "g", on average, in modern societies is better predictor of success than SES (sure, they are outliers like Clinton and Bush families, but we are talking about STATISTICS, which describe always populations, not singular people - and there are alway outliers). See comment 362 by res about relation between success, SES and IQ.
Did I say that “attending Oxford is not related to intelligence at all”?
No I didn’t, did I.
But the assumptions that (a) that British Prime Ministers are particularly intelligent, or that (b) attending Oxford University means that one is especially intellectually gifted seems, well, not very intelligent.
Concerning (a) consider Tony Blair (Iraq war disaster), David Cameron (Libya war disaster), or the latest Conservative fantasist to hold the premiership, Elizabeth May, who has already signed on to a Chinese-financed, French-built nuclear reactor to generate base load power at about 50 cents a kwh, and located immediately upwind of Bristol, Oxford and London, i.e., and hence an existential threat to half the English population.
Concerning (b), I cannot locate data on the mean IQ of an Oxford graduate, but according to Harvard psychologist Shelley Carson “Eighty-six Harvard undergraduates (33 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD = 3.3) participated in [a] study. All were recruited from sign-up sheets posted on campus… The mean IQ of the sample was 128.1 points (SD = 10.3), with a range of 97 to 148 points.”
Since Harvard claims to be the world’d top university, we can assume that Oxford turns out its own quota of low-, and even below average-, IQ graduates too, as the recent parade of crooks and dummies running Britain’s government seems to confirm.
The faith in IQ tests, bolstered by seemingly unintelligible verbiage about some mystic entity, called “g”, is amazing. Could it be a sort of compulsive obsessive mental disorder?
If amongst 53 women tested there were some gender studies students, then yeah, it is believeable.
Let me quote myself (comment 87 directed to ... CanSpeccy)
Perhaps you could show us the importance of intelligence with graphs of mayfly IQ test performance?
Obviously one cannot show this, if by “importance” is meant the capacity to fulfull the basic tendency of all life forms to reproduce, since fertility is inversely related to both years of schooling (Hernstein and Murray), and IQ — both within and across nations.
Americans of any intelligence, especially Jews and Harvard graduates, seem to be breeding themselves out of existence.
szopen, in one of your first comment you tried to explain to me “g” by analogy of money as a hidden variable. Let’s try to go further with this analogy. Suppose we have the following variables (and data for say 10,000 people):
M= square footage of your house
S=number of shoe pairs you poses
V=how many miles you travel during vacations
C=how many children you have
T=how many real teeth you have
I=how tooth implants you have
Let suppose you know nothing about money and money scale and a value of $1 or $1000. But you hypothesize there must be something, a hidden variable D (D=dough) that explains why some people have different values of M,S,V,C,T,I. How to find out how much dough they have?
Show me a methodology how to obtain from the variables M,S,V,C,T,I the hidden variable D. Once you have a method to calculate D you can verify how well this D is correlated with the actual incomes in dollar value. What is correlation between D and income? With different methods of factorial analysis you can construct different (because the problem has no unique solution) variables D. Which of them correlates best with actual income? This cannot be proven a priori.
Would you discover the existence of money by this process? No.
Would you learn something about money? No.
Would you find out where money comes from? No.
For these reasons I claim that “g” is superfluous, empty, useless and sometimes misleading construct. When you look at it is just a mathematical construct. It is really a very trivial construct. The triviality of it is obscured to many only because they do understand mathematical operation behind it (singular value decomposition sounds scary, right?) and Jensen’s indolence and/or obfuscations do not help them in understanding.
szopen, you have to face the reality of being had. There is not shame to it. You are not the only one.
(1) The fact that all those variables are correlated is not a trivial finding, but, on the contrary, quite astonishing. Not all set of variables will be correlated. IN the link you have provided there was correlation, because the author presupposed there was a number of independent causes (based on bonds theory). In your example, I see that those variables are correlated, and therefore I must find a theory to explain WHY. The answer "well, they are, so what" may be satisfactory to a layman, but not to a researcher.
So, you would have to postulate that either you have "energy" providing for "D", or maybe "bonds" which cause the correlations. In case of "g" and "bonds" theory, however, there is some evidence which fits better "g" model than "bonds" model (as in Jensen's book I quoted above).
Your assertions about "money" are partially true; yes, the existence of "D" would not tell me about where the money come from (existence of "g" does not tell me from where the "intelligence" comes from). But if I would then find out that those people seem to also have a variable "X" - kind of job, then I could hypothesize that values of "D" comes from "X" (values of "g" comes from certain brain features). WIthout noticing and creating concept of "D" I wouldn't even have the incentive to check that "X" variable, or check the hypothesis that "X" provides something important which is causes people to have more shoes.
So even if "D" is imperfect, even if "D" does not teach me what money are, from where they come, and even if initially I have no way to check whether "D" is indeed (im)perfect measure of income, its existence gives me incentive to search for the true causes, and it gives me a rough measure by which I can test the hypotheses about "why some people have more shoes than other".
(2) Yes, you can find several factors, but you can use confirmatory factor analysis (for example) to check how well it fits to the data (and when it was done for g, the fit was very good IIRC) - again, CFA was mentioned in your link, but the author seems not to mentioned the CFA being used to confirm "g", strange...
(3) Once again I wonder what is a "useless" construct. If you would devise a test measuring "D" in your example, and then it could be used to predict not ust M, V, I etc but also values of some other variables X,Y,Z, and if there would be no better single variable better explaining values of those new variables X,Y,Z, then the "D" would be a useful construct.
The important thing is that "g" can be found in any set of tests, even in those, which were designed to prove that "g" does not exist.
The facial recognition metioned by SantoCulto seems to be the only exception to the rule "if tests measures something we think is related to the cognitive process, then it is correlated with g". This is a really, really astonishing finding.
BTW, only now, after re-reading, I've read also footnotes bythe author of the essay you have linked and only now i saw the footnote 8 - where he claims that "g" emerges that this is because hwo we design the tests. This is emphatically, false.
PS: I guess I have to thank you for one thing - I had to refresh my statististics, as I had not used factor analysis for ages and I had to reread few things...
"It does not matter whether “g” really is a thing." - "g" has to be something, not necessarily a material thing. It requires a definition. It does not have to be conceptual definition. Any conceptual definition actually will be misleading and will be overreaching. It should be purely mathematical definition that is consistent with mathematical methodology of "extracting g" from the correlation matrix. Because at best "g" has legs only when it is defined mathematically in relation t the correlation matrix.
It seems that Jensen has difficulty explaining or even defining what "g" is. His chapter on factor analysis is a total mess and I suspect it may indicate his lack of understanding of mathematics behind the mathematical tools available in statistical packages (statisticians who use statistical packages often have no clue what mathematics is behind them) or it is a purposeful obfuscation (if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.). I once was reviewing a paper where they attempted to use 16 order polynomials in some fitting scheme. They were using a mathematical package that very robust because of SVD algorithm so it was able to produce 16 coefficients but they forgot to notice that the values for coefficients for powers larger than 7 were all meaningless. This happens when you give a computer to a monkey.
Any student of mathematics after the course of linear algebra should be able to do a better job on properties of symmetric matrices, various methods of decomposition and eigenvectors and eigenvalues. Apparently Jensen is unable to do it. Either he can't or he obfuscates. His arguments got a pass only because of lack of mathematical sophistication of his audience, including his liberal (anti-IQ) critics who equally suffer from innumeracy.
#486: The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.”
Reminiscence of Freeman Dyson’s conversation, when a young man, with the great physicist, Enrico Fermi:
And von Neumann was not kidding, as this paper confirms.
"It does not matter whether “g” really is a thing." - "g" has to be something, not necessarily a material thing. It requires a definition. It does not have to be conceptual definition. Any conceptual definition actually will be misleading and will be overreaching. It should be purely mathematical definition that is consistent with mathematical methodology of "extracting g" from the correlation matrix. Because at best "g" has legs only when it is defined mathematically in relation t the correlation matrix.
It seems that Jensen has difficulty explaining or even defining what "g" is. His chapter on factor analysis is a total mess and I suspect it may indicate his lack of understanding of mathematics behind the mathematical tools available in statistical packages (statisticians who use statistical packages often have no clue what mathematics is behind them) or it is a purposeful obfuscation (if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.). I once was reviewing a paper where they attempted to use 16 order polynomials in some fitting scheme. They were using a mathematical package that very robust because of SVD algorithm so it was able to produce 16 coefficients but they forgot to notice that the values for coefficients for powers larger than 7 were all meaningless. This happens when you give a computer to a monkey.
Any student of mathematics after the course of linear algebra should be able to do a better job on properties of symmetric matrices, various methods of decomposition and eigenvectors and eigenvalues. Apparently Jensen is unable to do it. Either he can't or he obfuscates. His arguments got a pass only because of lack of mathematical sophistication of his audience, including his liberal (anti-IQ) critics who equally suffer from innumeracy.
#486: The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.”
What do you mean nothing relevant? Jensen directly comments on Thomson’s bonds theory (you know, the one from the http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html you have linked to, in “Correlations explain g, not the other way around” and “How to make 2766 independent abilities look like one g factor” parts). Jensen first explains THomson’s idea, and then explains why he does not support it. As such, the Jensen’s book from 1998 is relevant the link (from 2007) because it discusses what consistutes the gists of the arguments in link you have provided.
Once again, I find Thomson bonds’ theory the only other one which has some sense in it, but I still prefer Jensen’s “g” theory.
I will quote extensively below (click MORE tag to unfold):
[..]
No I didn't, did I.
But the assumptions that (a) that British Prime Ministers are particularly intelligent, or that (b) attending Oxford University means that one is especially intellectually gifted seems, well, not very intelligent.
Concerning (a) consider Tony Blair (Iraq war disaster), David Cameron (Libya war disaster), or the latest Conservative fantasist to hold the premiership, Elizabeth May, who has already signed on to a Chinese-financed, French-built nuclear reactor to generate base load power at about 50 cents a kwh, and located immediately upwind of Bristol, Oxford and London, i.e., and hence an existential threat to half the English population.
Concerning (b), I cannot locate data on the mean IQ of an Oxford graduate, but according to Harvard psychologist Shelley Carson "Eighty-six Harvard undergraduates (33 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD = 3.3) participated in [a] study. All were recruited from sign-up sheets posted on campus… The mean IQ of the sample was 128.1 points (SD = 10.3), with a range of 97 to 148 points."
Since Harvard claims to be the world'd top university, we can assume that Oxford turns out its own quota of low-, and even below average-, IQ graduates too, as the recent parade of crooks and dummies running Britain's government seems to confirm.
The faith in IQ tests, bolstered by seemingly unintelligible verbiage about some mystic entity, called "g", is amazing. Could it be a sort of compulsive obsessive mental disorder?
Below average is 2.7SD, so assuming normal distribution and Oxford having similar IQ with similar SD, they would have less than 0.34% (one in 300) students below 100, meaning some 77 students in Oxford (if my math is OK and if the assumptions hold).
If amongst 53 women tested there were some gender studies students, then yeah, it is believeable.
Let me quote myself (comment 87 directed to … CanSpeccy)
It may be possible to demonstrate, or at the very least, infer some importance to intelligence, BUT, not in the context of “evolution”, particularly “evolutionary superiority”. Superiority of a given trait applies only within the niche, not to the global whole of “evolutionary processes”. Evolutionary theory must be consistent, must adhere to the core principle of reproductive success. If intelligence can be demonstrated to correlate to reproductive success within the niche, fine, you’ve got an argument for IQ studies and ‘g’ studies in an evolutionary context. Otherwise, no.
Certainly, I would never deny the IQ-devotees their pleasure of “intelligence research” as a component of socioeconomic and socio-psychological factors — even historical impact –on human civilizations. But, evolution? No, of course not.
M= square footage of your house
S=number of shoe pairs you poses
V=how many miles you travel during vacations
C=how many children you have
T=how many real teeth you have
I=how tooth implants you have
Let suppose you know nothing about money and money scale and a value of $1 or $1000. But you hypothesize there must be something, a hidden variable D (D=dough) that explains why some people have different values of M,S,V,C,T,I. How to find out how much dough they have?
Show me a methodology how to obtain from the variables M,S,V,C,T,I the hidden variable D. Once you have a method to calculate D you can verify how well this D is correlated with the actual incomes in dollar value. What is correlation between D and income? With different methods of factorial analysis you can construct different (because the problem has no unique solution) variables D. Which of them correlates best with actual income? This cannot be proven a priori.
Would you discover the existence of money by this process? No.
Would you learn something about money? No.
Would you find out where money comes from? No.
For these reasons I claim that "g" is superfluous, empty, useless and sometimes misleading construct. When you look at it is just a mathematical construct. It is really a very trivial construct. The triviality of it is obscured to many only because they do understand mathematical operation behind it (singular value decomposition sounds scary, right?) and Jensen's indolence and/or obfuscations do not help them in understanding.
szopen, you have to face the reality of being had. There is not shame to it. You are not the only one.
Utu,
(1) The fact that all those variables are correlated is not a trivial finding, but, on the contrary, quite astonishing. Not all set of variables will be correlated. IN the link you have provided there was correlation, because the author presupposed there was a number of independent causes (based on bonds theory). In your example, I see that those variables are correlated, and therefore I must find a theory to explain WHY. The answer “well, they are, so what” may be satisfactory to a layman, but not to a researcher.
So, you would have to postulate that either you have “energy” providing for “D”, or maybe “bonds” which cause the correlations. In case of “g” and “bonds” theory, however, there is some evidence which fits better “g” model than “bonds” model (as in Jensen’s book I quoted above).
Your assertions about “money” are partially true; yes, the existence of “D” would not tell me about where the money come from (existence of “g” does not tell me from where the “intelligence” comes from). But if I would then find out that those people seem to also have a variable “X” – kind of job, then I could hypothesize that values of “D” comes from “X” (values of “g” comes from certain brain features). WIthout noticing and creating concept of “D” I wouldn’t even have the incentive to check that “X” variable, or check the hypothesis that “X” provides something important which is causes people to have more shoes.
So even if “D” is imperfect, even if “D” does not teach me what money are, from where they come, and even if initially I have no way to check whether “D” is indeed (im)perfect measure of income, its existence gives me incentive to search for the true causes, and it gives me a rough measure by which I can test the hypotheses about “why some people have more shoes than other”.
(2) Yes, you can find several factors, but you can use confirmatory factor analysis (for example) to check how well it fits to the data (and when it was done for g, the fit was very good IIRC) – again, CFA was mentioned in your link, but the author seems not to mentioned the CFA being used to confirm “g”, strange…
(3) Once again I wonder what is a “useless” construct. If you would devise a test measuring “D” in your example, and then it could be used to predict not ust M, V, I etc but also values of some other variables X,Y,Z, and if there would be no better single variable better explaining values of those new variables X,Y,Z, then the “D” would be a useful construct.
The important thing is that “g” can be found in any set of tests, even in those, which were designed to prove that “g” does not exist.
The facial recognition metioned by SantoCulto seems to be the only exception to the rule “if tests measures something we think is related to the cognitive process, then it is correlated with g”. This is a really, really astonishing finding.
BTW, only now, after re-reading, I’ve read also footnotes bythe author of the essay you have linked and only now i saw the footnote 8 – where he claims that “g” emerges that this is because hwo we design the tests. This is emphatically, false.
PS: I guess I have to thank you for one thing – I had to refresh my statististics, as I had not used factor analysis for ages and I had to reread few things…
that unrelated to intelligence studies I found interesting warning concerning factor analysis that most certainly applies to g:
"In both cases, the dimensions found by PCA and FA may be real features of the data, or they may just be more-or-less convenient fictions and summaries. That they are real is a hypothesis which these methods can suggest but for which they can provide only very weak evidence. This matters because ultimately we do data mining to discover knowledge on which we can act. It’s one thing if our action is just a prediction to help us adjust to the world, but it’s another if we go out and try to change the world based on how we think the different parts of it depend on each other. To do that well, we need to know what those parts really are."
I repeat:
"It’s one thing if our action is just a prediction to help us adjust to the world, but it’s another if we go out and try to change the world based on how we think the different parts of it depend on each other. "
If we assume that most inhabitants of the Western nations are not suicidal either for themselves or for the group to which they belong, then we might define intelligence not in terms of some tests for comparing or contrasting stick figures, extending numerical sequences, etc., but in terms of reproductive competence. This might invert the hierarchy that the IQ-ists have constructed, but it would make biological sense.
For example, it would be considered intelligent to eliminate welfare for low IQ mothers, who find raising low-IQ children at the expense high-IQ taxpayers with few children preferable to working.
This might be considered inhumane, but we could reintroduce the workhouse, where those unable to support themselves are housed in separate facilities for men and women (to prevent further reproduction) and given simple tasks such as sowing shirts, and other work currently outsourced by the West to the Third World.
It would also be considered intelligent to eliminate the progressive tax code, free or subsidized schooling, medical services, etc. that discourage reproduction by those who are most successful economically. The poor would, presumably, still receive some education and medical care from charitable institutions, but the goal would be to restore the pre-industrial conditions under which the fertility of the upper social strata exceeded that of the lower social strata so that the children of the more physically and mentally fit were downward mobile, making up for the deficit in fertility of the lower social classes. This way, some kind of natural selection for mental and physical fitness would replace the current selection pressure favoring the mentally and physically unfit.
Mass immigration, of course, would have to end, the present policies of Western nations being extraordinarily unintelligent (with the possible exceptions of the policies of Canada and Australia that both need more people quickly, if the inhabitants are to maintain control of their territory).
Does intelligence, as a trait, lead to reproductive success, particularly improved reproductive success (i.e. the genetic line with more intelligence consistently shows improved reproductive success as a factor related to genetically inherited intelligence.)?
Biology, guys. Evolution is all about biology, not social improvement.
Let me explain factor analysis how to get g, so everybody can understand it.
We have T1,…,Tn tests (one of them is IQ test). Technically speaking T1,…,Tn are variables. Test results correlate with each other, Rij=cor(Ti,Tj). R={Rij} is the correlation matrix of dimension nxn. The matrix is symmetric.
Let’s keep in mind that the correlations are calculated over the available set of tests results. Correlation matrices from two different populations can be different.
Now we want to find n variables F1,…,Fn that are mutually independent, i.e., their correlation matrix is diagonal, i.e., cor(Fi,Fj)=0 when i≠j.
The objective is to express each of this variable as a liner combination of T1,…,Tn, so
Fi=Ci,1*T1+…,Ci,n*Tn eqs(1)
The matrix C={Cij} can be inverted B={Bij}. So then we can express each variable Ti as a linear combination of Fi, so
Ti=Bi,1*F1+…,Bi,n*Fn eqs(2)
Because Fi and Fj when i≠j are independent (orthogonal) correlations Rij=Bi,1*Bj,1+…+Bi,n*Bj,n
To find the matrices C and B eigenvalues and eigenvectors of correlation matrix R are found by one of several mathematical routines that are all equivalent to within computational errors. We do not need to know details. In the process we get correlations cor(Ti,Fj). This correlation is named as loading of variable Ti in factor Fj and vice versa as loading of Fj in factor Ti. We look for this Fj that has the largest correlations with all Ti’s. Actually this is the one that has the largest eigenvalue that is calculated during matrix R decomposition process.
The next step is approximate one.
In eq(2) we neglect all non dominant factors
Ti≈Bij*Fj for every i. eq(3)
This Fj is the glorified g factor of Jensen who needed the whole book to not explain it.
What is your g factor? If you were subjected to the n tests and obtained scores T1,…,Tn from them your g is calculated form eq.(1)
g=Fj=Cj,1*T1+…,Cj,n*Tn
but nobody really does it because it is not practical for various reasons.
How valid is the approximation in eq(3)? This depends what is the eigenvalue of the 2nd next most dominant factor. But one can improve the approximation by Bij values in eq(3) in such a way as to increase the mutual loading values. This process is no longer unique because it will depend on the method of optimization.
If we perform this process on two different data sets, say one from Sweden and one from Burkina Faso most likely we will obtain different results of coefficients Bij, loadings , etc. So g’s from Sweden and from Burkina Faso will represent different scales and won’t be mutually congruent.
Does introduction of g, i.e, neglecting of non-dominant factors add something to our knowledge? All information about the given data set is in vectors T={T1,…,Tn}. The same information is in the vectors F={F1,…,Fn} of independent variables. The whole data set can be expressed by vectors T or F w/o loss of single bit of information. The approximation in eq(3) by neglecting n-1 less dominant factors implies that we suffer a loss of information. So in this sense the extraction of Fj (i.e., the glorified g) reduces the content of information.
As you can see I haven’t uses a term intelligence or intelligent capacity or energy or whatever because these concepts are not needed as far as construction of g. g is strictly mathematical construct. There is nothing more to it. All other interpretations of g and usage of g in speech as exemplified by szopen do not belong to mathematics and amount to abuse of language. g can be calculated as a linear combination of test results T1,…,Tn. The problem is that coefficients in this linear combination are not very stable because they change from study to study. This means that for practical purposes g is not unique and thus it is useless even though it has good mathematical definition as the most dominant factor in factor analysis. Nobody really uses g.
Second, "So in this sense the extraction of Fj (i.e., the glorified g) reduces the content of information." - yes, in this sense yes, but OTOH the predictive value of "g" is almost the same as the predictive value of any of the tests. Don't you think it is amazing that simple tests like "I show you something for a second, and you tell me what it is" and "when you see something on the left, as fast as you can release the button and press another button"or "I tell you some numbers, and you try to memorize them and tell them in reverse order" are not only correlated, but can still retain some predictive power on how well you will do in training for being a engineer?
Third, and the most important, the correlation between the tests is a fact which requires an explanation. Just as correlates with biological characteristics and life outcomes.
Fourth, "usage of g in speech as exemplified by szopen do not belong to mathematics " maybe yes, but we are talking about psychometry here: we have a construct which is highly predictive, correlated with a bunch of biological characteristics and so on.
Fifth, in a sense pure "g" is not used, because some tests have high loadings on "g" (raven progressive matrices for example) and therefore can be used as good-enough approximation of "g".
Sixth, i do not really understand " coefficients in this linear combination are not very stable because they change from study to study. ", If you have bunch of tests, the coefficients for them are pretty much stable, i.e. within some small range - unless you can point me to a study which
refutes this claim.
Seventh, " I haven’t uses a term intelligence or intelligent capacity or energy or whatever because these concepts are not needed as far as construction of g" - agreed, but you have to have explanation why "g" can be constructed
Eighth, "g" values computed from study to study are more stable than blood pressure measured in the same man. Blood pressure values are sometimes called "high", but in fact "high" values of blood pressure can be perfectly normal for some individuals. Measurement of height can change in the course of day (we are shorter by the end of a day). Does that mean that height and blood pressure is useless?
About practical usability of "g":
Imagine you have a random set of people (without knowing a priori anything about them), must chose some of them to do some work which you suspect requires something which coloquially is called intelligence and you are given the choice of choosing one measure to characterise them. Which metric would be best to give you the best results on average? The answer is "g". How can then you claim that the construct is useless in practice?
Now, what if the choice you have to do relates to vast number of things, like health, education, criminality, dependency on welfare, job performance, social prestige of job, and every time the best measure available is "g" - how can you claim that "g" is useless?
Furthermore: you have a question why there are fewer blacks than whites, and more Jews than non-Jews in top-academic positions. Using "g" differences explains it. Without it you have to resort to non-quantifiable, circular and nebulous concepts of "systemic racism", "stereotype threats" and so on.
(1) The fact that all those variables are correlated is not a trivial finding, but, on the contrary, quite astonishing. Not all set of variables will be correlated. IN the link you have provided there was correlation, because the author presupposed there was a number of independent causes (based on bonds theory). In your example, I see that those variables are correlated, and therefore I must find a theory to explain WHY. The answer "well, they are, so what" may be satisfactory to a layman, but not to a researcher.
So, you would have to postulate that either you have "energy" providing for "D", or maybe "bonds" which cause the correlations. In case of "g" and "bonds" theory, however, there is some evidence which fits better "g" model than "bonds" model (as in Jensen's book I quoted above).
Your assertions about "money" are partially true; yes, the existence of "D" would not tell me about where the money come from (existence of "g" does not tell me from where the "intelligence" comes from). But if I would then find out that those people seem to also have a variable "X" - kind of job, then I could hypothesize that values of "D" comes from "X" (values of "g" comes from certain brain features). WIthout noticing and creating concept of "D" I wouldn't even have the incentive to check that "X" variable, or check the hypothesis that "X" provides something important which is causes people to have more shoes.
So even if "D" is imperfect, even if "D" does not teach me what money are, from where they come, and even if initially I have no way to check whether "D" is indeed (im)perfect measure of income, its existence gives me incentive to search for the true causes, and it gives me a rough measure by which I can test the hypotheses about "why some people have more shoes than other".
(2) Yes, you can find several factors, but you can use confirmatory factor analysis (for example) to check how well it fits to the data (and when it was done for g, the fit was very good IIRC) - again, CFA was mentioned in your link, but the author seems not to mentioned the CFA being used to confirm "g", strange...
(3) Once again I wonder what is a "useless" construct. If you would devise a test measuring "D" in your example, and then it could be used to predict not ust M, V, I etc but also values of some other variables X,Y,Z, and if there would be no better single variable better explaining values of those new variables X,Y,Z, then the "D" would be a useful construct.
The important thing is that "g" can be found in any set of tests, even in those, which were designed to prove that "g" does not exist.
The facial recognition metioned by SantoCulto seems to be the only exception to the rule "if tests measures something we think is related to the cognitive process, then it is correlated with g". This is a really, really astonishing finding.
BTW, only now, after re-reading, I've read also footnotes bythe author of the essay you have linked and only now i saw the footnote 8 - where he claims that "g" emerges that this is because hwo we design the tests. This is emphatically, false.
PS: I guess I have to thank you for one thing - I had to refresh my statististics, as I had not used factor analysis for ages and I had to reread few things...
“I had to refresh my statististics, as I had not used factor analysis for ages and I had to reread few things…” -Same here.
(1) The fact that all those variables are correlated is not a trivial finding, but, on the contrary, quite astonishing. Not all set of variables will be correlated. IN the link you have provided there was correlation, because the author presupposed there was a number of independent causes (based on bonds theory). In your example, I see that those variables are correlated, and therefore I must find a theory to explain WHY. The answer "well, they are, so what" may be satisfactory to a layman, but not to a researcher.
So, you would have to postulate that either you have "energy" providing for "D", or maybe "bonds" which cause the correlations. In case of "g" and "bonds" theory, however, there is some evidence which fits better "g" model than "bonds" model (as in Jensen's book I quoted above).
Your assertions about "money" are partially true; yes, the existence of "D" would not tell me about where the money come from (existence of "g" does not tell me from where the "intelligence" comes from). But if I would then find out that those people seem to also have a variable "X" - kind of job, then I could hypothesize that values of "D" comes from "X" (values of "g" comes from certain brain features). WIthout noticing and creating concept of "D" I wouldn't even have the incentive to check that "X" variable, or check the hypothesis that "X" provides something important which is causes people to have more shoes.
So even if "D" is imperfect, even if "D" does not teach me what money are, from where they come, and even if initially I have no way to check whether "D" is indeed (im)perfect measure of income, its existence gives me incentive to search for the true causes, and it gives me a rough measure by which I can test the hypotheses about "why some people have more shoes than other".
(2) Yes, you can find several factors, but you can use confirmatory factor analysis (for example) to check how well it fits to the data (and when it was done for g, the fit was very good IIRC) - again, CFA was mentioned in your link, but the author seems not to mentioned the CFA being used to confirm "g", strange...
(3) Once again I wonder what is a "useless" construct. If you would devise a test measuring "D" in your example, and then it could be used to predict not ust M, V, I etc but also values of some other variables X,Y,Z, and if there would be no better single variable better explaining values of those new variables X,Y,Z, then the "D" would be a useful construct.
The important thing is that "g" can be found in any set of tests, even in those, which were designed to prove that "g" does not exist.
The facial recognition metioned by SantoCulto seems to be the only exception to the rule "if tests measures something we think is related to the cognitive process, then it is correlated with g". This is a really, really astonishing finding.
BTW, only now, after re-reading, I've read also footnotes bythe author of the essay you have linked and only now i saw the footnote 8 - where he claims that "g" emerges that this is because hwo we design the tests. This is emphatically, false.
PS: I guess I have to thank you for one thing - I had to refresh my statististics, as I had not used factor analysis for ages and I had to reread few things...
In this article http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/350/lectures/13/lecture-13.pdf
that unrelated to intelligence studies I found interesting warning concerning factor analysis that most certainly applies to g:
“In both cases, the dimensions found by PCA and FA may be real features of the data, or they may just be more-or-less convenient fictions and summaries. That they are real is a hypothesis which these methods can suggest but for which they can provide only very weak evidence. This matters because ultimately we do data mining to discover knowledge on which we can act. It’s one thing if our action is just a prediction to help us adjust to the world, but it’s another if we go out and try to change the world based on how we think the different parts of it depend on each other. To do that well, we need to know what those parts really are.”
I repeat:
“It’s one thing if our action is just a prediction to help us adjust to the world, but it’s another if we go out and try to change the world based on how we think the different parts of it depend on each other. “
For example, it would be considered intelligent to eliminate welfare for low IQ mothers, who find raising low-IQ children at the expense high-IQ taxpayers with few children preferable to working.
This might be considered inhumane, but we could reintroduce the workhouse, where those unable to support themselves are housed in separate facilities for men and women (to prevent further reproduction) and given simple tasks such as sowing shirts, and other work currently outsourced by the West to the Third World.
It would also be considered intelligent to eliminate the progressive tax code, free or subsidized schooling, medical services, etc. that discourage reproduction by those who are most successful economically. The poor would, presumably, still receive some education and medical care from charitable institutions, but the goal would be to restore the pre-industrial conditions under which the fertility of the upper social strata exceeded that of the lower social strata so that the children of the more physically and mentally fit were downward mobile, making up for the deficit in fertility of the lower social classes. This way, some kind of natural selection for mental and physical fitness would replace the current selection pressure favoring the mentally and physically unfit.
Mass immigration, of course, would have to end, the present policies of Western nations being extraordinarily unintelligent (with the possible exceptions of the policies of Canada and Australia that both need more people quickly, if the inhabitants are to maintain control of their territory).
I appreciate that you got carried away with possibilities, but all of your examples do not relate back to reproductive success.
Does intelligence, as a trait, lead to reproductive success, particularly improved reproductive success (i.e. the genetic line with more intelligence consistently shows improved reproductive success as a factor related to genetically inherited intelligence.)?
Biology, guys. Evolution is all about biology, not social improvement.
Hunter-gatherers can maintan a population of 0.1 per square mile. Many countries on earth today have population densities of hundreds per square mile. The biggest problems facing humanity today is overpopulation. Humans have used their intelligence improve their reproductive success greatly.
The liberal Western state is so structured as to favor reproduction of the dumbest (knowledge-wise, or IQ-wise or in terms or economic success) at the expense of the smartest (judged by economic success).
Combining a dysgenic welfare system with mass immigration of vigorous people from the Third World is the antithesis of intelligent planning, unless it is part of a conspiracy to destroy the West, in which case the Western nations are, collectively, truly dumb and are obviously destined to die.
We have T1,...,Tn tests (one of them is IQ test). Technically speaking T1,...,Tn are variables. Test results correlate with each other, Rij=cor(Ti,Tj). R={Rij} is the correlation matrix of dimension nxn. The matrix is symmetric.
Let's keep in mind that the correlations are calculated over the available set of tests results. Correlation matrices from two different populations can be different.
Now we want to find n variables F1,...,Fn that are mutually independent, i.e., their correlation matrix is diagonal, i.e., cor(Fi,Fj)=0 when i≠j.
The objective is to express each of this variable as a liner combination of T1,...,Tn, so
Fi=Ci,1*T1+...,Ci,n*Tn eqs(1)
The matrix C={Cij} can be inverted B={Bij}. So then we can express each variable Ti as a linear combination of Fi, so
Ti=Bi,1*F1+...,Bi,n*Fn eqs(2)
Because Fi and Fj when i≠j are independent (orthogonal) correlations Rij=Bi,1*Bj,1+...+Bi,n*Bj,n
To find the matrices C and B eigenvalues and eigenvectors of correlation matrix R are found by one of several mathematical routines that are all equivalent to within computational errors. We do not need to know details. In the process we get correlations cor(Ti,Fj). This correlation is named as loading of variable Ti in factor Fj and vice versa as loading of Fj in factor Ti. We look for this Fj that has the largest correlations with all Ti's. Actually this is the one that has the largest eigenvalue that is calculated during matrix R decomposition process.
The next step is approximate one.
In eq(2) we neglect all non dominant factors
Ti≈Bij*Fj for every i. eq(3)
This Fj is the glorified g factor of Jensen who needed the whole book to not explain it.
What is your g factor? If you were subjected to the n tests and obtained scores T1,...,Tn from them your g is calculated form eq.(1)
g=Fj=Cj,1*T1+...,Cj,n*Tn
but nobody really does it because it is not practical for various reasons.
How valid is the approximation in eq(3)? This depends what is the eigenvalue of the 2nd next most dominant factor. But one can improve the approximation by Bij values in eq(3) in such a way as to increase the mutual loading values. This process is no longer unique because it will depend on the method of optimization.
If we perform this process on two different data sets, say one from Sweden and one from Burkina Faso most likely we will obtain different results of coefficients Bij, loadings , etc. So g's from Sweden and from Burkina Faso will represent different scales and won't be mutually congruent.
Does introduction of g, i.e, neglecting of non-dominant factors add something to our knowledge? All information about the given data set is in vectors T={T1,...,Tn}. The same information is in the vectors F={F1,...,Fn} of independent variables. The whole data set can be expressed by vectors T or F w/o loss of single bit of information. The approximation in eq(3) by neglecting n-1 less dominant factors implies that we suffer a loss of information. So in this sense the extraction of Fj (i.e., the glorified g) reduces the content of information.
As you can see I haven't uses a term intelligence or intelligent capacity or energy or whatever because these concepts are not needed as far as construction of g. g is strictly mathematical construct. There is nothing more to it. All other interpretations of g and usage of g in speech as exemplified by szopen do not belong to mathematics and amount to abuse of language. g can be calculated as a linear combination of test results T1,...,Tn. The problem is that coefficients in this linear combination are not very stable because they change from study to study. This means that for practical purposes g is not unique and thus it is useless even though it has good mathematical definition as the most dominant factor in factor analysis. Nobody really uses g.
By saying ” Correlation matrices from two different populations can be different.” and “one from Sweden and one from Burkina Faso most likely we will obtain different results of coefficients Bij, loadings , etc.” you have a referenced study to confirm it? Because AFAIK loadings on different tests are not very different depending on the tested population, at least in case of American ethnic groups (whites, blacks…), American and Japanese, Americans and Poles. They are not identical, but they are not widely different.
Second, “So in this sense the extraction of Fj (i.e., the glorified g) reduces the content of information.” – yes, in this sense yes, but OTOH the predictive value of “g” is almost the same as the predictive value of any of the tests. Don’t you think it is amazing that simple tests like “I show you something for a second, and you tell me what it is” and “when you see something on the left, as fast as you can release the button and press another button”or “I tell you some numbers, and you try to memorize them and tell them in reverse order” are not only correlated, but can still retain some predictive power on how well you will do in training for being a engineer?
Third, and the most important, the correlation between the tests is a fact which requires an explanation. Just as correlates with biological characteristics and life outcomes.
Fourth, “usage of g in speech as exemplified by szopen do not belong to mathematics ” maybe yes, but we are talking about psychometry here: we have a construct which is highly predictive, correlated with a bunch of biological characteristics and so on.
Fifth, in a sense pure “g” is not used, because some tests have high loadings on “g” (raven progressive matrices for example) and therefore can be used as good-enough approximation of “g”.
Sixth, i do not really understand ” coefficients in this linear combination are not very stable because they change from study to study. “, If you have bunch of tests, the coefficients for them are pretty much stable, i.e. within some small range – unless you can point me to a study which
refutes this claim.
Seventh, ” I haven’t uses a term intelligence or intelligent capacity or energy or whatever because these concepts are not needed as far as construction of g” – agreed, but you have to have explanation why “g” can be constructed
Eighth, “g” values computed from study to study are more stable than blood pressure measured in the same man. Blood pressure values are sometimes called “high”, but in fact “high” values of blood pressure can be perfectly normal for some individuals. Measurement of height can change in the course of day (we are shorter by the end of a day). Does that mean that height and blood pressure is useless?
About practical usability of “g”:
Imagine you have a random set of people (without knowing a priori anything about them), must chose some of them to do some work which you suspect requires something which coloquially is called intelligence and you are given the choice of choosing one measure to characterise them. Which metric would be best to give you the best results on average? The answer is “g”. How can then you claim that the construct is useless in practice?
Now, what if the choice you have to do relates to vast number of things, like health, education, criminality, dependency on welfare, job performance, social prestige of job, and every time the best measure available is “g” – how can you claim that “g” is useless?
Furthermore: you have a question why there are fewer blacks than whites, and more Jews than non-Jews in top-academic positions. Using “g” differences explains it. Without it you have to resort to non-quantifiable, circular and nebulous concepts of “systemic racism”, “stereotype threats” and so on.
Burden of proof is on you. Show me the studies that matrices are the same in two vastly different countries. I think you won't be able because either the results are hidden or the data do not exist.
Second
That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property. Which does not imply that the linear combination has physical existence outside of a mathematical realm. Variable= 3.141592*(shoe size)+2.76*(height) is correlate with shoe size and heigh and probably with weight and even sex.
Third
Life outcomes are nowhere needed to define mathematically g. They are not a part of the matrix. Do not mix categories.
Fourth
Actually I do not know if g is highly predictive. g mathematically is constructed to be highly predictive with respect to other cognitive tests T1,...,T2. It does not follow that g is more predictive of income than, say T1=IQ test. Basically you confabulate.
Fifth
g is not used because it is cumbersome and ambiguous and data to calculate usually do not exists.
Sixths
Burden of proof is on you. Show me studies that demonstrate stability.
Seventh
Any real symmetric matrix can be decomposed into eigenvectors. The reason correlation is real and symmetric follows from the definition of correlation. There is no other possibility. There are no magical wondrous reasons why g can be constructed. It is about as wondrous as stating that one can take a square root of everybody's shoe sizes and multiply it by a sinus of height in millimeters. These are mathematically permitted operations.
Eight
Blood pressure measures blood pressure. Height measures height. We have physical definitions of height and blood pressure which are independent of their measurements. g measures g but we do not have a definition of g that would independent of its measurement because g is a mathematical construct that is contained in the set of measurements. There is no value added. This is tautology.
Is IQ, perhaps, a reliable predictor of gullibility?
Cranial Capacity Mean (ml) vs. IQ
But cranial capacity is only poorly related to IQ (cranial diameter even less well related). So any correlation between cranial capacity and brain function is likely to be negligible except in pathological cases, e.g., microcephaly.
I think Gould, in the Mismeasure of Man, reported a study in which cranial capacity accounted for 7% of variation in IQ.
And then there are cases of hydrocephaly, where the cerebral cortex has been crushed to a layer of only a millimeter or two, yet mental competence may be preserved (in a case reported in Science Magazine the individual was socially well adjusted, had an IQ of 120 and a math degree). The paper was appropriately titled "Is your brain really necessary?"
Your link doesn’t work for me. (The owner of this website (www.amren.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/ar/2011/09/13c-Cranial_Capacity.jpg).)
But cranial capacity is only poorly related to IQ (cranial diameter even less well related). So any correlation between cranial capacity and brain function is likely to be negligible except in pathological cases, e.g., microcephaly.
I think Gould, in the Mismeasure of Man, reported a study in which cranial capacity accounted for 7% of variation in IQ.
And then there are cases of hydrocephaly, where the cerebral cortex has been crushed to a layer of only a millimeter or two, yet mental competence may be preserved (in a case reported in Science Magazine the individual was socially well adjusted, had an IQ of 120 and a math degree). The paper was appropriately titled “Is your brain really necessary?”
Does intelligence, as a trait, lead to reproductive success, particularly improved reproductive success (i.e. the genetic line with more intelligence consistently shows improved reproductive success as a factor related to genetically inherited intelligence.)?
Biology, guys. Evolution is all about biology, not social improvement.
For a tool using species it does. The extinct Neandertal and Homo Erect proves that. More complex tools and social organization can allow higher population densities. Food extracted per day hunting: grab with hands < thrusting spear < throwing spear < bow and arrow < muzzle loading gun < modern rifle.
Hunter-gatherers can maintan a population of 0.1 per square mile. Many countries on earth today have population densities of hundreds per square mile. The biggest problems facing humanity today is overpopulation. Humans have used their intelligence improve their reproductive success greatly.
Does intelligence, as a trait, lead to reproductive success, particularly improved reproductive success (i.e. the genetic line with more intelligence consistently shows improved reproductive success as a factor related to genetically inherited intelligence.)?
Biology, guys. Evolution is all about biology, not social improvement.
They relate to relative reproductive success, which is what matters.
The liberal Western state is so structured as to favor reproduction of the dumbest (knowledge-wise, or IQ-wise or in terms or economic success) at the expense of the smartest (judged by economic success).
Combining a dysgenic welfare system with mass immigration of vigorous people from the Third World is the antithesis of intelligent planning, unless it is part of a conspiracy to destroy the West, in which case the Western nations are, collectively, truly dumb and are obviously destined to die.
Second, "So in this sense the extraction of Fj (i.e., the glorified g) reduces the content of information." - yes, in this sense yes, but OTOH the predictive value of "g" is almost the same as the predictive value of any of the tests. Don't you think it is amazing that simple tests like "I show you something for a second, and you tell me what it is" and "when you see something on the left, as fast as you can release the button and press another button"or "I tell you some numbers, and you try to memorize them and tell them in reverse order" are not only correlated, but can still retain some predictive power on how well you will do in training for being a engineer?
Third, and the most important, the correlation between the tests is a fact which requires an explanation. Just as correlates with biological characteristics and life outcomes.
Fourth, "usage of g in speech as exemplified by szopen do not belong to mathematics " maybe yes, but we are talking about psychometry here: we have a construct which is highly predictive, correlated with a bunch of biological characteristics and so on.
Fifth, in a sense pure "g" is not used, because some tests have high loadings on "g" (raven progressive matrices for example) and therefore can be used as good-enough approximation of "g".
Sixth, i do not really understand " coefficients in this linear combination are not very stable because they change from study to study. ", If you have bunch of tests, the coefficients for them are pretty much stable, i.e. within some small range - unless you can point me to a study which
refutes this claim.
Seventh, " I haven’t uses a term intelligence or intelligent capacity or energy or whatever because these concepts are not needed as far as construction of g" - agreed, but you have to have explanation why "g" can be constructed
Eighth, "g" values computed from study to study are more stable than blood pressure measured in the same man. Blood pressure values are sometimes called "high", but in fact "high" values of blood pressure can be perfectly normal for some individuals. Measurement of height can change in the course of day (we are shorter by the end of a day). Does that mean that height and blood pressure is useless?
About practical usability of "g":
Imagine you have a random set of people (without knowing a priori anything about them), must chose some of them to do some work which you suspect requires something which coloquially is called intelligence and you are given the choice of choosing one measure to characterise them. Which metric would be best to give you the best results on average? The answer is "g". How can then you claim that the construct is useless in practice?
Now, what if the choice you have to do relates to vast number of things, like health, education, criminality, dependency on welfare, job performance, social prestige of job, and every time the best measure available is "g" - how can you claim that "g" is useless?
Furthermore: you have a question why there are fewer blacks than whites, and more Jews than non-Jews in top-academic positions. Using "g" differences explains it. Without it you have to resort to non-quantifiable, circular and nebulous concepts of "systemic racism", "stereotype threats" and so on.
First
Burden of proof is on you. Show me the studies that matrices are the same in two vastly different countries. I think you won’t be able because either the results are hidden or the data do not exist.
Second
That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property. Which does not imply that the linear combination has physical existence outside of a mathematical realm. Variable= 3.141592*(shoe size)+2.76*(height) is correlate with shoe size and heigh and probably with weight and even sex.
Third
Life outcomes are nowhere needed to define mathematically g. They are not a part of the matrix. Do not mix categories.
Fourth
Actually I do not know if g is highly predictive. g mathematically is constructed to be highly predictive with respect to other cognitive tests T1,…,T2. It does not follow that g is more predictive of income than, say T1=IQ test. Basically you confabulate.
Fifth
g is not used because it is cumbersome and ambiguous and data to calculate usually do not exists.
Sixths
Burden of proof is on you. Show me studies that demonstrate stability.
Seventh
Any real symmetric matrix can be decomposed into eigenvectors. The reason correlation is real and symmetric follows from the definition of correlation. There is no other possibility. There are no magical wondrous reasons why g can be constructed. It is about as wondrous as stating that one can take a square root of everybody’s shoe sizes and multiply it by a sinus of height in millimeters. These are mathematically permitted operations.
Eight
Blood pressure measures blood pressure. Height measures height. We have physical definitions of height and blood pressure which are independent of their measurements. g measures g but we do not have a definition of g that would independent of its measurement because g is a mathematical construct that is contained in the set of measurements. There is no value added. This is tautology.
Take a number: Let x = the number
Double it: 2x
Add 9: 2x + 9
Subtract 3: 2x + 6
Divide by 2: x + 3
Subtract your original number: 3
That's why your answer is 3.
The reason for this amazement is the same in both case: mathematical ignorance.
Of course, the matrix is not exactly the same in all the countries, however:
(a) the structure of revealed factors are similar, with "g" always emerging, and similar secondary factors emerging (i.e. the same tests usually are groupd tegether)
(b) loadings are similar
FOr example, see: Chen "What Does the WISC-IV Measure? Validation of the Scoring and CHC-based Interpretative Approaches"
You can see the factor structure is confirmed, loadings are almost same as in US, and there are minor differences only for few subtests:
https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=39&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgnobKy5jQAhWBiywKHfgMB484HhAWCGIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edubook.com.tw%2Ftw%2Ffile%2Fpdf%2F1099%2F5403%2F04.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGjHT76Tq528dyiIEmcojGGTroKMQ&sig2=SuYs08GREUkCyZpT2TzPRQ&bvm=bv.137904068,d.bGgExample of Jensen's claims:I could find more studies, but as there are 8 points to address, and you could always say "one study is not enough! two studies are not enough! do the data analysis yourself, so ask the authors for their data!" I am hesitant to invest my time in this endeavour. For example, Raven Progressive Matrices have always reported high g-loadings (with literally one exception) in the range of 0.7-0.9. Backward digit span always has higher g-loading that Forward digit span. The results of tests are noisy (consist of measurement error, for example), so perfect congruence is impossible in my opinion.
(2)Second
"That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property"
It is amazing, because the correlation is between tests which seem to be completely unrelated, including tests which were thought to prove that "g" does not exist and there are independent, uncorrelated mental abilities. It's not just "two tests correlate", but "any time you design test to test mental ability, it correlates with all other tests" and "g-loadings are quite similar in different ethnic groups" (above, very similar in American and Taiwanese populations; wikipedia claims same for the American and Japanese, and for blacks and whites in America).
In your example once again the variables correlate because they share common causal variables (instead of one: shoes and height), that is: you postulate once again that correlation may not necessitate "g", but could be also explained by Thomson's "bonds" theory. And I have provided Jensen's argument why "bonds" explanation is weaker than "g". Moreover, the fact that two explanations may exist by this phenomenon do not make it less amazing.
In other hands, you have shown that correlation may be explained not just by "g" by also by bonds/sampling theory of Thomson, and you have not shown that correlations will always appear and do not require an explanation.
Here were have almost an invariable law: if test is related to mental activities, then you have positive correlation with other mental tests. But variables do not always correlate. Physical muscular strength does not correlate with IQ subtests. Size of your feet does not correlate with results of IQ subtests. Randomly generated variables won't correlate. The correlation of variables describing physical properties is something which requires explanation and cannot be handwaved. If you could devise tests for mental abilities which would not correlate, then I would give you a point; but for 100 years no one could create such tests, even though they tried.
(3) Third
I do not claim life outcomes are needed. I merely point out that it is amazing that this seemingly arteficial construct have real life outcomes. If it has predictive power, then it is useful and practical (and requires explanation WHY it has predictive power).
(4) Fourth
No, it is "g" which is highly predictive. You can train for IQ tests, but then their "g" loadings will fall and the IQ test predictive value will fall. You cannot (significantly, I know only one study which claimed minor raises in "g") train for increase of "g". Moreover, the more g-loaded a subtest/test, the more predictive power it has. It means you can devise new test, and if it will have high g-loading, then you can be pretty sure the test will be highly predictive. That means "g" is useful; if you can use it to decide a priori whether newly devised test X will have good predictive power, then you cannot claim that "since a test X has a good predictive power, then g is useless".
(5) Fifth
Well, this is not entirely true. In studies you can often read about "g", but there is also a frustrating amount of studies which use raw IQ scores or confuse the two. Even Lynn eems to talk about "IQ" when he should talk about "g", despite knowing those are not the same.
(6)Sixts
Taiwanese study above.
(7) Seventh
Do you claim that for any subset of tests, they will always correlate and a general factor will always emerge? Because, sure, if tests correlate then you can construct "g". The question is WHY THEY ALWAYS CORRELATE.
(8) Eigth
No value added?
Imagine I want to choose a best place to build a house to avoid lightnings. Just for the sake of argument, imagine I have a bunch of variables, which seem to me unrelated to lightnings: height above the sea level, vegetation index and so on. Just for the sake of argument, assume I created a construct via some weird and convoluted mathematic operation (e.g. taking square root of tree heightsmultiplied by sinus of vegations index in mm). This is purely mathematic construct. Just for the sake of argument, imagine that this construct predicts 30% of time correctly whether a lightning will struct, will all other variables or constructs predict with lower accuracy.
WOuld you claim that the construct has no value added and is useless?
Moreover, while we don't know why "g" emerges, we know that it correlates with brain properties; we can use "g" to measure which characteristics are more correlated with "g" and then think why; so we can use a "g" as a guide to further understanding of the mental abilities.
Hunter-gatherers can maintan a population of 0.1 per square mile. Many countries on earth today have population densities of hundreds per square mile. The biggest problems facing humanity today is overpopulation. Humans have used their intelligence improve their reproductive success greatly.
Completely irrelevant.
The liberal Western state is so structured as to favor reproduction of the dumbest (knowledge-wise, or IQ-wise or in terms or economic success) at the expense of the smartest (judged by economic success).
Combining a dysgenic welfare system with mass immigration of vigorous people from the Third World is the antithesis of intelligent planning, unless it is part of a conspiracy to destroy the West, in which case the Western nations are, collectively, truly dumb and are obviously destined to die.
No, it isn’t. Evolution does not take place at a communal level. Evolution takes place at the individual level. This is biology, not sociology. If you wish to claim that “intelligence” establishes reproductive success, you must show it at an individual level. The evolutionary unit is NOT the group, NOT the family, NOT the affines and extended family.
Are groups affected? Maybe. Suppose the “intelligent” traits decide they have different opinions, and do not cooperate. What then?
As “evolution”, intelligence must function to provide enhanced (over the non-intelligent rate) reproductive success to the individual. Or, it ain’t evolution, sorry.
Observe the relative reproductive success of Muslims as compared with the reproductive success of atheistic Westerners and you see how group selection, mediated by culture and religion, works.What I was trying to point out is that intelligence as measured with an IQ test seems, during modern times, to have worked against reproductive success in the West, whether you consider individual success or the success of the group.I don't see what that means. How can intelligence be equated with evolution?Intelligence is a product of evolution and therefore must at some point in human history have contributed to reproductive success. And in fact, intelligence probably contributed to reproductive success throughout virtually all of human history. But not in the West since about 1900, at least not consistently, or collectively, i.e., as a factor in group selection it has worked as a negative factor.
During the modern era:
(1) Idiot intellectuals like Dr. Marie Stopes thought it would be a good idea to make contraception generally available on the mistaken assumption that it would stop the lower classes breeding. What happened was that the lowest socioeconomic classes kept breeding while middle and upper class women found that condoms etc., provided wonderful relief from the burden of child bearing.
(2) Idiot liberals also decided that welfare was a right, thereby making the survival of the inept, the botched, and the irresponsible members of society a burden on the competent and responsible members of society. A burden to which was added (a) the vast cost of a the welfare bureaucracy; and (b) the cost of supporting an army of malingerers, and idlers, who have little difficulty getting sick notes from publicly funded doctors who are happy to have another patient interaction, however inappropriate the reason, to add to the bill to be covered by the taxpayer.
(3) Just about every faction of the ruling Western elites then agreed that raising children should be a cost to everyone but the parents, hence baby bonuses, free universal education plus almost everywhere some form of free healthcare.
(4) Likewise, Western elites decided that in old age, people should be supported not by their own savings or through the assistance of their children, but by the community at large. Thus those with the ability to create surplus wealth were relieved of a substantial share of it to support Items 2, 3 and 4.
(5) Then the drug companies made use of brilliant biological and chemical research giving rise to hormone birth control pills, that make women rather less interesting sexually to the male, and and the male rather less interesting sexually to the female, than when the female was subject to the vagaries of the Oestrus cycle.
But most women found the benefit of not menstruating outweighed the cost, plus there was the great advantage of never having to worry about getting pregnant by accident.
(6) Then the intellectual giants of the West, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens to mention just three out of many, decided that Christianity was bunk, a contention readily agreed by nearly all and sundry since it meant ditching taboos on things like partial birth abortion, vasectomy, masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography etc., etc. Thus, many were turned from reproductive sex to other means of entertainment, while those who mistakenly conceived a child were free to kill it at any time, prior to its full emergence from the womb.
Add all these things up and you see the application of intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, has severely diminished the fertility of the Western nations (all now with sub-replacement reproduction rates), and in particular, the fertility of those we might suppose were best able to produce healthy progeny capable of perpetuating the race.
So no, intelligence in the West, applied on a group basis, seems to has been severely maladaptive for most of the last 100 years. The result the progressive destruction of the Western nations. A wonderful example of evolution in progress, i.e., selection against a society led by vain intellectuals without any real understanding of evolution, or the role of the group, culture and religion on national survival.
Burden of proof is on you. Show me the studies that matrices are the same in two vastly different countries. I think you won't be able because either the results are hidden or the data do not exist.
Second
That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property. Which does not imply that the linear combination has physical existence outside of a mathematical realm. Variable= 3.141592*(shoe size)+2.76*(height) is correlate with shoe size and heigh and probably with weight and even sex.
Third
Life outcomes are nowhere needed to define mathematically g. They are not a part of the matrix. Do not mix categories.
Fourth
Actually I do not know if g is highly predictive. g mathematically is constructed to be highly predictive with respect to other cognitive tests T1,...,T2. It does not follow that g is more predictive of income than, say T1=IQ test. Basically you confabulate.
Fifth
g is not used because it is cumbersome and ambiguous and data to calculate usually do not exists.
Sixths
Burden of proof is on you. Show me studies that demonstrate stability.
Seventh
Any real symmetric matrix can be decomposed into eigenvectors. The reason correlation is real and symmetric follows from the definition of correlation. There is no other possibility. There are no magical wondrous reasons why g can be constructed. It is about as wondrous as stating that one can take a square root of everybody's shoe sizes and multiply it by a sinus of height in millimeters. These are mathematically permitted operations.
Eight
Blood pressure measures blood pressure. Height measures height. We have physical definitions of height and blood pressure which are independent of their measurements. g measures g but we do not have a definition of g that would independent of its measurement because g is a mathematical construct that is contained in the set of measurements. There is no value added. This is tautology.
Some people are amazed by amazing (to them) properties of g. Just like some people are amazed by this simple number trick:
Take a number: Let x = the number
Double it: 2x
Add 9: 2x + 9
Subtract 3: 2x + 6
Divide by 2: x + 3
Subtract your original number: 3
That’s why your answer is 3.
The reason for this amazement is the same in both case: mathematical ignorance.
Never heard of group selection? What do you think societies, civilizations and religions are all about?
Observe the relative reproductive success of Muslims as compared with the reproductive success of atheistic Westerners and you see how group selection, mediated by culture and religion, works.
What I was trying to point out is that intelligence as measured with an IQ test seems, during modern times, to have worked against reproductive success in the West, whether you consider individual success or the success of the group.
I don’t see what that means. How can intelligence be equated with evolution?Intelligence is a product of evolution and therefore must at some point in human history have contributed to reproductive success. And in fact, intelligence probably contributed to reproductive success throughout virtually all of human history. But not in the West since about 1900, at least not consistently, or collectively, i.e., as a factor in group selection it has worked as a negative factor.
During the modern era:
(1) Idiot intellectuals like Dr. Marie Stopes thought it would be a good idea to make contraception generally available on the mistaken assumption that it would stop the lower classes breeding. What happened was that the lowest socioeconomic classes kept breeding while middle and upper class women found that condoms etc., provided wonderful relief from the burden of child bearing.
(2) Idiot liberals also decided that welfare was a right, thereby making the survival of the inept, the botched, and the irresponsible members of society a burden on the competent and responsible members of society. A burden to which was added (a) the vast cost of a the welfare bureaucracy; and (b) the cost of supporting an army of malingerers, and idlers, who have little difficulty getting sick notes from publicly funded doctors who are happy to have another patient interaction, however inappropriate the reason, to add to the bill to be covered by the taxpayer.
(3) Just about every faction of the ruling Western elites then agreed that raising children should be a cost to everyone but the parents, hence baby bonuses, free universal education plus almost everywhere some form of free healthcare.
(4) Likewise, Western elites decided that in old age, people should be supported not by their own savings or through the assistance of their children, but by the community at large. Thus those with the ability to create surplus wealth were relieved of a substantial share of it to support Items 2, 3 and 4.
(5) Then the drug companies made use of brilliant biological and chemical research giving rise to hormone birth control pills, that make women rather less interesting sexually to the male, and and the male rather less interesting sexually to the female, than when the female was subject to the vagaries of the Oestrus cycle.
But most women found the benefit of not menstruating outweighed the cost, plus there was the great advantage of never having to worry about getting pregnant by accident.
(6) Then the intellectual giants of the West, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens to mention just three out of many, decided that Christianity was bunk, a contention readily agreed by nearly all and sundry since it meant ditching taboos on things like partial birth abortion, vasectomy, masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography etc., etc. Thus, many were turned from reproductive sex to other means of entertainment, while those who mistakenly conceived a child were free to kill it at any time, prior to its full emergence from the womb.
Add all these things up and you see the application of intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, has severely diminished the fertility of the Western nations (all now with sub-replacement reproduction rates), and in particular, the fertility of those we might suppose were best able to produce healthy progeny capable of perpetuating the race.
So no, intelligence in the West, applied on a group basis, seems to has been severely maladaptive for most of the last 100 years. The result the progressive destruction of the Western nations. A wonderful example of evolution in progress, i.e., selection against a society led by vain intellectuals without any real understanding of evolution, or the role of the group, culture and religion on national survival.
This set of comment depositions was initially put forth as reaction to Chisala's proposal that Scrabble-playing genius demonstrated by blacks proves that blacks are just as smart as whites, despite the average IQ of blacks being ten points lower than the average IQ of whites. His proof fails for several reasons -- reasons obvious to any person familiar with IQ tests, and with the definition of "intelligence".
For some off-the-wall reason, discussion morphed into hundreds of posts discussing 'g', which was not the topic, nor related to the topic. I skimmed the enormous body of useless and inapplicable-to-task talk of 'g'. A complete waste of time, just as 'g' itself has very little, if any, practical use. Sure, devotees may spend many happy hours arguing among themselves over tidbits of 'g', but what are they going to DO with it?
And now, you have turned from evolution to "group selection", chasing some rainbow, I assume, of importance to you, as it has no relevance to a genetic, biologically-originated trait occurring in an individual, that affects scores on IQ tests.
Best wishes to you in your chosen pursuits, sir.
Observe the relative reproductive success of Muslims as compared with the reproductive success of atheistic Westerners and you see how group selection, mediated by culture and religion, works.What I was trying to point out is that intelligence as measured with an IQ test seems, during modern times, to have worked against reproductive success in the West, whether you consider individual success or the success of the group.I don't see what that means. How can intelligence be equated with evolution?Intelligence is a product of evolution and therefore must at some point in human history have contributed to reproductive success. And in fact, intelligence probably contributed to reproductive success throughout virtually all of human history. But not in the West since about 1900, at least not consistently, or collectively, i.e., as a factor in group selection it has worked as a negative factor.
During the modern era:
(1) Idiot intellectuals like Dr. Marie Stopes thought it would be a good idea to make contraception generally available on the mistaken assumption that it would stop the lower classes breeding. What happened was that the lowest socioeconomic classes kept breeding while middle and upper class women found that condoms etc., provided wonderful relief from the burden of child bearing.
(2) Idiot liberals also decided that welfare was a right, thereby making the survival of the inept, the botched, and the irresponsible members of society a burden on the competent and responsible members of society. A burden to which was added (a) the vast cost of a the welfare bureaucracy; and (b) the cost of supporting an army of malingerers, and idlers, who have little difficulty getting sick notes from publicly funded doctors who are happy to have another patient interaction, however inappropriate the reason, to add to the bill to be covered by the taxpayer.
(3) Just about every faction of the ruling Western elites then agreed that raising children should be a cost to everyone but the parents, hence baby bonuses, free universal education plus almost everywhere some form of free healthcare.
(4) Likewise, Western elites decided that in old age, people should be supported not by their own savings or through the assistance of their children, but by the community at large. Thus those with the ability to create surplus wealth were relieved of a substantial share of it to support Items 2, 3 and 4.
(5) Then the drug companies made use of brilliant biological and chemical research giving rise to hormone birth control pills, that make women rather less interesting sexually to the male, and and the male rather less interesting sexually to the female, than when the female was subject to the vagaries of the Oestrus cycle.
But most women found the benefit of not menstruating outweighed the cost, plus there was the great advantage of never having to worry about getting pregnant by accident.
(6) Then the intellectual giants of the West, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens to mention just three out of many, decided that Christianity was bunk, a contention readily agreed by nearly all and sundry since it meant ditching taboos on things like partial birth abortion, vasectomy, masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography etc., etc. Thus, many were turned from reproductive sex to other means of entertainment, while those who mistakenly conceived a child were free to kill it at any time, prior to its full emergence from the womb.
Add all these things up and you see the application of intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, has severely diminished the fertility of the Western nations (all now with sub-replacement reproduction rates), and in particular, the fertility of those we might suppose were best able to produce healthy progeny capable of perpetuating the race.
So no, intelligence in the West, applied on a group basis, seems to has been severely maladaptive for most of the last 100 years. The result the progressive destruction of the Western nations. A wonderful example of evolution in progress, i.e., selection against a society led by vain intellectuals without any real understanding of evolution, or the role of the group, culture and religion on national survival.
One day when life erasing asteroid will be heading towards Earth and future Bruce Willis will destroy it thus saving human specie we clearly will be able to claim that intelligence that produced science and technology had evolutionary benefit even if next day a huge volcano erupted killing everybody because due to military expenditures research in geology did not get founding. It is not about living forever but living one day longer.
For some. But only those with a posterity are in the game.
Western technology coupled with arrogant atheistic ideology has already gone far toward destroying the Western nations.
In London, the English are a minority in their own home. The same will be true before the decade’s end of England’s second city, Birmingham.
Already the English are a minority in my father’s home town of Leicester where my family’s ancestors lived since mediaeval times, also in Luton and Slough and many other urban areas. On present trends, the indigenous British people will be, overall, a minority in their own home by 2066. Sooner than that Britain could be a majority Muslim nation.
Mankind is a territorial animal, but the Western leadership has been intent on handing over the territory to a mass of philoprogenitive immigrants from the Third World, while destroying the fertility of their own people. This is evolution in progress, showing the disaster that science, technology and the global corporation have wrought destruction on its own creators.
If you say that shows the adaptive value of intelligence, I beg to differ — unless you contend that it shows the intelligence of an enemy within Western society intent on the destruction of the West. And indeed there is such an enemy, the globalist elite or Money Power, which seeks the destruction of the nation state, the powerful Western states in particular, to make way for global corporatist governance.
Observe the relative reproductive success of Muslims as compared with the reproductive success of atheistic Westerners and you see how group selection, mediated by culture and religion, works.What I was trying to point out is that intelligence as measured with an IQ test seems, during modern times, to have worked against reproductive success in the West, whether you consider individual success or the success of the group.I don't see what that means. How can intelligence be equated with evolution?Intelligence is a product of evolution and therefore must at some point in human history have contributed to reproductive success. And in fact, intelligence probably contributed to reproductive success throughout virtually all of human history. But not in the West since about 1900, at least not consistently, or collectively, i.e., as a factor in group selection it has worked as a negative factor.
During the modern era:
(1) Idiot intellectuals like Dr. Marie Stopes thought it would be a good idea to make contraception generally available on the mistaken assumption that it would stop the lower classes breeding. What happened was that the lowest socioeconomic classes kept breeding while middle and upper class women found that condoms etc., provided wonderful relief from the burden of child bearing.
(2) Idiot liberals also decided that welfare was a right, thereby making the survival of the inept, the botched, and the irresponsible members of society a burden on the competent and responsible members of society. A burden to which was added (a) the vast cost of a the welfare bureaucracy; and (b) the cost of supporting an army of malingerers, and idlers, who have little difficulty getting sick notes from publicly funded doctors who are happy to have another patient interaction, however inappropriate the reason, to add to the bill to be covered by the taxpayer.
(3) Just about every faction of the ruling Western elites then agreed that raising children should be a cost to everyone but the parents, hence baby bonuses, free universal education plus almost everywhere some form of free healthcare.
(4) Likewise, Western elites decided that in old age, people should be supported not by their own savings or through the assistance of their children, but by the community at large. Thus those with the ability to create surplus wealth were relieved of a substantial share of it to support Items 2, 3 and 4.
(5) Then the drug companies made use of brilliant biological and chemical research giving rise to hormone birth control pills, that make women rather less interesting sexually to the male, and and the male rather less interesting sexually to the female, than when the female was subject to the vagaries of the Oestrus cycle.
But most women found the benefit of not menstruating outweighed the cost, plus there was the great advantage of never having to worry about getting pregnant by accident.
(6) Then the intellectual giants of the West, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens to mention just three out of many, decided that Christianity was bunk, a contention readily agreed by nearly all and sundry since it meant ditching taboos on things like partial birth abortion, vasectomy, masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, pornography etc., etc. Thus, many were turned from reproductive sex to other means of entertainment, while those who mistakenly conceived a child were free to kill it at any time, prior to its full emergence from the womb.
Add all these things up and you see the application of intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, has severely diminished the fertility of the Western nations (all now with sub-replacement reproduction rates), and in particular, the fertility of those we might suppose were best able to produce healthy progeny capable of perpetuating the race.
So no, intelligence in the West, applied on a group basis, seems to has been severely maladaptive for most of the last 100 years. The result the progressive destruction of the Western nations. A wonderful example of evolution in progress, i.e., selection against a society led by vain intellectuals without any real understanding of evolution, or the role of the group, culture and religion on national survival.
Sir, you are welcome to continue believing what you believe. Certainly, your understanding of evolutionary processes is dissimilar to the one I got from 3 courses in evolutionary biology. But, that is your option, and does me no harm. Why would I possibly, however remotely, care? Above all, I lack motivation for providing sufficient background in the hope that it would enable understanding on your part. I suspect that all the explanation in the world would leave you impervious.
This set of comment depositions was initially put forth as reaction to Chisala’s proposal that Scrabble-playing genius demonstrated by blacks proves that blacks are just as smart as whites, despite the average IQ of blacks being ten points lower than the average IQ of whites. His proof fails for several reasons — reasons obvious to any person familiar with IQ tests, and with the definition of “intelligence”.
For some off-the-wall reason, discussion morphed into hundreds of posts discussing ‘g’, which was not the topic, nor related to the topic. I skimmed the enormous body of useless and inapplicable-to-task talk of ‘g’. A complete waste of time, just as ‘g’ itself has very little, if any, practical use. Sure, devotees may spend many happy hours arguing among themselves over tidbits of ‘g’, but what are they going to DO with it?
And now, you have turned from evolution to “group selection”, chasing some rainbow, I assume, of importance to you, as it has no relevance to a genetic, biologically-originated trait occurring in an individual, that affects scores on IQ tests.
Best wishes to you in your chosen pursuits, sir.
I could remark that it’s obvious white elites are becoming stupider all the time, measured by bizarre opinions and behavior. If you can’t see it you are cognitively deficient!
Jeeezz
“Intelligence” is the contextual adaptation, the fittest set of well done behaviors to the certain environmental demands. But the highest levels of intelligence…among non human animals seems to be the deep improvement of this specific adaptation, quite smart but ONLY for that environment, increasing of exoticity. Among humans the highest ceiling of the psycho-cognitive intelligence’s generally are not correlated with higher reproductive achievement levels. Natural selection select for the fittest to the (specific) environment and not to the highest ceiling to this adaptation. But we also have the wisdom factor, the potential to the best adaptation in any environment.
The capacity to accumulate resources/money is a logic proxy to the intelligence but it’s very common that materialism is not to be correlated with well developed rational skills.
In the “K selection” approach the proxy to the intelligence is the accumulation of the resources first, to sustain a family second.
The characteristic epicenter to the intelligence in the ideal world is the great capacity to detect logic/factual patterns, basically a description of “G”. Materialistic people on avg seems mediocre in their analytical-critical capacities. Most of humans are not perfectly symmetric in this all of their capacities, always will be a strengths and weaknesses, something we are very good, avg and not very good and this strengths weaknesses can be cognitive (verbal, spatial…) “or” psychological (emotional, intrapersonal, interpersonal).
Humans are environmentally dependents and specifically for human-created environments. Between self comfort via materialism and self sacrifice, nurturing a bigger family, many of the contextually smartest and not so smartest humans choice the first “option” because survive is more important than reproduction. What I call “the catholic priest syndrome”, ;). The sacrifice of reproduction to the increase in self comfort via materialism.
Based on thinking lines here most of geniuses of humankind would quite stupid because their lower fertility rates..and value.
Burden of proof is on you. Show me the studies that matrices are the same in two vastly different countries. I think you won't be able because either the results are hidden or the data do not exist.
Second
That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property. Which does not imply that the linear combination has physical existence outside of a mathematical realm. Variable= 3.141592*(shoe size)+2.76*(height) is correlate with shoe size and heigh and probably with weight and even sex.
Third
Life outcomes are nowhere needed to define mathematically g. They are not a part of the matrix. Do not mix categories.
Fourth
Actually I do not know if g is highly predictive. g mathematically is constructed to be highly predictive with respect to other cognitive tests T1,...,T2. It does not follow that g is more predictive of income than, say T1=IQ test. Basically you confabulate.
Fifth
g is not used because it is cumbersome and ambiguous and data to calculate usually do not exists.
Sixths
Burden of proof is on you. Show me studies that demonstrate stability.
Seventh
Any real symmetric matrix can be decomposed into eigenvectors. The reason correlation is real and symmetric follows from the definition of correlation. There is no other possibility. There are no magical wondrous reasons why g can be constructed. It is about as wondrous as stating that one can take a square root of everybody's shoe sizes and multiply it by a sinus of height in millimeters. These are mathematically permitted operations.
Eight
Blood pressure measures blood pressure. Height measures height. We have physical definitions of height and blood pressure which are independent of their measurements. g measures g but we do not have a definition of g that would independent of its measurement because g is a mathematical construct that is contained in the set of measurements. There is no value added. This is tautology.
Re (1): The data may be hidden to me, but seems to me that quoting respected researchers and peer reviewed studies should be enough for the purpose of the discussion. The data must exist because it is gathered for the purposes of standarization of different IQ tests (after all, IQ tests is created from many different subtests, tapping at different mental abilities). Wikipedia claims that “when the g factors computed from an American standardization sample of Wechsler’s IQ battery and from large samples who completed the Japanese translation of the same battery were compared, the congruence coefficient was .99, indicating virtual identity. Similarly, the congruence coefficient between the g factors obtained from white and black standardization samples of the WISC battery in the U.S. was .995, and the variance in test scores accounted for by g was highly similar for both groups.”. As such, I don’t understand why “burden of proof” is on me, if this is something which seems to be accepted common knowledge.
Of course, the matrix is not exactly the same in all the countries, however:
(a) the structure of revealed factors are similar, with “g” always emerging, and similar secondary factors emerging (i.e. the same tests usually are groupd tegether)
(b) loadings are similar
FOr example, see: Chen “What Does the WISC-IV Measure? Validation of the Scoring and CHC-based Interpretative Approaches”
You can see the factor structure is confirmed, loadings are almost same as in US, and there are minor differences only for few subtests:
https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=39&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgnobKy5jQAhWBiywKHfgMB484HhAWCGIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edubook.com.tw%2Ftw%2Ffile%2Fpdf%2F1099%2F5403%2F04.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGjHT76Tq528dyiIEmcojGGTroKMQ&sig2=SuYs08GREUkCyZpT2TzPRQ&bvm=bv.137904068,d.bGg
Example of Jensen’s claims:
I could find more studies, but as there are 8 points to address, and you could always say “one study is not enough! two studies are not enough! do the data analysis yourself, so ask the authors for their data!” I am hesitant to invest my time in this endeavour. For example, Raven Progressive Matrices have always reported high g-loadings (with literally one exception) in the range of 0.7-0.9. Backward digit span always has higher g-loading that Forward digit span. The results of tests are noisy (consist of measurement error, for example), so perfect congruence is impossible in my opinion.
(2)Second
“That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property”
It is amazing, because the correlation is between tests which seem to be completely unrelated, including tests which were thought to prove that “g” does not exist and there are independent, uncorrelated mental abilities. It’s not just “two tests correlate”, but “any time you design test to test mental ability, it correlates with all other tests” and “g-loadings are quite similar in different ethnic groups” (above, very similar in American and Taiwanese populations; wikipedia claims same for the American and Japanese, and for blacks and whites in America).
In your example once again the variables correlate because they share common causal variables (instead of one: shoes and height), that is: you postulate once again that correlation may not necessitate “g”, but could be also explained by Thomson’s “bonds” theory. And I have provided Jensen’s argument why “bonds” explanation is weaker than “g”. Moreover, the fact that two explanations may exist by this phenomenon do not make it less amazing.
In other hands, you have shown that correlation may be explained not just by “g” by also by bonds/sampling theory of Thomson, and you have not shown that correlations will always appear and do not require an explanation.
Here were have almost an invariable law: if test is related to mental activities, then you have positive correlation with other mental tests. But variables do not always correlate. Physical muscular strength does not correlate with IQ subtests. Size of your feet does not correlate with results of IQ subtests. Randomly generated variables won’t correlate. The correlation of variables describing physical properties is something which requires explanation and cannot be handwaved. If you could devise tests for mental abilities which would not correlate, then I would give you a point; but for 100 years no one could create such tests, even though they tried.
(3) Third
I do not claim life outcomes are needed. I merely point out that it is amazing that this seemingly arteficial construct have real life outcomes. If it has predictive power, then it is useful and practical (and requires explanation WHY it has predictive power).
(4) Fourth
No, it is “g” which is highly predictive. You can train for IQ tests, but then their “g” loadings will fall and the IQ test predictive value will fall. You cannot (significantly, I know only one study which claimed minor raises in “g”) train for increase of “g”. Moreover, the more g-loaded a subtest/test, the more predictive power it has. It means you can devise new test, and if it will have high g-loading, then you can be pretty sure the test will be highly predictive. That means “g” is useful; if you can use it to decide a priori whether newly devised test X will have good predictive power, then you cannot claim that “since a test X has a good predictive power, then g is useless”.
(5) Fifth
Well, this is not entirely true. In studies you can often read about “g”, but there is also a frustrating amount of studies which use raw IQ scores or confuse the two. Even Lynn eems to talk about “IQ” when he should talk about “g”, despite knowing those are not the same.
(6)Sixts
Taiwanese study above.
(7) Seventh
Do you claim that for any subset of tests, they will always correlate and a general factor will always emerge? Because, sure, if tests correlate then you can construct “g”. The question is WHY THEY ALWAYS CORRELATE.
(8) Eigth
No value added?
Imagine I want to choose a best place to build a house to avoid lightnings. Just for the sake of argument, imagine I have a bunch of variables, which seem to me unrelated to lightnings: height above the sea level, vegetation index and so on. Just for the sake of argument, assume I created a construct via some weird and convoluted mathematic operation (e.g. taking square root of tree heightsmultiplied by sinus of vegations index in mm). This is purely mathematic construct. Just for the sake of argument, imagine that this construct predicts 30% of time correctly whether a lightning will struct, will all other variables or constructs predict with lower accuracy.
WOuld you claim that the construct has no value added and is useless?
Moreover, while we don’t know why “g” emerges, we know that it correlates with brain properties; we can use “g” to measure which characteristics are more correlated with “g” and then think why; so we can use a “g” as a guide to further understanding of the mental abilities.
This set of comment depositions was initially put forth as reaction to Chisala's proposal that Scrabble-playing genius demonstrated by blacks proves that blacks are just as smart as whites, despite the average IQ of blacks being ten points lower than the average IQ of whites. His proof fails for several reasons -- reasons obvious to any person familiar with IQ tests, and with the definition of "intelligence".
For some off-the-wall reason, discussion morphed into hundreds of posts discussing 'g', which was not the topic, nor related to the topic. I skimmed the enormous body of useless and inapplicable-to-task talk of 'g'. A complete waste of time, just as 'g' itself has very little, if any, practical use. Sure, devotees may spend many happy hours arguing among themselves over tidbits of 'g', but what are they going to DO with it?
And now, you have turned from evolution to "group selection", chasing some rainbow, I assume, of importance to you, as it has no relevance to a genetic, biologically-originated trait occurring in an individual, that affects scores on IQ tests.
Best wishes to you in your chosen pursuits, sir.
Ha, the put down by authority.
But if we’re going to argue from authority, let me respind with the fact that I graduated in biology with first class honors and the faculty prize. Moreover, I’ve read some of the modern literature on group selection, something it seems you have yet to do.
But since, after making your ex cathedra statement on group selection, you declare the subject to be irrelevant, I will withhold further discussion with you. And this time, after checking out of the debate I trust that you will stay checked out, unlike the occasion of your promise to quit on the 9/11 thread.
I have done fairly extensive reading on group selection -- heck, wrote a paper. If you believe that "group selection" is even remotely related to race-based studies of inherited intelligence, I must, with some amusement/amazement, suggest that your biology "prize" was awarded to the wrong student.
Nevertheless, best wishes to you and yours. As I stated, I don't mind if you believe as you believe. After all, Chisala believes his premise is supportable, and I don't mind that he does. Do you think it will stand up to peer review? Not a chance.
So it seems. But the truth is that the white elites have defected to the globalist elite. They no longer represent the European peoples. They are traitors, like Hillary (I quote the Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security). It is in light of their treason that you have to judge their rationality, and on that basis their actions probably make sense.
Thing is, the nation state made sense when people were a valuable resource. When tey produced the tiny surplus of wealth, hay, horses for battle, serving wenches, etc. upon which the elite depended. But today, most people are simply a useless expense. True they mostly feed on crumbs from the bankers tables. Still they’re a nuisance. They are to be replaced by robots and artificial intelligence systems managed by a small cadre of loyal technicians.
As for the rest, they take up space and consume resources that the elite wish to reserve to themselves. The Clinton’s, with their million dollar birthday gifts from foreign tyrants, have been elected by the elite to the elite in recognition of their service to the Money Power.
The people, black, white or khaki are expendable and are to be expended.
It never fails to amaze me how people — you being an example — believe that it is their absolute right and option to declare that someone may no longer post comments. To be truthful, my “amazement” bears a distinct similarity to “amusement”.
I have done fairly extensive reading on group selection — heck, wrote a paper. If you believe that “group selection” is even remotely related to race-based studies of inherited intelligence, I must, with some amusement/amazement, suggest that your biology “prize” was awarded to the wrong student.
Nevertheless, best wishes to you and yours. As I stated, I don’t mind if you believe as you believe. After all, Chisala believes his premise is supportable, and I don’t mind that he does. Do you think it will stand up to peer review? Not a chance.
"Intelligence" is the contextual adaptation, the fittest set of well done behaviors to the certain environmental demands. But the highest levels of intelligence...among non human animals seems to be the deep improvement of this specific adaptation, quite smart but ONLY for that environment, increasing of exoticity. Among humans the highest ceiling of the psycho-cognitive intelligence's generally are not correlated with higher reproductive achievement levels. Natural selection select for the fittest to the (specific) environment and not to the highest ceiling to this adaptation. But we also have the wisdom factor, the potential to the best adaptation in any environment.
The capacity to accumulate resources/money is a logic proxy to the intelligence but it's very common that materialism is not to be correlated with well developed rational skills.
In the "K selection" approach the proxy to the intelligence is the accumulation of the resources first, to sustain a family second.
The characteristic epicenter to the intelligence in the ideal world is the great capacity to detect logic/factual patterns, basically a description of "G". Materialistic people on avg seems mediocre in their analytical-critical capacities. Most of humans are not perfectly symmetric in this all of their capacities, always will be a strengths and weaknesses, something we are very good, avg and not very good and this strengths weaknesses can be cognitive (verbal, spatial...) "or" psychological (emotional, intrapersonal, interpersonal).
Humans are environmentally dependents and specifically for human-created environments. Between self comfort via materialism and self sacrifice, nurturing a bigger family, many of the contextually smartest and not so smartest humans choice the first "option" because survive is more important than reproduction. What I call "the catholic priest syndrome", ;). The sacrifice of reproduction to the increase in self comfort via materialism.
Based on thinking lines here most of geniuses of humankind would quite stupid because their lower fertility rates..and value.
Mostly, I think you are correct, if I follow you correctly.
However, when you say,
you seem to take no account of inclusive fitness and group selection.
If clever but celibate priests or childless scientific geniuses help maintain a social order that insures the health and welfare and reproduction of their own group, then they may do more to perpetuate their own genes than if they had raised a dozen children of their own, but failed to contribute significantly to the welfare of their group.
However, it is easy to draw from this argument the mistaken conclusion that the Europeans, having led the world in the industrial and scientific revolutions, must be more intelligent, or at least have more geniuses, than other human groups, whereas, it can plausibly be argued that the industrial and scientific revolutions occurred in Europe as the result of the chance convergence of favorable conditions (e.g. Carroll Quigley’s account of why England got the industrial revolution first).
It is also easy to suppose that if high intelligence has already taken us so far, it must be an undeniably good thing. Yet as we approach the brink of a new World War (300,000 NATO troops have, apparently, been assembled to confront Russia), which could go full Armageddon, the capacity to build nuclear weapons may prove to be a species ending trait.
It may also be a mistake to attribute so much of human technological achievement to rationality, or IQ or whatever you want to call it. It seems probable that human logic circuits are generally robust, being of ancient evolutionary origin, possessed by many species. Caledonian crows, for example, which have an average lifespan of only two years, are said to have the reasoning capacity of a seven-year-old human. And we know that chimps can outperform humans in some mental operations. Except in cases of actual neurological defect, therefore, all humans may reason in about the same way, provided they have the same information and experience to work with.
Rather than reason, it is language that distinguishes mankind from other creatures and it is language that makes possible for an individual to access to the most significant human experience gained throughout the ages and throughout the world. It is what people do with that knowledge that determines practical outcome of general importance, and it may well be that education, temperament, obsessiveness, awareness of all kinds of non-logical features of the world, such as form, texture, and resonances of all kind, have much more to do with genius than a capacity for logic as measured by an IQ test.
what I said in one of my first comments here. IQ as a mental game/test measured a narrowed set of skills and in the descontextualized reality like a simulation of the reality, chess versus real strategy. The best of chess masters are strategic gifted thinkers?? But logical to rational skills are not only "to solve mathematical problems" but specially applying it to the real world contexts in many ways. IQ seems weak to reflect in the precise way this hierarchy. IQ measure the potential of someone to work their ideas in many ways: Verbal, spatial, mathematics... But he don't "measure" the factual understanding, the capacity of someone to find and follow facts, the most important because the correct analysis, criticism and judgment, resulting in follow facts, make us avoid waste time and energy with wrong ideas, thinking lines. I don't buy this idea that geniuses help indirectly to the fitness of "their"genes, maybe it have some truth there but most of them don't do it consciously or necessarily don't give a s..t to this possibility. Seems a partially correct evolutionary conjecture. Yes the genius invention can increase their fitness indirectly...specially in the past because in the "modern" context we are seeing the opposite result, but generally not in purposeful way.
I have done fairly extensive reading on group selection -- heck, wrote a paper. If you believe that "group selection" is even remotely related to race-based studies of inherited intelligence, I must, with some amusement/amazement, suggest that your biology "prize" was awarded to the wrong student.
Nevertheless, best wishes to you and yours. As I stated, I don't mind if you believe as you believe. After all, Chisala believes his premise is supportable, and I don't mind that he does. Do you think it will stand up to peer review? Not a chance.
Oh, wow, more respect demanded on the basis of authority, but no logical argument.
I’ve written a paper or two myself, even had some brief remarks on the subject of evolution published in Science Magazine. So now you gonna post your whole cv, or what?
Here, now, I'll be gentle: I don't believe you. You are just too, too, over-the-top full of BS to be believable. When someone confronts you, point-blank, about the vacuum where your proof should exist, and you run to "group selection" ... sorry, no credito.
LOL. Logical and conclusive argument was provided long time back. You answered with irrelevant “group selection” hoo-hoo.
Here, now, I’ll be gentle: I don’t believe you. You are just too, too, over-the-top full of BS to be believable. When someone confronts you, point-blank, about the vacuum where your proof should exist, and you run to “group selection” … sorry, no credito.
I could no doubt have offered a clearer example, such as that of an elite that dictates conditions of life that promote reproduction of those of low IQ at the expense of those of high IQ (As do Western welfare societies.). If, now, this dumbed-down society were to suffer defeat and annihilation at the hands of a smarter society (because of its general level of mental incompetence manifest militarily, industrially, etc.), that would amount to a instance of group selection.
McPo, says that no such development could occur:There is, however, a large literature that argues otherwise. To take a paper at random, this from Science Magazine:
Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism
Logic skills measured by IQ are clearly divorced from most of real world
what I said in one of my first comments here. IQ as a mental game/test measured a narrowed set of skills and in the descontextualized reality like a simulation of the reality, chess versus real strategy. The best of chess masters are strategic gifted thinkers??
But logical to rational skills are not only “to solve mathematical problems” but specially applying it to the real world contexts in many ways.
IQ seems weak to reflect in the precise way this hierarchy. IQ measure the potential of someone to work their ideas in many ways: Verbal, spatial, mathematics… But he don’t “measure” the factual understanding, the capacity of someone to find and follow facts, the most important because the correct analysis, criticism and judgment, resulting in follow facts, make us avoid waste time and energy with wrong ideas, thinking lines.
I don’t buy this idea that geniuses help indirectly to the fitness of “their”genes, maybe it have some truth there but most of them don’t do it consciously or necessarily don’t give a s..t to this possibility. Seems a partially correct evolutionary conjecture.
Yes the genius invention can increase their fitness indirectly…specially in the past because in the “modern” context we are seeing the opposite result, but generally not in purposeful way.
Here, now, I'll be gentle: I don't believe you. You are just too, too, over-the-top full of BS to be believable. When someone confronts you, point-blank, about the vacuum where your proof should exist, and you run to "group selection" ... sorry, no credito.
It must be something to behold when you decide to be nasty.
Here, now, I'll be gentle: I don't believe you. You are just too, too, over-the-top full of BS to be believable. When someone confronts you, point-blank, about the vacuum where your proof should exist, and you run to "group selection" ... sorry, no credito.
For anyone interested, this rancorous debate began with my contention that:
This, I said, is an example of group selection.
I could no doubt have offered a clearer example, such as that of an elite that dictates conditions of life that promote reproduction of those of low IQ at the expense of those of high IQ (As do Western welfare societies.). If, now, this dumbed-down society were to suffer defeat and annihilation at the hands of a smarter society (because of its general level of mental incompetence manifest militarily, industrially, etc.), that would amount to a instance of group selection.
McPo, says that no such development could occur:
There is, however, a large literature that argues otherwise. To take a paper at random, this from Science Magazine:
Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism
You want to call it “no contest” and repair to neutral corners until the next argument? I’ve given up nasty for Lent. This is just honor among thieves, after all.
Although, I will enjoy watching you try to figure out what Santoculto is saying. I speak Portuguese, and it’s still a bit tricky to untangle.
Rapazote,
Acho que faltou umas boas surras da senhora sua mãe durante a sua infância pra aprender a respeitar os outros, o básico da educação. Ainda há tempo porque a sua idade mental não parece ter se distanciado tanto assim dos 10 anos.
Eu dou uma surra em você neste assunto em minha língua materna. Quer apostar?? Eu só não estou com a menor paciência de perder tempo com o Lamarck boy aqui.
Please Chisala accept this comment. I promise I will not write entire sentences in non English language again. Thanks!
I thought you are fall in love with me, isn’t possible!! You’re nasty and dumb. The genuine manifestation of the pseudo intelligence nightmare. If you really believe your argument “humans can’t adapt in ocean arctic as orcas” was fantastically conclusive so…
Rapazote,
Acho que faltou umas boas surras da senhora sua mãe durante a sua infância pra aprender a respeitar os outros, o básico da educação. Ainda há tempo porque a sua idade mental não parece ter se distanciado tanto assim dos 10 anos.
Eu dou uma surra em você neste assunto em minha língua materna. Quer apostar?? Eu só não estou com a menor paciência de perder tempo com o Lamarck boy aqui.
Please Chisala accept this comment. I promise I will not write entire sentences in non English language again. Thanks!
Oh no. Absolutely not. I find this very interesting.
Back in the 70′s I read V.C. Wynne-Edwards (Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour) and David Lack (The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers) and it was evident that David Lack had won the argument against group selection, even though Wynne-Edwards’ idea was so appealing. And then Maynard Smith confirmed the case against group selection mathematically.
But since then, new ideas have changed the picture. To be truthful, I know little about the field, but there is a considerable body of literature that strongly supports the role of group selection in man and other animals. This work nicely conforms with ideas about the evolution of civilization. It’s fascinating to delve into the subject once again.
Still, perhaps time to wind things up here.
what I said in one of my first comments here. IQ as a mental game/test measured a narrowed set of skills and in the descontextualized reality like a simulation of the reality, chess versus real strategy. The best of chess masters are strategic gifted thinkers?? But logical to rational skills are not only "to solve mathematical problems" but specially applying it to the real world contexts in many ways. IQ seems weak to reflect in the precise way this hierarchy. IQ measure the potential of someone to work their ideas in many ways: Verbal, spatial, mathematics... But he don't "measure" the factual understanding, the capacity of someone to find and follow facts, the most important because the correct analysis, criticism and judgment, resulting in follow facts, make us avoid waste time and energy with wrong ideas, thinking lines. I don't buy this idea that geniuses help indirectly to the fitness of "their"genes, maybe it have some truth there but most of them don't do it consciously or necessarily don't give a s..t to this possibility. Seems a partially correct evolutionary conjecture. Yes the genius invention can increase their fitness indirectly...specially in the past because in the "modern" context we are seeing the opposite result, but generally not in purposeful way.
You acknowledge that a social group may prosper as a result of the work of a genius, a latter day Archimedes, for example. But then you seem to dismiss the significance of what you have just acknowledged by saying that the genius acted without altruistic intent.
But intent is irrelevant. Group survival or extinction, expansion or contraction is all that matters in determining the course of evolution . So, yes, a group that produces innovators, whether due to its social structure or to some components of the gene pool, may benefit or suffer from natural selection as a group.
More often, though, in human society, group selection effects are most likely the result of social arrangements that more often than not seem to have come about not through the work of any genius but by processes hard to distinguish from pure chance — as for example the English Channel as a cause of the industrial revolution (it made it unnecessary for England to maintain a standing army in defense against continental rivals, which meant that the English monarch lacked absolute power, which allowed Parliament to wrest control from the king, which placed power in the hands of the landowning class, who then wrote laws allowing them to privatize common land, which justified investment in agricultural improvement, which resulted in the accumulation of capital and a surplus of rural labor, the two being put to work in factories that mass produced textiles, and so on…..).
Cesare Lombroso, in their The Man of Genius, said one common trait among ''geniuses'' they analysed was ''double personality''.
What make genius work (on avg, seems to be) is not firstly social motivations but their ideas itself.
And the most important, they, on avg, don't think: ''will be great if i have insights to help my kin--fellows have more kids''.
If i understand it well, it's a evolutionary conjecture.
''But intent is irrelevant. Group survival or extinction, expansion or contraction is all that matters in determining the course of evolution . So, yes, a group that produces innovators, whether due to its social structure or to some components of the gene pool, may benefit or suffer from natural selection as a group.''
I can agree that inovators usually Destabilize the current selective march of ''their'' group, to their own luck or disgrace.
I think artistic geniuses tend to destabilize to the disgrace of their group even they Not do this deliberately, because genius in art tend to mean higher existential-abstract suscetibility, and the risk to become out of the reality is higher. Well, artistic geniuses tend to be partial-schizomorphic is not*
Some ficticious or real artistic/proto-philosophical geniuses in the past had been great ''positive'' impact, the religions for example, we know that they are the ancient shamans.
Yes the process to produce the ''perfect' conditions and the luck to have highly perceptive and motivated people in the same time and space is complicated but specially because we tend to live in partially chaotic societies.
My issue with group selection is that it is not — demonstrably, anyway — an issue of reproductive success of the fit genes. (For that matter, can the genetic factors, if they exist, of the selected group be identified as distinct and characteristic?) How much of any “group selection”, in classic evolutionary “survival” parameters, is a social phenomenon, and/or a cooperative phenomenon? If so, that does not carry into succeeding generations where it counts — in the genes. Further, at any point in time at which necessary communication within the group is altered or destroyed, the “trait” disappears. Now, imo, the trait disappears because it is not a trait, but a specific interaction acquired by the group on the social level, not the physical, thus not proper “evolution”.
Now, find me a gene for altruism, and I’ll retract from the top.
I have just corrected you sentence.
You are welcome.
Well, there are very altruistic geniuses but the megalomaniacal ones seems more common. What I’ve been read about genius personality types, they tend to be quite complex in the way it’s difficult to label them as ”altruistic” or ”megalomaniacal” only, because they tend to be many things in the same time, in more intensity than average people.
Cesare Lombroso, in their The Man of Genius, said one common trait among ”geniuses” they analysed was ”double personality”.
What make genius work (on avg, seems to be) is not firstly social motivations but their ideas itself.
And the most important, they, on avg, don’t think: ”will be great if i have insights to help my kin–fellows have more kids”.
If i understand it well, it’s a evolutionary conjecture.
”But intent is irrelevant. Group survival or extinction, expansion or contraction is all that matters in determining the course of evolution . So, yes, a group that produces innovators, whether due to its social structure or to some components of the gene pool, may benefit or suffer from natural selection as a group.”
I can agree that inovators usually Destabilize the current selective march of ”their” group, to their own luck or disgrace.
I think artistic geniuses tend to destabilize to the disgrace of their group even they Not do this deliberately, because genius in art tend to mean higher existential-abstract suscetibility, and the risk to become out of the reality is higher. Well, artistic geniuses tend to be partial-schizomorphic is not*
Some ficticious or real artistic/proto-philosophical geniuses in the past had been great ”positive” impact, the religions for example, we know that they are the ancient shamans.
Yes the process to produce the ”perfect’ conditions and the luck to have highly perceptive and motivated people in the same time and space is complicated but specially because we tend to live in partially chaotic societies.
“a cooperative phenomenon” ” does [...] carry into succeeding generations”
I have just corrected you sentence.
You are welcome.
Certainly, group selection exists. Certainly, it is a, however ephemeral, social and behavioral adjustment/adaptation that improves survivability AND improves reproductive success. It is NOT, by any stretch, an evolutionary change, as "evolution" is defined in biological terms.
If you wish to nastily insist just onaccounta because you WANNA CALL IT EVOLUTION, you might like to turn in your "scientist" card. Present a new term, or pin it on "social evolution". Or shut the hell up and smoke if you got 'em.
There are African gifted in spelling ??
Spelling seems more popular than scrabble/scrabbling…
I have just corrected you sentence.
You are welcome.
A cooperative phenomenon MAY carry into succeeding generations. Group selection based on behavior is not evolution. Evolution is biological — genetics.
Certainly, group selection exists. Certainly, it is a, however ephemeral, social and behavioral adjustment/adaptation that improves survivability AND improves reproductive success. It is NOT, by any stretch, an evolutionary change, as “evolution” is defined in biological terms.
If you wish to nastily insist just onaccounta because you WANNA CALL IT EVOLUTION, you might like to turn in your “scientist” card. Present a new term, or pin it on “social evolution”. Or shut the hell up and smoke if you got ‘em.
Certainly, group selection exists. Certainly, it is a, however ephemeral, social and behavioral adjustment/adaptation that improves survivability AND improves reproductive success. It is NOT, by any stretch, an evolutionary change, as "evolution" is defined in biological terms.
If you wish to nastily insist just onaccounta because you WANNA CALL IT EVOLUTION, you might like to turn in your "scientist" card. Present a new term, or pin it on "social evolution". Or shut the hell up and smoke if you got 'em.
Do you know how do they create dog breeds for different traits and looks? It is all about genetics. Aggressiveness or cooperation is also genetically driven. You can breed it out or enhance it. Your statement “Evolution is biological — genetics.” so selective breeding is evolution. Banishing the most greed, violent, uncooperative individuals outside the society so they cannot breed (procreate) is evolutionary process.
Of course, the matrix is not exactly the same in all the countries, however:
(a) the structure of revealed factors are similar, with "g" always emerging, and similar secondary factors emerging (i.e. the same tests usually are groupd tegether)
(b) loadings are similar
FOr example, see: Chen "What Does the WISC-IV Measure? Validation of the Scoring and CHC-based Interpretative Approaches"
You can see the factor structure is confirmed, loadings are almost same as in US, and there are minor differences only for few subtests:
https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=39&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgnobKy5jQAhWBiywKHfgMB484HhAWCGIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edubook.com.tw%2Ftw%2Ffile%2Fpdf%2F1099%2F5403%2F04.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGjHT76Tq528dyiIEmcojGGTroKMQ&sig2=SuYs08GREUkCyZpT2TzPRQ&bvm=bv.137904068,d.bGgExample of Jensen's claims:I could find more studies, but as there are 8 points to address, and you could always say "one study is not enough! two studies are not enough! do the data analysis yourself, so ask the authors for their data!" I am hesitant to invest my time in this endeavour. For example, Raven Progressive Matrices have always reported high g-loadings (with literally one exception) in the range of 0.7-0.9. Backward digit span always has higher g-loading that Forward digit span. The results of tests are noisy (consist of measurement error, for example), so perfect congruence is impossible in my opinion.
(2)Second
"That two test are correlate is not really amazing. And obviously a certain linear combination of these two test will be more correlate this either of them. This is a trivial mathematica property"
It is amazing, because the correlation is between tests which seem to be completely unrelated, including tests which were thought to prove that "g" does not exist and there are independent, uncorrelated mental abilities. It's not just "two tests correlate", but "any time you design test to test mental ability, it correlates with all other tests" and "g-loadings are quite similar in different ethnic groups" (above, very similar in American and Taiwanese populations; wikipedia claims same for the American and Japanese, and for blacks and whites in America).
In your example once again the variables correlate because they share common causal variables (instead of one: shoes and height), that is: you postulate once again that correlation may not necessitate "g", but could be also explained by Thomson's "bonds" theory. And I have provided Jensen's argument why "bonds" explanation is weaker than "g". Moreover, the fact that two explanations may exist by this phenomenon do not make it less amazing.
In other hands, you have shown that correlation may be explained not just by "g" by also by bonds/sampling theory of Thomson, and you have not shown that correlations will always appear and do not require an explanation.
Here were have almost an invariable law: if test is related to mental activities, then you have positive correlation with other mental tests. But variables do not always correlate. Physical muscular strength does not correlate with IQ subtests. Size of your feet does not correlate with results of IQ subtests. Randomly generated variables won't correlate. The correlation of variables describing physical properties is something which requires explanation and cannot be handwaved. If you could devise tests for mental abilities which would not correlate, then I would give you a point; but for 100 years no one could create such tests, even though they tried.
(3) Third
I do not claim life outcomes are needed. I merely point out that it is amazing that this seemingly arteficial construct have real life outcomes. If it has predictive power, then it is useful and practical (and requires explanation WHY it has predictive power).
(4) Fourth
No, it is "g" which is highly predictive. You can train for IQ tests, but then their "g" loadings will fall and the IQ test predictive value will fall. You cannot (significantly, I know only one study which claimed minor raises in "g") train for increase of "g". Moreover, the more g-loaded a subtest/test, the more predictive power it has. It means you can devise new test, and if it will have high g-loading, then you can be pretty sure the test will be highly predictive. That means "g" is useful; if you can use it to decide a priori whether newly devised test X will have good predictive power, then you cannot claim that "since a test X has a good predictive power, then g is useless".
(5) Fifth
Well, this is not entirely true. In studies you can often read about "g", but there is also a frustrating amount of studies which use raw IQ scores or confuse the two. Even Lynn eems to talk about "IQ" when he should talk about "g", despite knowing those are not the same.
(6)Sixts
Taiwanese study above.
(7) Seventh
Do you claim that for any subset of tests, they will always correlate and a general factor will always emerge? Because, sure, if tests correlate then you can construct "g". The question is WHY THEY ALWAYS CORRELATE.
(8) Eigth
No value added?
Imagine I want to choose a best place to build a house to avoid lightnings. Just for the sake of argument, imagine I have a bunch of variables, which seem to me unrelated to lightnings: height above the sea level, vegetation index and so on. Just for the sake of argument, assume I created a construct via some weird and convoluted mathematic operation (e.g. taking square root of tree heightsmultiplied by sinus of vegations index in mm). This is purely mathematic construct. Just for the sake of argument, imagine that this construct predicts 30% of time correctly whether a lightning will struct, will all other variables or constructs predict with lower accuracy.
WOuld you claim that the construct has no value added and is useless?
Moreover, while we don't know why "g" emerges, we know that it correlates with brain properties; we can use "g" to measure which characteristics are more correlated with "g" and then think why; so we can use a "g" as a guide to further understanding of the mental abilities.
Hey szopen, I want to get back to our discussion and hopefully finish it but I need to take a break. I will respond.
Quite familiar — first hand, in fact.
Look, sport, that ain’t evolution; that’s a variation on eugenics. Dog-breeding is trait selection, NOT NOT NOT new species, NOT NOT NOT evolution. True, some fools characterize it as “sub-speciation”, but it is not. Genetics has rules. Ask a geneticist.
No, you can’t. You can only decrease/increase frequency of the phenotype. The gene remains.
WTF is wrong with you jokers? Have you the faintest notion of what you speak?
OK, though I would ask to modify my previous reply – I found many studies about stability of “g” intra-culturally, but it seems to me that stability of “g” cross-culturally is weaker than I thought.
“No, you can’t. You can only decrease/increase frequency of the phenotype. The gene remains.” – Nonsense. Most genes of Neanderthals were irretrievably lost. Dogs do not have some genes of wolves. You cannot back breed a wolf out all dogs in the world. In Germany and Poland in early 20 century they trie to reverse breed Tarpan form some horses. It was impossible but they only wanted to get some horses that looked like their idea of the extinct Tarpans. If you take all rottweilers in the world you won’t be able to breed them to get any greyhound that exist within the population of all greyhounds in the world. If you take a group of blue eye people you cannot obtain a brown eye descendant. They brown eye gene does not exist in blue eye subpopulations. You do not know what you are talking about. You often sound like a typical autodidact who was victimized by one book that he read and misunderstood.
Dogs are less genetically diverse than wolfes is not*
as well humans if were compared with ''near-primates''.
;)
In an experiment with E. Coli, Richard Lenski followed the evolution of 12 cell lines over 65,000 generations. Each line followed its own quite distinct evolutionary course. So yes, each time you replay the tape you get a different result.
Not sure what that means. But Whatever genes lead to cooperative behavi0r that favors group reproductive success must be “fit genes.”
We know little about genes and behavior, so not much can be said concerning the genes that underlie group cohesion, etc. However, religion is universal to mankind (today, in the West, mostly manifest in the form of liberal lunacy). So the tendency to consider rules of behavior important appears to be a genetically-based mental trait, that has allowed successful groups to work cooperatively, or altruistically, for the general good. Francis Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order deals with this at length.
And the group disappears too, replaced as a by another group that retains the necessary group cohesion, i.e., it is eliminated through group selection.
It’s clear that humans are receptive to moral rules, demand conformity of others to those rules and feel badly (usually, somewhat) when they themselves breach those rules.
A genetic basis to the moral sense remains unknown, but since sociopathy appears to be genetically determined, it is a reasonable hypothesis to assume that moral behavior is genetically determined also. But in any case, however fit, the perpetuation of any particular human genealogy largely depends on the perpetuation of the group. The Tasmanian aboriginals failed because they were unable, as a group, to resist the onslaught of European settlers.
”Dogs do not have some genes of wolves.”
Dogs are less genetically diverse than wolfes is not*
as well humans if were compared with ”near-primates”.
I think behavioral genes have limited but existent plasticity and human can adapt/adjust narrowly using this individual gene-behavior diversity, usually at subconscious/sub-understanding levels. I mean, every ”behavior” have a [individually limited] potential of intensity or development.
Other common mistake in evolutionary psychology
”Religion is in your genes”
Religion is a cultural product that express human mental (deficits) operationalities.
Religion is a non-organic thing, a human-created institution, a verbal technology.
None born catholic or jewish.
The deep evolutionary state of religion is the anthropocentrism.
We are talking about, literally speaking, in individual propensity to become partially psychotic = believing in nonsense –OR– not (atheism/agnosticism), obviously we have a degree of this propensity to subtle and ”adapted’ psychosis, and seems many of atheists are by now illiberals/ideologues.
Of course not. It’s the propensity to consider moral rules important that constitutes the genetic basis of religion. That’s why the atheism of the West in no way refutes the hypothesis that the susceptibility to religion is inborn. Is proves only that belief in a god is not a prerequisite of religious faith.
Political correctness is the intolerant religious faith of most people in the the atheistic West. Political correctness constitutes a variant of the extremely intolerant religion of communism as practiced in the Soviet Union.
In other societies without gods, the moral system is based on respect for and submission to the will of ancestors, who are believed to continue to exist in spirit form. Such belief systems are widespread in Africa and are or were common among Amerindians.
Perhaps we could did an IQ test right now.
Whom did each of you vote for president? Trump or that whore? What was her name?
Oh but of course, being college graduated will suddenly become unindicative of the intelligence of a person, because "Marxist indoctrination".
Whom did each of you vote for president? Trump or that whore? What was her name?
Tough luck. Trump dominated the least educated stratum of society, and vice versa for the whore.
Oh but of course, being college graduated will suddenly become unindicative of the intelligence of a person, because “Marxist indoctrination”.
Well, I guess we can add me to the educated column, since I have two degrees, one of them a graduate degree in Pharmacy. Here’s another IQ test. How could anyone actually believe anything you see or hear in the mainstream media? Pre-election polling almost all showed the whore would win. Are you unintelligent enough to not see that this was a concerted effort to use disinformation to sway the outcome of the election? Are you so ignorant of what is occurring that you don’t see the mainstream media is an utter propaganda machine whose function is to form an opinion of a particular agenda, not to report the truth? Not that they ever where, but today it is obvious. Except for fools that actually believe that the whore is an improvement over feces.
I think that believe in whatever god is the only pre requisite to the religion propensity. The behavioral disposition to follow rules / obedience to authority = normies, seems to be part of the pocket, so called “consciousness” psychological trait. Usually the propensity to the subtle magical belief tend to correlates with conformity/normalcy.
I also believe that religioness/ respect for authority is a kind of domesticated behavioral trait.
Ideology is quite similar with religion. The main difference between a typical religion and Marxist new left ideology is that the first is biologically conservative, indirectly speaking, because Christianism is universalist and open to mixed race, and the second is biologically disintegrative, using the major moral weaknesses of whites against them.
Yes.
There are good religions, in terms of group survival, and bad religions.
Control the religious beliefs of a people and you dictate their fate.
Political correctness is a religion of self destruction that has been propagated in the West by (a) fools, (b) traitors, (c) enemies, or a combination of all three.
The pathetic intellectual skills of not only the avg white people is the direct product of Christianism working like a selective mirror. Christianism is so hypocrite than Judaism. Christianism has selected for serviles types.
Ideology is one of the first stages of metamorphosis of human collective lunacy
first the propagandists of the cult showed it as a philosophy or science. Secondly the cult become "ideology". And in the end the cult change to the "beautiful butterfly" religion. The popularity/power levels follows this cute transformation.
Seems very few religions that are decently sane or morally correct.
New left is the strategy to use discontents with the old order (conservative, highly biased, Christian and yes racist) against the population-core of this "old" political system.
There are good religions, in terms of group survival, and bad religions.
Control the religious beliefs of a people and you dictate their fate.
Political correctness is a religion of self destruction that has been propagated in the West by (a) fools, (b) traitors, (c) enemies, or a combination of all three.
Christianism never was a good religion to the white people. Wait. A cult where your people pray for Jewish X-man in the Palestine?? Is it?
The pathetic intellectual skills of not only the avg white people is the direct product of Christianism working like a selective mirror. Christianism is so hypocrite than Judaism. Christianism has selected for serviles types.
Ideology is one of the first stages of metamorphosis of human collective lunacy
first the propagandists of the cult showed it as a philosophy or science. Secondly the cult become “ideology”. And in the end the cult change to the “beautiful butterfly” religion. The popularity/power levels follows this cute transformation.
Seems very few religions that are decently sane or morally correct.
New left is the strategy to use discontents with the old order (conservative, highly biased, Christian and yes racist) against the population-core of this “old” political system.
At priore none religion is good because it is the symptom of mental weakness or if you prefer the symptom of the domestication.
Stop to think fairy tales are real is a good beginning to be really smart or wise.
Communism and Political Correctness are systems of morality without free of supernatural assumptions. True they are both bad religions but they are religions and their acceptance is not necessarily evidence of weak mindedness. The problem today is to restore something like the Christian moral system in the West without requiring belief in such doubtful ideas as the virgin birth, the risen Christ and the miracles.
Without such a faith, the West is doomed. So no, there's nothing weak minded about accepting or promoting religion.
Ha!
I’ve found a decent refutation of Cosma Shalizi link (posted above by utu).
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/
Basically it repeats some of the points I made (the fact that variables correlate is amazing and something which requires the explanation), but in much more lucid and convincing manner.
Or many to most of higher IQ ones are
Really stupid, intellectually stupid but cognitively smarter/smarter ant workers
Or
Dishonest... To say at least.
The life is now. No there excuses for obvious mistakes if not playing dumb. A wise person is looking for abstract and literal world. The wise guy or girl is someone who have first of all: Decent to excellent factual understanding. Know the right moment to literalize or to abstractisize.
IQ "measure" how potentially good we are to develop ideas, thoughts and to process information...no matter if 'they' are right or wrong. IQ don't"measure" our factual understanding, the proto intuitive capacity to find and follow for facts, and specially in abstract world.
So you can have and we have a "higher IQ" woman or man who are using their potential to develop/improve for example the belief in blank slatism, and many times will be a entire life burning their neurons in wrong ideas. It's not intelligent in any place, only in safe environments humans sporadically creates.
G while pattern recognition is basically the basis for every behavior of every living beings. Even we could to say the reality itself have or is completely based on pattern recognition, the physical world.
But the psychometric g is not the same than a complete g, the g of behavior, because it's limited to the IQ tests world.
I've found a decent refutation of Cosma Shalizi link (posted above by utu).
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/
Basically it repeats some of the points I made (the fact that variables correlate is amazing and something which requires the explanation), but in much more lucid and convincing manner.
You need to choice
Or many to most of higher IQ ones are
Really stupid, intellectually stupid but cognitively smarter/smarter ant workers
Or
Dishonest… To say at least.
The life is now. No there excuses for obvious mistakes if not playing dumb. A wise person is looking for abstract and literal world. The wise guy or girl is someone who have first of all: Decent to excellent factual understanding. Know the right moment to literalize or to abstractisize.
IQ “measure” how potentially good we are to develop ideas, thoughts and to process information…no matter if ‘they’ are right or wrong. IQ don’t”measure” our factual understanding, the proto intuitive capacity to find and follow for facts, and specially in abstract world.
So you can have and we have a “higher IQ” woman or man who are using their potential to develop/improve for example the belief in blank slatism, and many times will be a entire life burning their neurons in wrong ideas. It’s not intelligent in any place, only in safe environments humans sporadically creates.
G while pattern recognition is basically the basis for every behavior of every living beings. Even we could to say the reality itself have or is completely based on pattern recognition, the physical world.
But the psychometric g is not the same than a complete g, the g of behavior, because it’s limited to the IQ tests world.
Correct. Stephen Jay Gould sometimes discussed what would happen if you “replayed the tape.” Would evolution follow the same course or not? The answer is not.
In an experiment with E. Coli, Richard Lenski followed the evolution of 12 cell lines over 65,000 generations. Each line followed its own quite distinct evolutionary course. So yes, each time you replay the tape you get a different result.
You miss the point. Religion is a system of generally accepted morals that makes society workable. The mythological elements of religion merely reinforce the necessary moral framework.
Communism and Political Correctness are systems of morality without free of supernatural assumptions. True they are both bad religions but they are religions and their acceptance is not necessarily evidence of weak mindedness. The problem today is to restore something like the Christian moral system in the West without requiring belief in such doubtful ideas as the virgin birth, the risen Christ and the miracles.
Without such a faith, the West is doomed. So no, there’s nothing weak minded about accepting or promoting religion.
Communism and Political Correctness are systems of morality without free of supernatural assumptions. True they are both bad religions but they are religions and their acceptance is not necessarily evidence of weak mindedness. The problem today is to restore something like the Christian moral system in the West without requiring belief in such doubtful ideas as the virgin birth, the risen Christ and the miracles.
Without such a faith, the West is doomed. So no, there's nothing weak minded about accepting or promoting religion.
What is the difference between a mental slave (religious) and a dead people?? Tiny if not nonexistent.
The west is doomed since a very long time. Just like Islam, a collective medieval ghost walking without any motivation to improve itself. Walking in circles, repeating the same mistakes.
Do you’re a Christian??
Nope, religion is the part of social structure/cultural laws.
The “necessary moral framework” of almost of religions are wrong and at the best unnecessary if ‘they’ are wrong.
No there differences between a ideological fanatic and a religious fanatical, fanatically wrong. It’s a emphatic evidence of weaker mind. Why a person who fully/really believe in the Jesus Christ story no have a weak mind??
This is culturally adapted psychosis. Why this person can’t be relatively comparable with schizophrenic person??
Only personal opinions. You need elaborate arguments to prove your point that someone believing in nonsense is not mental weakness.
No there great differences between the left idiocy today and almost of CULTS humans already created.
Ideology is the opium to the comparatively smarter crowds.
It’s impossible separate fairy tales and Christianism if both are the same.
Because religion have promoted fertility doesn’t mean people who are more prone to believe in nonsense no have weaker minds.
The fundamental reason christianism in the recent past wasn’t target as ridiculous is that it was quite popularized, “normalized”. In the same way believe in nonexistent of human races and its differences. Of course there is some true here, thought.
So you adhere to the PC view that the Mosaic law, not to kill, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, etc. is bunk?
If so you are wrong. The wages of sin are death and the PC West is committing suicide.
I'm saying to you that the older moral/christian-capitalistic system is far to be perfect, very far...
To ''teach'' Christianism without Christ seems impossible, deal with it.
If so you are wrong. The wages of sin are death and the PC West is committing suicide.
No.
I’m saying to you that the older moral/christian-capitalistic system is far to be perfect, very far…
To ”teach” Christianism without Christ seems impossible, deal with it.
In an experiment with E. Coli, Richard Lenski followed the evolution of 12 cell lines over 65,000 generations. Each line followed its own quite distinct evolutionary course. So yes, each time you replay the tape you get a different result.
This is not the argument I am making. It was about genes that were lost.
In an experiment with E. Coli, Richard Lenski followed the evolution of 12 cell lines over 65,000 generations. Each line followed its own quite distinct evolutionary course. So yes, each time you replay the tape you get a different result.
OK.
But even if the genes remained, or if they emerged anew, you still wouldn’t get back to where you were.
Still, if the selective pressures were the same and the time were long enough, you might get pretty close, say a Tasmanian tiger, in place of a wolf.
Evolution takes place at every level, from individual proteins to specific genes to clusters of genes to cells to organisms to groups to species.
Neutral,
if you took out time to understand and even appreciate the challenges that structured education face in most African countries, you can begin to understand why this gaps exist as you have come to conclude.
It is really nothing genetic or hereditary as Nigerian born Wellington Jighere with very negligible global exposure and non existent state support and recognition emerged World Scrabble Champion (WESPA) for 2015. I speak with you as someone that has closely watched development since he returned from Perth, Australia.
There really is not much of an environment to better explore the huge potential of this games. there is no attempt by the state to encourage these games in schools. If Scrabble or other Board games received even a fraction of the attention it has come to be associated with in Europe etc, i am almost certain that your views will undergo a reversal in no time.
Bottom line is lack of support for this games, the genetic superiority/inferiority is only but a hoax. it is difficult to measure achievement in humans, especially when they come from backgrounds that promote Superiority/Inferiority. The next half a century will be a real test for these hypotheses as they do not yet constitute a theory.
The urgency for growth and development will shift towards Africa for very obvious reasons. even a quarter of a century sustained interest in these or any game will give you a clearer picture. buying pirated CD’s and not having the right environment to articulate and consolidate mental development does very little and doe not tell the whole story.
Wellington Jighere 2015 World Scrabble Champion will do well with any support you can put together to aid the support of his Foundation aimed at supporting young minds across Africa. HE DOES NOT YET STILL ENJOY ANY KIND OF SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGEMENT FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GOVERMENT DESPITE ALL OUR BEST EFFORT.
Best regards
kingsley Chinda Esq
Biological evolution, which is what Chisala’s article references, is unrelated to the loose definition of “evolution” that applies to groups. I recall my mother once saying that her view of living together before marriage had undergone “evolution”. It’s a flexible term, dude.
http://www.afran.info/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=442
http://www.socialentrepreneurship-book.com/beneficiaries/kigali-public-library/
Kenya is one of the better functioning African countries, yet only has 60 public libraries for a population of 44 million or one branch per 733,000. Metro Atlanta has a population of 6 million and 34 public libraries or one branch per 176,000.
http://www.afpls.org/locations/locations2
I was disputing the absurd claim that libraries “simply don’t exist” in Africa. Obviously the continent isn’t exactly brimming with them.
Is it possible that within these African countries there are different sub-species? I understand that in east Africa it's a specific tribe that produces the champion distance runners, not the east African population generally. Perhaps the same is true for brain sports.
And there are Ethiopian Jews. They may not get much respect currently in Israel, but they may be far above the general black population in Africa. I taught an Ethiopian young woman here in USA in a class, and she was the academic talent of the class which included at least half white people. She had nothing in common intellectually with what we see with dreary consistency in African Americans. It didn't require any special cultural understanding or indoctrination on my part, no "sensitivity" etc. She spoke excellent English and comported herself simply as a member of good society, in manner and in thinking. And she got top grades on tests. I don't know if she was Jewish, but she was an intelligent woman by regular standards who was black.
African Americans were selected a few hundred years ago for incompetence in battle (they lost within Africa and were captured to be sold to slave traders) but physical strength. They cannot be expected to excel in military and strategic skills, which are pretty much the basis of a well respected IQ test which used to be called the ASVAB.
Universities know that they can find talented black students from Africa. When our top universities fill their racial quotas, quite a few of the blacks are such foreign students. The "SAT score gap" would be even greater if they had to fill the whole quota with African Americans.
Indeed there is commonly neglect of the huge variety within Africa. Genotypically it may not all be attributable to junk DNA. It may be no coincidence that Peter the Great’s general Gannibal was Ethiopian.
Igbo – or their upper castes – may be cognitively superior, for example.
But what does that say about spreading the West’s brief experiments with (majoritarian) “democracy” to Africa? What does it say about the future of democracy in the dysgenic USA?
Native (white and other middle class) Australians are reproducing below replacement rate. How long will smart immigrants make up for this so compulsory voting remains a positive? (My main reasons for calling it a positive is that it counters the need for money and emotion to get out the vote and it protects reasonable politicians from single issue fanatics who all vote).
FWIW, from my experience playing Scrabble one of the things that really separates the best players is the ability to "turn lemons into lemonade", in other words making the best of a difficult rack of tiles. Even though the tile draw is random, the ability to deal with that is clearly both intelligence and practice (e.g. memorizing lists of obscure two and three letter words) related. There is also significant skill in ensuring good "leaves" to minimize the effect of randomness (pool is a good analogy here).
For everyone here questioning the relationship of Scrabble and IQ: Have you actually played Scrabble with smart (e.g. IQ > 130) people?
Typically I guess educated inte!ligent adults have only played Scrabble as a recreation or as a game that parents and children can play together and may give children some benefit. Backgammon is another such game where there is little incentive to study the game to learn the refinements, the rules or algorithmic calculations which significantly add to your degree of superiority.
In differing degrees the point of that observation could apply widely. It could apply to doing IQ tests – even those which just involve shape matching won’t be done as well by a person doing his first ever test so he doesn’t even know precisely what the language of a question means. Then there is every possibility that a bright 12 year old won’t see any advantage in showing that he is better than his 14 year old classmates at everything he touches all the time. He gets 90 per cent when he could get 99 per cent and gets all the teacher approval he wants/can stand!
So, sure, you would expect a fair correlation between measured IQ and success at Scrabble but a far higher proportion of people would be taking seriously the maximising of their IQ scores than maximising their skills at Scrabble.
So CC’s article is perhaps best seen as support for the view that African diversity extends to diversity in the cognitive abilities of different ethnic groups.
I agree with your extension to backgammon. I find it similar to Scrabble in where it fits in the importance of randomness/ability space. I do think backgammon tilts more towards nonverbal IQ than Scrabble does (would be interested in any research/data on this). With games like this I think the environment one learns/plays in is important to how one treats it. Is it a competitive game or one where weaker players are not "beaten up on" (or one where people downplay their ability so as not to be the nail that sticks up, as you allude to)? I learned backgammon from a family friend (a senior lawyer in a large company) when I was a child. He stomped on me (e.g. took delight in blockading me on the bar), but also managed to be encouraging and it wasn't too long before (I think) I could give him a decent game. The most frustrating thing about games with a large element of randomness is having one's skill attributed away as luck. In a way though that is a feature in that it makes it easier for people to rationalize a loss and less necessary to downplay ability.
To add to your third paragraph, a far higher proportion of the smartest people are taking seriously the maximizing of real world tasks that require IQ than maximizing their skills at any given game. If I was looking for the smartest people I would probably start with high achieving STEM folks and not chess, Scrabble, backgammon, etc. tournaments. The idea of comparative advantage is relevant here (e.g. it is possible that the smartest group has few people who consider Scrabble worthwhile).
Did you skip something in your biology course or are you aware that the Tasmanian Tiger was a marsupial and making that fact part of your point? (If so very flattering to non-Australians and non-zoologists amongst your readers).
see: The Curious Evolutionary History of the ‘Marsupial Wolf’
I am arbitrarily choosing you amongst CanSpeccy, SantoCulto, Szopen and MCPO USN to pitch in where I think cantankerous nitpicking seems to have replaced common sense. Let me start with a relevant anecdote.
At the age of 17, by chance and by natural inquisitveness, I was able to read the school records of hundreds of my school contemporaries and near contemporaries. None of it was very surprising as moving up or down the semi circular metaphorical ladder as you succeeded or failed in speedy Latin translation or being the quickest to finish maths rests was quite public evidence. It did teach caution however when one bright boy was recorded as having been tested at 183 on one occasion and 137 on another. As he became a particle physicist the lower figure probably reflected a bad cold. Others with measured IQs above 127 later became chemistry professors, Dean of Law, ambassador, school principal, appeal court judge, surgeon, bank CEO, intellectual property lawyer, tax lawyer, as one might expect though one of them in the 140s is included in my “whatever happened to him” file after his merely quite good degree in physics, and from an extended family source I can tell of very high IQs being compatible with great foolishness and poor human relations.
Since there were many boys in the large school with IQs several SDs below the A streamers I have referred to and they were all without socio-economic disadvantage and nearly all without special tutoring or Tiger (or Jewish) mothers the place for a contribution by good or fortunately combined (or activated as one might now say) genes was obvious. By and large their children confirm the common sense idea that bright parents tend to have bright children and vice versa.
We must of course be careful to recognise that useful or explanatory IQ related propositions are about a averages even when one is marking thresholds or acting as if one can make predictions about individuals such as “don’t expect this kid to keep up in the top set physics class”. But so many other environmental and neurobiological factors are involved in a person becoming capable of high performance and actually performing at a high level that it would make sense to employ in an intake of 30 at a bank or management consultancy no one who hasn’t reached say 1.75SDs above average on the most g laden test available but to regard IQ score as just one minor detail in the range of considerations that apply when one of the three of them still with the firm 25 years later is to be selected as president and CEO. In the context of group and specifically racial differences has all this any relevance.
It does because a group which could not supply the equivalent proportion to that 30 starting candidates with IQs 1.75 SDs above the US average is going to be struggling in the modern world, at least if they have decided to try out the Western countries’ democratic systems with maximum breeding for the dim. One of the reasons that it is possible to believe that the African gene pool, though lacking some favourably mutated alleles contributing to cognitive ability that occurred in Eurasia, may contain high IQ subgroups is that the ancestors of those groups didn’t have either the opportunity or incentive that applied in Eurasia (I never thought I would be channeling Jared Diamond ‘s entertainingly presented pieties but there you go) to produce great science or innovation. Domination over lesser beings who nonetheless had no trouble providing their superiors and themselves with food may have been a rational aim and conducive to the good life for the top dogs. High g would correlate well with the ability to defeat others of similar physical strength in battle or by cunning.
I’ m sure I had something more profound to say but I shall have to sleep on that thought.
It continues to amaze me that anybody gets paid for writing and administering IQ tests. Beyond a measurement of minimal functionality in a world than demands competence (or, does it?), it's all angels on the head of a pin. But then, there are people in power who maintain that power by providing free lunches both to IQ-test administrators, and IQ-test takers. Go figure.
Put another way, range restriction matters. If you have selected by a criteria (e.g. IQ) it becomes less important as a predictor of success. This is the fallacy undermining almost all academic studies looking for IQ correlations using psychology undergrads.
if you took out time to understand and even appreciate the challenges that structured education face in most African countries, you can begin to understand why this gaps exist as you have come to conclude.
It is really nothing genetic or hereditary as Nigerian born Wellington Jighere with very negligible global exposure and non existent state support and recognition emerged World Scrabble Champion (WESPA) for 2015. I speak with you as someone that has closely watched development since he returned from Perth, Australia.
There really is not much of an environment to better explore the huge potential of this games. there is no attempt by the state to encourage these games in schools. If Scrabble or other Board games received even a fraction of the attention it has come to be associated with in Europe etc, i am almost certain that your views will undergo a reversal in no time.
Bottom line is lack of support for this games, the genetic superiority/inferiority is only but a hoax. it is difficult to measure achievement in humans, especially when they come from backgrounds that promote Superiority/Inferiority. The next half a century will be a real test for these hypotheses as they do not yet constitute a theory.
The urgency for growth and development will shift towards Africa for very obvious reasons. even a quarter of a century sustained interest in these or any game will give you a clearer picture. buying pirated CD's and not having the right environment to articulate and consolidate mental development does very little and doe not tell the whole story.
Wellington Jighere 2015 World Scrabble Champion will do well with any support you can put together to aid the support of his Foundation aimed at supporting young minds across Africa. HE DOES NOT YET STILL ENJOY ANY KIND OF SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGEMENT FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GOVERMENT DESPITE ALL OUR BEST EFFORT.
Best regards
kingsley Chinda Esq
Might it not be better for Wellington Jighere to go to the Harvard Law School so he can prepare to do something spectacular like putting Alan Dershowitz in his place?
If so you are wrong. The wages of sin are death and the PC West is committing suicide.
Aren’t you being a bit selective? What about the 613 mitzvot you’ll be told is the traditional answer iif you Google for “how many rules are there in Leviticus?”. Won’t you even concede judgment to the modern atheistic liberal who wants to prune a few of them?
And if you say the Jews (well most of them) have done a sensible update of them then where did that come from culturally speaking?
The Torah lists 613 laws; 247 are denoted in Leviticus.
Those laws are very important to God, therefore equally important to Jesus, who is like, you know, part of God, but still a separate-but-equal god, as is the Holy Ghost.
Job-specific aptitude tests consistently select the best candidates for a specific job. That fact applies equally to pro footballers and engineers. IQ tests select for aptitude and knowledge loosely defined by a set of questions, not skills or abilities. Further, within average parameters, motivation beats measured aptitude in virtually every instance of real-life jobs, roles, assignments, etc.
It continues to amaze me that anybody gets paid for writing and administering IQ tests. Beyond a measurement of minimal functionality in a world than demands competence (or, does it?), it’s all angels on the head of a pin. But then, there are people in power who maintain that power by providing free lunches both to IQ-test administrators, and IQ-test takers. Go figure.
The thing that is so important about IQ is its correlation with so many other desirable traits and overall achievement. While the 40 yard dash is critical in football it is meaningless for engineers.So you think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115? The US military seems to disagree with you (hence the AFQT). How do you prefer to attempt to detect or evaluate that difference?
247
The Torah lists 613 laws; 247 are denoted in Leviticus.
Those laws are very important to God, therefore equally important to Jesus, who is like, you know, part of God, but still a separate-but-equal god, as is the Holy Ghost.
The Torah lists 613 laws; 247 are denoted in Leviticus.
Those laws are very important to God, therefore equally important to Jesus, who is like, you know, part of God, but still a separate-but-equal god, as is the Holy Ghost.
Thank you for compensating for my carelessness and ensuring that I shall prove better whatever is proved by success when I next succumb to a challenge round of Trivial Pursuit (couldn’t put anything about the Koran in the Trivial category I suppose if I wanted to keep my head on my shoulders).
No problem. It’s a constant challenge to my vigilance, and my duty to truth, justice, and the American way. I’ve watched you for about a month, Wiz. You are too kind to these assholes. Stuff it down their throats.
In differing degrees the point of that observation could apply widely. It could apply to doing IQ tests - even those which just involve shape matching won't be done as well by a person doing his first ever test so he doesn't even know precisely what the language of a question means. Then there is every possibility that a bright 12 year old won't see any advantage in showing that he is better than his 14 year old classmates at everything he touches all the time. He gets 90 per cent when he could get 99 per cent and gets all the teacher approval he wants/can stand!
So, sure, you would expect a fair correlation between measured IQ and success at Scrabble but a far higher proportion of people would be taking seriously the maximising of their IQ scores than maximising their skills at Scrabble.
So CC's article is perhaps best seen as support for the view that African diversity extends to diversity in the cognitive abilities of different ethnic groups.
You make many good points. Some thoughts.
I agree with your extension to backgammon. I find it similar to Scrabble in where it fits in the importance of randomness/ability space. I do think backgammon tilts more towards nonverbal IQ than Scrabble does (would be interested in any research/data on this). With games like this I think the environment one learns/plays in is important to how one treats it. Is it a competitive game or one where weaker players are not “beaten up on” (or one where people downplay their ability so as not to be the nail that sticks up, as you allude to)? I learned backgammon from a family friend (a senior lawyer in a large company) when I was a child. He stomped on me (e.g. took delight in blockading me on the bar), but also managed to be encouraging and it wasn’t too long before (I think) I could give him a decent game. The most frustrating thing about games with a large element of randomness is having one’s skill attributed away as luck. In a way though that is a feature in that it makes it easier for people to rationalize a loss and less necessary to downplay ability.
To add to your third paragraph, a far higher proportion of the smartest people are taking seriously the maximizing of real world tasks that require IQ than maximizing their skills at any given game. If I was looking for the smartest people I would probably start with high achieving STEM folks and not chess, Scrabble, backgammon, etc. tournaments. The idea of comparative advantage is relevant here (e.g. it is possible that the smartest group has few people who consider Scrabble worthwhile).
I think this is one of the most sensible things I have seen said on this topic. I might quibble about the cutoff (and this matters because the probability density is declining rapidly in this part of the distribution), but the idea is sound (I think the AFQT provides an example of this type of usage, but perhaps someone who knows the military better could comment).
Put another way, range restriction matters. If you have selected by a criteria (e.g. IQ) it becomes less important as a predictor of success. This is the fallacy undermining almost all academic studies looking for IQ correlations using psychology undergrads.
Another often overlooked point is that reversion toward the mean expectations should not ignore assortative mating's effect on the mean.
It continues to amaze me that anybody gets paid for writing and administering IQ tests. Beyond a measurement of minimal functionality in a world than demands competence (or, does it?), it's all angels on the head of a pin. But then, there are people in power who maintain that power by providing free lunches both to IQ-test administrators, and IQ-test takers. Go figure.
True, but the interesting question is how much do IQ tests correlate with job-specific aptitude tests? Probably more true for engineers than pro footballers, but even the NFL (assuming you are American?) uses a basic intelligence test (the Wonderlic) as part of draft evaluation.
The thing that is so important about IQ is its correlation with so many other desirable traits and overall achievement. While the 40 yard dash is critical in football it is meaningless for engineers.
So you think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115? The US military seems to disagree with you (hence the AFQT). How do you prefer to attempt to detect or evaluate that difference?
The AFQT is an achievement test, not an IQ test. Yes, I DO know that for sure. The AFQT is used as a screening test. Aptitude tests are applied after screening. Yes, I DO know that for sure.
The thing that is so important about IQ is its correlation with so many other desirable traits and overall achievement. While the 40 yard dash is critical in football it is meaningless for engineers.So you think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115? The US military seems to disagree with you (hence the AFQT). How do you prefer to attempt to detect or evaluate that difference?
What even more interesting is why any employer would rely on an IQ test when higher-correlating job aptitude tests yield better results? And, to be honest, that’s how it works. I have yet to encounter an employer who relies on IQ tests to identify preferred employees.
For digging ditches? For running a backhoe? For mounting drywall? You bet, fella!
The AFQT is an achievement test, not an IQ test. Yes, I DO know that for sure. The AFQT is used as a screening test. Aptitude tests are applied after screening. Yes, I DO know that for sure.
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):Now back to your quotes.Good luck with that. I agree with digging ditches (given competent supervision, e.g.where to dig), but not the others--at least if you value good work, done efficiently with minimum accidental damage.Not everyone sees that as a meaningful distinction with respect to the AFQT (also see szopen's comment above). For example, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273451286_Interpreting_the_NLSY79_Empirical_Data_on_IQ_and_Achievement_A_Comment_on_Borghans_et_al_Identification_Problems_in_Personality_Psychology
From that paper: "we first suggest that the sharp conceptual distinction that they pose between “achievement” tests versus the specific “IQ” tests that they study is not supported by authoritative literature on educational testing"
Thanks for helping me assess what it means when you say: "Yes, I DO know that for sure."That seems sensible. I am not claiming specific aptitude tests are not useful. Especially once you have done a screen (IQ test, achievement test, previous accomplishment, etc.) for basic competence first.
The AFQT is an achievement test, not an IQ test. Yes, I DO know that for sure. The AFQT is used as a screening test. Aptitude tests are applied after screening. Yes, I DO know that for sure.
Comment 223, above:
““, it is important to note that AFQT has been shown to correlate more highly with classic IQ tests than they do with one another, and that the “crystallized” intelligence measured by AFQT is measured very similarly by Wechsler, in particular””
It does not matter whether something is designed as an achievement test. For all purposes it behaves as IQ test and, therefore, IS an IQ test. If you know “for sure” it is not, then you are in disagreement with pretty much anyone in psychometry (see Jensen’s quote from my comment no. 223 above)
I would also note that for long term job performance, “g” predicts it better than job experience.
As for 'g', it has some limited value in general measurements of individual intelligence. But, for employment screening purposes, it is irrelevant. Job-specific aptitude tests (properly designed and tested, of course) win that race every time.
As for "long term job performance", I'll take an aptitude test for bricklaying over 'g' any day of the week. Your mileage may vary, but the HR departments I've worked with insisted on job-specific aptitude tests, based on actual long term performance metrics.
I didn’t say it was designed as an achievement test; I said it IS an achievement test. It is also true that it can measure intelligence, with a limited degree of correlation. I’ve read perhaps three versions of the AFQT test? Each uses milieu/cultural references/models in the majority of questions. Even the math “story” questions are culture-specific. Which does not make it any less of an intelligence test, nor, under most circumstances, achievement test.
As for ‘g’, it has some limited value in general measurements of individual intelligence. But, for employment screening purposes, it is irrelevant. Job-specific aptitude tests (properly designed and tested, of course) win that race every time.
As for “long term job performance”, I’ll take an aptitude test for bricklaying over ‘g’ any day of the week. Your mileage may vary, but the HR departments I’ve worked with insisted on job-specific aptitude tests, based on actual long term performance metrics.
The AFQT is an achievement test, not an IQ test. Yes, I DO know that for sure. The AFQT is used as a screening test. Aptitude tests are applied after screening. Yes, I DO know that for sure.
Because a single test gives at least almost as good results applicable to a large number of jobs. And IQ tests or proxies are often available from schooling.
I think you can argue this is mostly due to legal issues:
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):
Now back to your quotes.
Good luck with that. I agree with digging ditches (given competent supervision, e.g.where to dig), but not the others–at least if you value good work, done efficiently with minimum accidental damage.
Not everyone sees that as a meaningful distinction with respect to the AFQT (also see szopen’s comment above). For example, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273451286_Interpreting_the_NLSY79_Empirical_Data_on_IQ_and_Achievement_A_Comment_on_Borghans_et_al_Identification_Problems_in_Personality_Psychology
From that paper: “we first suggest that the sharp conceptual distinction that they pose between “achievement” tests versus the specific “IQ” tests that they study is not supported by authoritative literature on educational testing”
Thanks for helping me assess what it means when you say: “Yes, I DO know that for sure.”
That seems sensible. I am not claiming specific aptitude tests are not useful. Especially once you have done a screen (IQ test, achievement test, previous accomplishment, etc.) for basic competence first.
Now, maybe they would run an IQ test for Board of Directors, but evidence is that money is the true test in that case.
Job-specific aptitude tests EVERY time. They can't afford not to use the best method.
I sense that you and SZ have some kind of vested interest in intelligence tests. Well, knock yourself out. In the real world, they are rarely used.
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):Now back to your quotes.Good luck with that. I agree with digging ditches (given competent supervision, e.g.where to dig), but not the others--at least if you value good work, done efficiently with minimum accidental damage.Not everyone sees that as a meaningful distinction with respect to the AFQT (also see szopen's comment above). For example, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273451286_Interpreting_the_NLSY79_Empirical_Data_on_IQ_and_Achievement_A_Comment_on_Borghans_et_al_Identification_Problems_in_Personality_Psychology
From that paper: "we first suggest that the sharp conceptual distinction that they pose between “achievement” tests versus the specific “IQ” tests that they study is not supported by authoritative literature on educational testing"
Thanks for helping me assess what it means when you say: "Yes, I DO know that for sure."That seems sensible. I am not claiming specific aptitude tests are not useful. Especially once you have done a screen (IQ test, achievement test, previous accomplishment, etc.) for basic competence first.
No, it does not. I know of no major employer (I have been employed in a related capacity by 3 Fortune 500 corporations.) who relies on an intelligence test when interviewing for a specific job function, plus experience if applicable for a non entry-level job.
Now, maybe they would run an IQ test for Board of Directors, but evidence is that money is the true test in that case.
Job-specific aptitude tests EVERY time. They can’t afford not to use the best method.
I sense that you and SZ have some kind of vested interest in intelligence tests. Well, knock yourself out. In the real world, they are rarely used.
I think you can argue this is mostly due to legal issues:
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):Surprising that having been employed in a related capacity you were apparently unaware of the legal issues with using IQ tests for hiring.
And back to you again:And I sense that you have a vested interest in dismissing them (gosh, wasn't that a persuasive argument!). Now for a real argument. I provided some references above supporting my positions. Would you care to do the same, or do you only argue using your opinions and anecdotes about your personal experience?
Now, maybe they would run an IQ test for Board of Directors, but evidence is that money is the true test in that case.
Job-specific aptitude tests EVERY time. They can't afford not to use the best method.
I sense that you and SZ have some kind of vested interest in intelligence tests. Well, knock yourself out. In the real world, they are rarely used.
Because you apparently didn’t read all of the comment you replied to I’ll repeat the relevant portion.
I think you can argue this is mostly due to legal issues:
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):
Surprising that having been employed in a related capacity you were apparently unaware of the legal issues with using IQ tests for hiring.
And back to you again:
And I sense that you have a vested interest in dismissing them (gosh, wasn’t that a persuasive argument!). Now for a real argument. I provided some references above supporting my positions. Would you care to do the same, or do you only argue using your opinions and anecdotes about your personal experience?
If you believe the references provided act to support your position, I have no objection to you believing that. If you succeed in convincing employers to use IQ tests, you win.
In government and education, intelligence tests are used extensively for selection among persons having no training or experience. It makes sense that the education system would put a lot of value on IQ testing of young children with no education. After all, what else have they got?
I think you can argue this is mostly due to legal issues:
https://www.hiresuccess.com/blog/is-employment-testing-legal
A relevant excerpt (emphasis in original):Surprising that having been employed in a related capacity you were apparently unaware of the legal issues with using IQ tests for hiring.
And back to you again:And I sense that you have a vested interest in dismissing them (gosh, wasn't that a persuasive argument!). Now for a real argument. I provided some references above supporting my positions. Would you care to do the same, or do you only argue using your opinions and anecdotes about your personal experience?
Point blank, res, I have not found intelligence tests to be the de facto metric in job-hiring. I worked in and around HR, employment testing, education training and testing for 30 years. In my experience, job-specific aptitude tests win the race every time.
If you believe the references provided act to support your position, I have no objection to you believing that. If you succeed in convincing employers to use IQ tests, you win.
In government and education, intelligence tests are used extensively for selection among persons having no training or experience. It makes sense that the education system would put a lot of value on IQ testing of young children with no education. After all, what else have they got?
I'll note in conclusion you have not said a single word in response to my raising the problem with the legal issues surrounding the use of IQ tests in hiring.
Yes, I was aware that the Tasmanian tiger is a marsupial, which is why its similarity to the wolf (if it has any similarity to the wolf, and I assume it does, or rather did) provides a nice example of convergent evolution.
see: The Curious Evolutionary History of the ‘Marsupial Wolf’
Now, maybe they would run an IQ test for Board of Directors, but evidence is that money is the true test in that case.
Job-specific aptitude tests EVERY time. They can't afford not to use the best method.
I sense that you and SZ have some kind of vested interest in intelligence tests. Well, knock yourself out. In the real world, they are rarely used.
Isn’t one major reason for employers using job specific tests rather than IQ tests the Supreme Court de.cision that limits the use of tests of general intelligence like IQ tests – Griggs v. Duke Power I think? For that reason it is hard to accept that your experience of employer’s practices supports your argument.
I'm reading a lot of phony boloney in these devotions to IQ testing. Oh, really, your hire had a 200 IQ? How's he working out, huh? Can't thread the welding wire on the spool, you say? What about the girl with the 240 IQ? What, she can't figure out the phone system? Damn, tough break.
Nobody, but nobody in business to make money hires people for their IQ. People get hired for experience and demonstrable ability. Government, now, that's another ball of wax, and I will agree that government rarely hires for demonstrated aptitude and ability. Nepotism is the rule in government hiring.
If you believe the references provided act to support your position, I have no objection to you believing that. If you succeed in convincing employers to use IQ tests, you win.
In government and education, intelligence tests are used extensively for selection among persons having no training or experience. It makes sense that the education system would put a lot of value on IQ testing of young children with no education. After all, what else have they got?
That is not surprising. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was decided in 1971–45 years ago (i.e. 15 years before your HR etc. experience started). Given what I have written above I think that’s enough said on my end. If you believe IQ tests are not useful for predicting job performance then I guess that is your prerogative.
I’ll note in conclusion you have not said a single word in response to my raising the problem with the legal issues surrounding the use of IQ tests in hiring.
For that matter, since use of IQ tests in hiring is perforce illegal, why do you promote it? And, since it's illegal, how on earth did you obtain valid data regarding the effectiveness of IQ tests in screening job applicants?
What supports my “argument” is that I know what I’m talking about when it comes to hiring practices. How many people have you hired? Were skills and aptitude desirable for the jobs for which you hired? Just “desirable”? How about “required”? How did you assess that?
I’m reading a lot of phony boloney in these devotions to IQ testing. Oh, really, your hire had a 200 IQ? How’s he working out, huh? Can’t thread the welding wire on the spool, you say? What about the girl with the 240 IQ? What, she can’t figure out the phone system? Damn, tough break.
Nobody, but nobody in business to make money hires people for their IQ. People get hired for experience and demonstrable ability. Government, now, that’s another ball of wax, and I will agree that government rarely hires for demonstrated aptitude and ability. Nepotism is the rule in government hiring.
Put another way, range restriction matters. If you have selected by a criteria (e.g. IQ) it becomes less important as a predictor of success. This is the fallacy undermining almost all academic studies looking for IQ correlations using psychology undergrads.
Thanks for the prompt/reminder to look out for range restriction.
Another often overlooked point is that reversion toward the mean expectations should not ignore assortative mating’s effect on the mean.
I'll note in conclusion you have not said a single word in response to my raising the problem with the legal issues surrounding the use of IQ tests in hiring.
Simple logic, my dear Watson. I see no reason whatsoever to employ IQ tests for employment screening. Ipso facto, I have zero concern for legal liabilities pending therefrom.
For that matter, since use of IQ tests in hiring is perforce illegal, why do you promote it? And, since it’s illegal, how on earth did you obtain valid data regarding the effectiveness of IQ tests in screening job applicants?
For that matter, since use of IQ tests in hiring is perforce illegal, why do you promote it? And, since it's illegal, how on earth did you obtain valid data regarding the effectiveness of IQ tests in screening job applicants?
Nice squid ink (sincerely, that was well done. I can see how you succeeded in the corporate world). Goodbye.
And you cut and run. The Wiz cut and run. You and your compadres don't know SHIT about business. As I expected.
Just a reminder for any future attempts of your kind in blowing smoke up the collective commenter vent:
Laughing like all hell at this end. All it took, per the usual, was to ask just what the fuck YOU really know about hiring practices. What experience do YOU actually have in evaluating people for hiring at a for-real corporation that is in business to make money?
And you cut and run. The Wiz cut and run. You and your compadres don’t know SHIT about business. As I expected.
Just a reminder for any future attempts of your kind in blowing smoke up the collective commenter vent:
As if your assertion of expertise were enough. What I find really amazing is that given thirty years of experience in the area you couldn't come up with anything better than essentially "we don't use IQ tests therefore they are not useful." The thing I find most annoying about this discussion with you is that with those thirty years of experience you haven't even been able to say anything interesting on the topic. Listening to you just repeating over and over again that you don't use IQ tests in your job (and attempting to assert that this proves they are not useful) is a waste of my time.
Regarding your points above.But to appear not even aware of one of the fundamental legal decisions regarding hiring practices? You should be concerned lest your precious aptitude, or achievement, or whatever tests run afoul of Duke v. Griggs Power Co. (or related case law) and cause you legal liability.
(as an aside, this is where your experience could be interesting. How do you deal with Griggs etc.?)Why do I promote it? Because I believe it to be effective and the law to be misguided (i.e. should be overturned). As demonstrated by the military use of IQ (or at least IQ-like) tests from WWI through the present. Here are some correlations with other tests if you don't accept that those function as IQ tests:
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/
If high IQ societies are willing to accept AFQT scores for membership that's a good clue that it functions as an IQ test, whatever the intent.
As for obtaining valid data:
1. Because Griggs wasn't decided until 1971. Therefore earlier data is available.
2. Because the military still uses tests like that. A moment's search on the internet will find research from the military discussing the effectiveness from WWI to present.
3. Because being illegal for hiring does not mean you can't have the data and use it to look at results later.This is a much larger conversation and I am not claiming expertise in the practice of hiring. I have been involved in hiring a dozen or two people and for those jobs in my field that usually takes the form of an educational screen (college, major and GPA or test scores if available provide a decent IQ proxy IMHO) followed by evaluating possession of relevant skills and experience. There is some informal IQ-like screening done by means of puzzle and thinking on your feet questions (but these are of questionable legality, as an HR professional I am sure you are aware of this controversy, just as you should be aware of Griggs).
Again, I have never claimed aptitude tests are not useful or skills are not important. I am arguing about the utility of IQ tests. You keep dragging in those extraneous issues. Only an idiot would hire based on IQ only for a specialized position requiring specific skills at entry. The military again provides a good practical example. Hire with a screen for basic competence (the AFQT) and some initial sorting then use more specific information to assign specific training and jobs. For certain jobs that require high order thinking IQ is more important. Here are some example jobs from the military that require a higher score: http://work.chron.com/jobs-available-high-score-military-exam-18938.html
I think this Wiki excerpt makes a good conclusion. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance
(I know Wikipedia is not a great reference, but the individual claims are referenced if you want substantiation)
And you cut and run. The Wiz cut and run. You and your compadres don't know SHIT about business. As I expected.
Just a reminder for any future attempts of your kind in blowing smoke up the collective commenter vent:
Well, if you’re going to be like that… You might get the idea that you actually made compelling arguments.
As if your assertion of expertise were enough. What I find really amazing is that given thirty years of experience in the area you couldn’t come up with anything better than essentially “we don’t use IQ tests therefore they are not useful.” The thing I find most annoying about this discussion with you is that with those thirty years of experience you haven’t even been able to say anything interesting on the topic. Listening to you just repeating over and over again that you don’t use IQ tests in your job (and attempting to assert that this proves they are not useful) is a waste of my time.
Regarding your points above.
But to appear not even aware of one of the fundamental legal decisions regarding hiring practices? You should be concerned lest your precious aptitude, or achievement, or whatever tests run afoul of Duke v. Griggs Power Co. (or related case law) and cause you legal liability.
(as an aside, this is where your experience could be interesting. How do you deal with Griggs etc.?)
Why do I promote it? Because I believe it to be effective and the law to be misguided (i.e. should be overturned). As demonstrated by the military use of IQ (or at least IQ-like) tests from WWI through the present. Here are some correlations with other tests if you don’t accept that those function as IQ tests:
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/
If high IQ societies are willing to accept AFQT scores for membership that’s a good clue that it functions as an IQ test, whatever the intent.
As for obtaining valid data:
1. Because Griggs wasn’t decided until 1971. Therefore earlier data is available.
2. Because the military still uses tests like that. A moment’s search on the internet will find research from the military discussing the effectiveness from WWI to present.
3. Because being illegal for hiring does not mean you can’t have the data and use it to look at results later.
This is a much larger conversation and I am not claiming expertise in the practice of hiring. I have been involved in hiring a dozen or two people and for those jobs in my field that usually takes the form of an educational screen (college, major and GPA or test scores if available provide a decent IQ proxy IMHO) followed by evaluating possession of relevant skills and experience. There is some informal IQ-like screening done by means of puzzle and thinking on your feet questions (but these are of questionable legality, as an HR professional I am sure you are aware of this controversy, just as you should be aware of Griggs).
Again, I have never claimed aptitude tests are not useful or skills are not important. I am arguing about the utility of IQ tests. You keep dragging in those extraneous issues. Only an idiot would hire based on IQ only for a specialized position requiring specific skills at entry. The military again provides a good practical example. Hire with a screen for basic competence (the AFQT) and some initial sorting then use more specific information to assign specific training and jobs. For certain jobs that require high order thinking IQ is more important. Here are some example jobs from the military that require a higher score: http://work.chron.com/jobs-available-high-score-military-exam-18938.html
I think this Wiki excerpt makes a good conclusion. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance
(I know Wikipedia is not a great reference, but the individual claims are referenced if you want substantiation)
As if your assertion of expertise were enough. What I find really amazing is that given thirty years of experience in the area you couldn't come up with anything better than essentially "we don't use IQ tests therefore they are not useful." The thing I find most annoying about this discussion with you is that with those thirty years of experience you haven't even been able to say anything interesting on the topic. Listening to you just repeating over and over again that you don't use IQ tests in your job (and attempting to assert that this proves they are not useful) is a waste of my time.
Regarding your points above.But to appear not even aware of one of the fundamental legal decisions regarding hiring practices? You should be concerned lest your precious aptitude, or achievement, or whatever tests run afoul of Duke v. Griggs Power Co. (or related case law) and cause you legal liability.
(as an aside, this is where your experience could be interesting. How do you deal with Griggs etc.?)Why do I promote it? Because I believe it to be effective and the law to be misguided (i.e. should be overturned). As demonstrated by the military use of IQ (or at least IQ-like) tests from WWI through the present. Here are some correlations with other tests if you don't accept that those function as IQ tests:
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/
If high IQ societies are willing to accept AFQT scores for membership that's a good clue that it functions as an IQ test, whatever the intent.
As for obtaining valid data:
1. Because Griggs wasn't decided until 1971. Therefore earlier data is available.
2. Because the military still uses tests like that. A moment's search on the internet will find research from the military discussing the effectiveness from WWI to present.
3. Because being illegal for hiring does not mean you can't have the data and use it to look at results later.This is a much larger conversation and I am not claiming expertise in the practice of hiring. I have been involved in hiring a dozen or two people and for those jobs in my field that usually takes the form of an educational screen (college, major and GPA or test scores if available provide a decent IQ proxy IMHO) followed by evaluating possession of relevant skills and experience. There is some informal IQ-like screening done by means of puzzle and thinking on your feet questions (but these are of questionable legality, as an HR professional I am sure you are aware of this controversy, just as you should be aware of Griggs).
Again, I have never claimed aptitude tests are not useful or skills are not important. I am arguing about the utility of IQ tests. You keep dragging in those extraneous issues. Only an idiot would hire based on IQ only for a specialized position requiring specific skills at entry. The military again provides a good practical example. Hire with a screen for basic competence (the AFQT) and some initial sorting then use more specific information to assign specific training and jobs. For certain jobs that require high order thinking IQ is more important. Here are some example jobs from the military that require a higher score: http://work.chron.com/jobs-available-high-score-military-exam-18938.html
I think this Wiki excerpt makes a good conclusion. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance
(I know Wikipedia is not a great reference, but the individual claims are referenced if you want substantiation)
How many people have you hired, or screened for employment?
Did you hire government employees, or did you hire “education” employees?
Did you hire for companies in business to make a profit?
Was “tested” intelligence, such as a score on an IQ test, the sole requirement for the jobs for which you hired?
Were skills and aptitude required in the jobs for which you hired?
If skills and aptitude were required, how did you assess skills and aptitude?
What valid, verifiable data did you obtain regarding the effectiveness of IQ tests in screening job applicants?
What valid, verifiable data did you obtain showing that “tested” intelligence proved more effective in predicting job performance for the employees you hired?
In hiring processes, minimal intelligence level is typically tested with “General Knowledge” quizzes, which are not IQ tests — not if you’ve ever worked on the development of IQ tests, according to people I know who have. I’ve worked on IQ question banks, but have no certainty that any of my questions were used.
We are not talking about my expertise (or at least I'm not, you can talk about whatever you want).
Any thoughts on the military's use of the AFQT or the Job Performance excerpt I posted from Wikipedia? I think those are much more relevant to the question at hand.
I’ll consider engaging on that after you have answered every single one of those questions yourself.
We are not talking about my expertise (or at least I’m not, you can talk about whatever you want).
Any thoughts on the military’s use of the AFQT or the Job Performance excerpt I posted from Wikipedia? I think those are much more relevant to the question at hand.
Let's put it this way: Are you trying to prove something? If so, what would that be? So far, I get the impression you believe intelligence testing is pretty much the answer to the question "What does the world need now, more than anything else?"
Yes?
No? Then what is your point?
Fifteen years ago, I worked as a consultant for both CTB and ETS. Although I never worked directly for the ACT organization, I have spent a week or two in Iowa City for their seminars. Testing is no mystery to me, but what is a mystery to me is what you could possibly be attempting to prove with your excerpts from various studies.
Are you trying to prove that experience and aptitude are not the most important factors in hiring employees for specific jobs? If so -- dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that general intelligence is the most important issue when hiring employees just "in general"? If so -- dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that intelligence, in both general and specific application, can be assessed by focused testing? If so -- it is likely that it can.
Your dismissal of my training and experience does not impress me. I would not, for instance, hire you as an HR employee screener.
Once again, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you grind the axes you grind. It's a complete mystery.
We are not talking about my expertise (or at least I'm not, you can talk about whatever you want).
Any thoughts on the military's use of the AFQT or the Job Performance excerpt I posted from Wikipedia? I think those are much more relevant to the question at hand.
Typical.
Let’s put it this way: Are you trying to prove something? If so, what would that be? So far, I get the impression you believe intelligence testing is pretty much the answer to the question “What does the world need now, more than anything else?”
Yes?
No? Then what is your point?
Fifteen years ago, I worked as a consultant for both CTB and ETS. Although I never worked directly for the ACT organization, I have spent a week or two in Iowa City for their seminars. Testing is no mystery to me, but what is a mystery to me is what you could possibly be attempting to prove with your excerpts from various studies.
Are you trying to prove that experience and aptitude are not the most important factors in hiring employees for specific jobs? If so — dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that general intelligence is the most important issue when hiring employees just “in general”? If so — dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that intelligence, in both general and specific application, can be assessed by focused testing? If so — it is likely that it can.
Your dismissal of my training and experience does not impress me. I would not, for instance, hire you as an HR employee screener.
Once again, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you grind the axes you grind. It’s a complete mystery.
Typical. (or is that hypocritical, they kind of rhyme)
Reviewing my comments should give a decent idea of what I am trying to prove. Going back to my first response to you (comment 583). Three things that I believe (and have attempted to prove by giving evidence):
1. IQ tests correlate with job-specific aptitude tests (and job performance).
2. IQ correlates with many other desirable traits and overall achievement.
3. I do not think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115 (you explicitly disagreed with that statement in comment 584, I think the Army's experience with lowering their threshold to 80 IQ says all that needs to be said there).
As for your latest set of questions (it would be really great if you would deign to answer my questions more than occasionally):No, but I would add demonstrated ability to that list. Hillary having been Secretary of State is "experience." Her having been a failure in multiple aspects of that job is demonstrated lack of ability IMO.
And what is IQ if not a measurement of an important form of aptitude?No, but I would argue it is important enough to consider. And the military use of the AFQT threshold supports that contention. Do you disagree using a measure of general intelligence would provide useful information (if not for Griggs of course)?
One interesting sidelight on this is some organizations (e.g. police) screening for too high of an IQ. For example, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
What do you think about that?It's good that we actually agree on something. I would go further and assert that assessment is useful for predicting outcomes.
I'm not so much dismissing your experience (it would add value if you would use it to raise relevant points rather than just as an appeal to authority). More marveling that you can't come up with better arguments given all of that experience. Also notice that much of your attack on my background is an attempt to dismiss my experience (i.e. project much?).
And as far as hiring me as an HR screener, I've worked with those. I remember with particular fondness the lame resume keyword scans they would use to come up with totally inappropriate resumes for us. Why would I consider such a position? I have more valuable skills that are more sensible to employ.The axe I am grinding is disgust with all the dismissal of the IQ test given its utility. I think doing so is helping lead to a more mediocre society for us. Griggs is a good example of this, another is the SAT "recentering" in 1995 reducing the ability of the SAT to resolve top end talent.
An additional axe is an attempt to understand what motivates this dismissal. I engage in discussion with people with differing views in the hope that someone will actually give illuminating reasons.
Why are you grinding your axes here? I won't claim it's a complete mystery to me, but it would be interesting to hear your point of view for the reasons.
Let's put it this way: Are you trying to prove something? If so, what would that be? So far, I get the impression you believe intelligence testing is pretty much the answer to the question "What does the world need now, more than anything else?"
Yes?
No? Then what is your point?
Fifteen years ago, I worked as a consultant for both CTB and ETS. Although I never worked directly for the ACT organization, I have spent a week or two in Iowa City for their seminars. Testing is no mystery to me, but what is a mystery to me is what you could possibly be attempting to prove with your excerpts from various studies.
Are you trying to prove that experience and aptitude are not the most important factors in hiring employees for specific jobs? If so -- dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that general intelligence is the most important issue when hiring employees just "in general"? If so -- dismal fail.
Are you trying to prove that intelligence, in both general and specific application, can be assessed by focused testing? If so -- it is likely that it can.
Your dismissal of my training and experience does not impress me. I would not, for instance, hire you as an HR employee screener.
Once again, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you grind the axes you grind. It's a complete mystery.
So you consider your questions only appropriate for me and not for you. To reuse one of your powerful arguments.
Typical. (or is that hypocritical, they kind of rhyme)
Reviewing my comments should give a decent idea of what I am trying to prove. Going back to my first response to you (comment 583). Three things that I believe (and have attempted to prove by giving evidence):
1. IQ tests correlate with job-specific aptitude tests (and job performance).
2. IQ correlates with many other desirable traits and overall achievement.
3. I do not think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115 (you explicitly disagreed with that statement in comment 584, I think the Army’s experience with lowering their threshold to 80 IQ says all that needs to be said there).
As for your latest set of questions (it would be really great if you would deign to answer my questions more than occasionally):
No, but I would add demonstrated ability to that list. Hillary having been Secretary of State is “experience.” Her having been a failure in multiple aspects of that job is demonstrated lack of ability IMO.
And what is IQ if not a measurement of an important form of aptitude?
No, but I would argue it is important enough to consider. And the military use of the AFQT threshold supports that contention. Do you disagree using a measure of general intelligence would provide useful information (if not for Griggs of course)?
One interesting sidelight on this is some organizations (e.g. police) screening for too high of an IQ. For example, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
What do you think about that?
It’s good that we actually agree on something. I would go further and assert that assessment is useful for predicting outcomes.
I’m not so much dismissing your experience (it would add value if you would use it to raise relevant points rather than just as an appeal to authority). More marveling that you can’t come up with better arguments given all of that experience. Also notice that much of your attack on my background is an attempt to dismiss my experience (i.e. project much?).
And as far as hiring me as an HR screener, I’ve worked with those. I remember with particular fondness the lame resume keyword scans they would use to come up with totally inappropriate resumes for us. Why would I consider such a position? I have more valuable skills that are more sensible to employ.
The axe I am grinding is disgust with all the dismissal of the IQ test given its utility. I think doing so is helping lead to a more mediocre society for us. Griggs is a good example of this, another is the SAT “recentering” in 1995 reducing the ability of the SAT to resolve top end talent.
An additional axe is an attempt to understand what motivates this dismissal. I engage in discussion with people with differing views in the hope that someone will actually give illuminating reasons.
Why are you grinding your axes here? I won’t claim it’s a complete mystery to me, but it would be interesting to hear your point of view for the reasons.
Typical. (or is that hypocritical, they kind of rhyme)
Reviewing my comments should give a decent idea of what I am trying to prove. Going back to my first response to you (comment 583). Three things that I believe (and have attempted to prove by giving evidence):
1. IQ tests correlate with job-specific aptitude tests (and job performance).
2. IQ correlates with many other desirable traits and overall achievement.
3. I do not think someone with an IQ of 85 is likely to have the same degree of competence as someone with an IQ of 115 (you explicitly disagreed with that statement in comment 584, I think the Army's experience with lowering their threshold to 80 IQ says all that needs to be said there).
As for your latest set of questions (it would be really great if you would deign to answer my questions more than occasionally):No, but I would add demonstrated ability to that list. Hillary having been Secretary of State is "experience." Her having been a failure in multiple aspects of that job is demonstrated lack of ability IMO.
And what is IQ if not a measurement of an important form of aptitude?No, but I would argue it is important enough to consider. And the military use of the AFQT threshold supports that contention. Do you disagree using a measure of general intelligence would provide useful information (if not for Griggs of course)?
One interesting sidelight on this is some organizations (e.g. police) screening for too high of an IQ. For example, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
What do you think about that?It's good that we actually agree on something. I would go further and assert that assessment is useful for predicting outcomes.
I'm not so much dismissing your experience (it would add value if you would use it to raise relevant points rather than just as an appeal to authority). More marveling that you can't come up with better arguments given all of that experience. Also notice that much of your attack on my background is an attempt to dismiss my experience (i.e. project much?).
And as far as hiring me as an HR screener, I've worked with those. I remember with particular fondness the lame resume keyword scans they would use to come up with totally inappropriate resumes for us. Why would I consider such a position? I have more valuable skills that are more sensible to employ.The axe I am grinding is disgust with all the dismissal of the IQ test given its utility. I think doing so is helping lead to a more mediocre society for us. Griggs is a good example of this, another is the SAT "recentering" in 1995 reducing the ability of the SAT to resolve top end talent.
An additional axe is an attempt to understand what motivates this dismissal. I engage in discussion with people with differing views in the hope that someone will actually give illuminating reasons.
Why are you grinding your axes here? I won't claim it's a complete mystery to me, but it would be interesting to hear your point of view for the reasons.
Oh, good, we can now bring this counter-productive non-discussion to a quick and well-deserved end.
A performance test? Did I not include that? Perhaps not — my oversight if so. Agreed.
It is possible, I suppose. After experience, demonstrated ability and aptitude, it runs a poor fourth-place. Perhaps for specific job functions is has general applicability … my overall feeling about would be that measurements of the primary three factors tend to provide sufficient indication of degree of excellence in job function that would obviate IQ assessment per se. Real IQ testing is expensive — one on one with a certified test administrator. For the great majority of job titles, that expense cannot be justified. For the few jobs where it might be wise, there are contraindicating political issues. A candidate for SecState might, for good reasons, refuse to take an IQ test.
Uh-huh. I’m crushed.
I did not say you should consider it; I said I would not hire you for the job.
Its minimal utility. If there is good reason to acquire some metric for “intelligence” of an applicant, achievement tests are far superior. Even in that regard, you have the case where the ACT is a superior test to the SAT, and far more predictive of college performance, yet the SAT is still worshiped like no other — although, true, ACT tests have surpassed the SAT in recent years in actual college admissions application.
So, let's take your example of chess and Russia. Suppose African countries started playing chess seriously (as seriously as Russia) and they defeated Russia. Would you say that you can't draw any conclusions from this because there are many other white countries that do not play chess as much as Russia?I'm not sure you actually read the article or bothered to go to some of the sources. Or you prefer to rely on your own "from what I have seen" research? (Even just the professions of the players would not be predictable if what you say is true.)Another statement that sounds like you never bothered to read the article. It covers the period before checkers was allegedly "completely solved." The Ashkenazi Jewish "interest" factor has to also be factored into your claim.
Others are making similar points, so let me just say something that I assumed was already well understood from the literature/logic on this issue: genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument). The people of India will probably not produce the fastest runner in the world even if the entire country becomes passionate about running and half of Jamaica (a relatively tiny population) is forbidden by law to stop doing any running.
Also, as someone else has pointed out here, the same people claiming relative interest differences rejected that argument when it came to IQ tests.
“genetic hurdles are not merely overcome by high interest (that, is in fact an environmental argument).”
Your detractors are not making that argument – that is a straw man.
They are making a mathematical argument.
They accept that some Gabonese, for instance, will be within whatever cohort is highly skilled at Scrabble, but the sheer numbers of potential Scrabble experts in each country is not a function of the total population, but a function of the total population of Scrabble devotees – depending upon the culture, that subset will vary.
Given that Africans are much less likely, per capita, to have access to all of the Western electronic entertainments/distractions, it seems reasonable to believe that board games of all types will be played, seriously, by a higher percentage of the population in Africa than in the decadent West.
As I've said repeatedly, increasing the population of Indians who are devoted to the 100 meters dash will not produce an Indian world champion of 100 meters, even if the number of devotees exceeds the total population of Jamaica (I learn that from the same hereditarians). My "detractors" say that that's because of "strong" genetic differences. They have also given the same explanation for why (white) men outperform (white) women in cognitive games, even if the population of women who are devoted to the game exceed that of men (eg Scrabble in the US). But now that blacks have defied that logic in that same cognitive game, suddenly the explanation is back to "relative number of devotees," despite the fact that blacks are supposed to have an even *bigger* cognitive disadvantage than the same white FEMALES whose relative devotion does not quite matter once a certain level of skilled men is participating. (Or replace females with devoted children, since one such detractor said children are more devoted to the game; it's the same logic for why children still can't produce a world champion, irrespective of their devotion.)
Can you now see that you erected a straw man to fight a straw man that never existed?
Not a single one of my "detractors" have resolved that contradiction. But that won't move their strong faith.
Your detractors are not making that argument - that is a straw man.
They are making a mathematical argument.
They accept that some Gabonese, for instance, will be within whatever cohort is highly skilled at Scrabble, but the sheer numbers of potential Scrabble experts in each country is not a function of the total population, but a function of the total population of Scrabble devotees - depending upon the culture, that subset will vary.
Given that Africans are much less likely, per capita, to have access to all of the Western electronic entertainments/distractions, it seems reasonable to believe that board games of all types will be played, seriously, by a higher percentage of the population in Africa than in the decadent West.
Did you stop to consider that perhaps you’re the one who misunderstood the whole conversation? “High interest” in my answer is in fact referring precisely to total population of devotees. The very next sentence after the sentence you quoted makes that contextually clear.
As I’ve said repeatedly, increasing the population of Indians who are devoted to the 100 meters dash will not produce an Indian world champion of 100 meters, even if the number of devotees exceeds the total population of Jamaica (I learn that from the same hereditarians). My “detractors” say that that’s because of “strong” genetic differences. They have also given the same explanation for why (white) men outperform (white) women in cognitive games, even if the population of women who are devoted to the game exceed that of men (eg Scrabble in the US). But now that blacks have defied that logic in that same cognitive game, suddenly the explanation is back to “relative number of devotees,” despite the fact that blacks are supposed to have an even *bigger* cognitive disadvantage than the same white FEMALES whose relative devotion does not quite matter once a certain level of skilled men is participating. (Or replace females with devoted children, since one such detractor said children are more devoted to the game; it’s the same logic for why children still can’t produce a world champion, irrespective of their devotion.)
Can you now see that you erected a straw man to fight a straw man that never existed?
Not a single one of my “detractors” have resolved that contradiction. But that won’t move their strong faith.
I’ve seen it suggested that IQ is not a test for intelligence, but a test for functioning in an industrial society. As there is no exposure to that for many farmer areas (like most of Africa) there would be lower scores.
This should be testable by taking some random Africans bringing them to an industrial area and having them trained, etc and then testing their kids.
But if this is true about IQ, that it tests the ability to function in a modern city, it would explain why scrabble and checkers which have no such need could be dominated by Africans.
As I've said repeatedly, increasing the population of Indians who are devoted to the 100 meters dash will not produce an Indian world champion of 100 meters, even if the number of devotees exceeds the total population of Jamaica (I learn that from the same hereditarians). My "detractors" say that that's because of "strong" genetic differences. They have also given the same explanation for why (white) men outperform (white) women in cognitive games, even if the population of women who are devoted to the game exceed that of men (eg Scrabble in the US). But now that blacks have defied that logic in that same cognitive game, suddenly the explanation is back to "relative number of devotees," despite the fact that blacks are supposed to have an even *bigger* cognitive disadvantage than the same white FEMALES whose relative devotion does not quite matter once a certain level of skilled men is participating. (Or replace females with devoted children, since one such detractor said children are more devoted to the game; it's the same logic for why children still can't produce a world champion, irrespective of their devotion.)
Can you now see that you erected a straw man to fight a straw man that never existed?
Not a single one of my "detractors" have resolved that contradiction. But that won't move their strong faith.
Hey, you did move MY strong faith. I already have written that your argument is quite potent. Starting from the weakest: (1) either Scrabble has to be very weakly correlated with “g” (ie while some scrabble players can have high IQ, maybe it is not necessary for being a good scrabble player) , (2) Gabon has to have higher IQ, or (3) it has to have high IQ sub-population. Or (4) very high SD. Or, (5) but I admit this is very weak, different populations (races, subraces) could have different structure of their mental abilities (I mean something like with men/women, who seem to achieve simialr results using different part of the brain). As the (1) seems to be unlikely, (2) would have to be in low-white IQ, (4) seems to be contradicted by data I know, (5) is unlikely and I don’t like it because it is ad-hoc explanation… so what is right now left (for hereditarian position) seems to be (3).
But please also understand that after seeing piles of hard and convincing arguments for, it’s not reasonable to expect me (or us) to be convinced after one good argument against. Really, Chisanda, you are the first person who put even put a cogent argument against IQ-differences between the races, an argument which does not depend on “racism”, “no such thing as g”, “no such thing as races”, “tests are biased” and “iq is lower because of cultural deprivation and bad environment (even in rich American blacks)”.
This should be testable by taking some random Africans bringing them to an industrial area and having them trained, etc and then testing their kids.
But if this is true about IQ, that it tests the ability to function in a modern city, it would explain why scrabble and checkers which have no such need could be dominated by Africans.
Or by adopting bunch of black kids from poor low-IQ families by affluent white families, right?
google minnesota transracial adoption study.
Yes, you’re indeed one of the rarer ones here who seem to have no huge agenda in this fight.
And no, I do not expect anyone in that camp to change their minds instantly, but it is disappointing to see their generally evasive, insulting or muted reactions after they’ve made so much noise in the past about their critics never actually engaging them with arguments, but simply dismissing them as racists (an approach I’ve never supported).
The reason black Americans underachieve academically is because most of the academic resources go towards the dumbest and poorest kids. Not only are higher achieving blacks kids ignored, but because we have bought into separate but equal is bad, most bright black kids wind up receiving the same remedial education that the dumb kids get. Even so-called honors and advanced placement classes at a majority black schools have dumb kids in them.
Emmanuel Ohuabunwa came to the US at age 13 because his family wanted him to avoid the dysfunctional Nigerian university system.Ohuabunwa first attended a poor ghetto black middle school in Houston, Texas where he was bullied, but luckily he was able to attend a magnet health careers high school. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins with a degree in neuroscience and next spring will graduate from Yale with an MD/MBA. Resources and being separated from dysfunctional classmates are key.
http://africansuntimes.com/2012/07/22-year-old-nigerian-breaks-academic-record-at-john-hopkins-university/
I see everyday your lies walking in the streets near to my house, you can convince people who are dependent from the environment where they are, like some (surprise!) naive europeans who live in white nations but not
those who live near to this hidden ''above-average intelligence'' of color ones
those who are not dependent from the places where they are (like whites who vote ''liberal'' in sissy-white places and who vote ''conservative'' in deep south's)
I admit your argumentations are quite creative and intelligent, but not factual, period.
Your argumentation in this text can be summarized like that
''Look!!! Many Africans have already won international scrabble contests. This proves that they are so [or more] intelligent than the bad racist whites''.
Agree. Most of the people who post here aren’t as bright as they think they are. A regular question asked here is why Africans don’t dominate basketball/football/sprints. They have to be constantly be told that it is due to a lack of resources and development systems.
The reason black Americans underachieve academically is because most of the academic resources go towards the dumbest and poorest kids. Not only are higher achieving blacks kids ignored, but because we have bought into separate but equal is bad, most bright black kids wind up receiving the same remedial education that the dumb kids get. Even so-called honors and advanced placement classes at a majority black schools have dumb kids in them.
Emmanuel Ohuabunwa came to the US at age 13 because his family wanted him to avoid the dysfunctional Nigerian university system.
Ohuabunwa first attended a poor ghetto black middle school in Houston, Texas where he was bullied, but luckily he was able to attend a magnet health careers high school. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins with a degree in neuroscience and next spring will graduate from Yale with an MD/MBA. Resources and being separated from dysfunctional classmates are key.
http://africansuntimes.com/2012/07/22-year-old-nigerian-breaks-academic-record-at-john-hopkins-university/
I rather suspected as much.
The reason black Americans underachieve academically is because most of the academic resources go towards the dumbest and poorest kids. Not only are higher achieving blacks kids ignored, but because we have bought into separate but equal is bad, most bright black kids wind up receiving the same remedial education that the dumb kids get. Even so-called honors and advanced placement classes at a majority black schools have dumb kids in them.
Emmanuel Ohuabunwa came to the US at age 13 because his family wanted him to avoid the dysfunctional Nigerian university system.Ohuabunwa first attended a poor ghetto black middle school in Houston, Texas where he was bullied, but luckily he was able to attend a magnet health careers high school. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins with a degree in neuroscience and next spring will graduate from Yale with an MD/MBA. Resources and being separated from dysfunctional classmates are key.
http://africansuntimes.com/2012/07/22-year-old-nigerian-breaks-academic-record-at-john-hopkins-university/
Your logic is undeniable. The forced conclusion is, therefore, that school administrators, Congress, the Department of Education, and the huge mass of “modern educators” advocating those expenditures MUST be dumber than any black Americans.
I rather suspected as much.
"Educators" aren't the ones advocating for those expenditures. They just go along in order to stay employed. The ones who want the expenditures are community activists, the NAACP, parents, test makers, and a whole host of other groups.
Take New York City's specialized high schools as an example (Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, etc.). The only admission requirement is doing well on a test. Since blacks don't do well on the test, the NAACP issued a complaint in 2012 about the low number of blacks receiving offers to these schools. Because public schools can't offer test prep for particular races, NYC started spending millions on test prep for low-income students. Naturally, the low-income kids who did best after the free test prep were whites and Asians. So in four years the number of blacks receiving offers to a specialized high school has decreased by 25%.
Demanding that the government fix black underachievement results in more black underachievement. However, due to the country's racial history, school officials are required to try something when they receive complaints.
http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/new-york-city-specialized-high-school-complaint
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zCiEkk7ghaw/VtnXBJUAROI/AAAAAAAAX80/D65zvsvnaOU/s1600/CcuTtSfXIAE7hPo.jpg
I’m a mixed herditarian, and I find this last article of yours more convincing than those of last year, although last year’s were good too.
Anomalies like this definitely deserve more attention. Another one is for example the fact that Indians are the highest earners and the highest IQ population in the US, the IQ of second generation Indians being estimated around 113.
Taking into account regression to the mean, the IQ of first generation Indian immigrants must be a crazy three sigma above the mean.
Another anomaly is the huge success of Levantine Arabs in South America. These weren’t elite immigrants in the slightest, they were refugees and economic migrants, and they’re now more successful than whites in Brazil Argentina and Chile for example. Pretending that Christians must be massively different from Muslims is both genetically wrong, and just straight out wrong too because Lebanese is 45% Christian and still has an average IQ of 82.
And there is also the similar trend of massively successful Christian Palestinians in Israel. They’re the most educated and highest income ethnic group in Israel. Surpassing Ashkenazis as well. And you definitely can’t argue any sort of selection for that group as they were taken wholesale.
There are many anomalies that deserve a lot of attention but that get none at all for some reason. Exposing these holes in essays like this one might eventually bring the needed attention to the subject.
And supposedly you no have any agenda… quite hypocrite and cynical…
I see everyday your lies walking in the streets near to my house, you can convince people who are dependent from the environment where they are, like some (surprise!) naive europeans who live in white nations but not
those who live near to this hidden ”above-average intelligence” of color ones
those who are not dependent from the places where they are (like whites who vote ”liberal” in sissy-white places and who vote ”conservative” in deep south’s)
I admit your argumentations are quite creative and intelligent, but not factual, period.
Your argumentation in this text can be summarized like that
”Look!!! Many Africans have already won international scrabble contests. This proves that they are so [or more] intelligent than the bad racist whites”.
I see everyday your lies walking in the streets near to my house, you can convince people who are dependent from the environment where they are, like some (surprise!) naive europeans who live in white nations but not
those who live near to this hidden ''above-average intelligence'' of color ones
those who are not dependent from the places where they are (like whites who vote ''liberal'' in sissy-white places and who vote ''conservative'' in deep south's)
I admit your argumentations are quite creative and intelligent, but not factual, period.
Your argumentation in this text can be summarized like that
''Look!!! Many Africans have already won international scrabble contests. This proves that they are so [or more] intelligent than the bad racist whites''.
Are your u retarded or are you just pretending to be?
explain me what do you think i'm retarded... just your nervous personal opinion is not argumentations...
Both…
explain me what do you think i’m retarded… just your nervous personal opinion is not argumentations…
Santoculto is Brazilian. English is a foreign language to him. He does not speak or write English well enough to communicate effectively.
I no use ''expressions'' or ''slangs''.
Many people with patience can understand my english…
I no use ”expressions” or ”slangs”.
I rather suspected as much.
I don’t agree with you.
“Educators” aren’t the ones advocating for those expenditures. They just go along in order to stay employed. The ones who want the expenditures are community activists, the NAACP, parents, test makers, and a whole host of other groups.
Take New York City’s specialized high schools as an example (Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, etc.). The only admission requirement is doing well on a test. Since blacks don’t do well on the test, the NAACP issued a complaint in 2012 about the low number of blacks receiving offers to these schools. Because public schools can’t offer test prep for particular races, NYC started spending millions on test prep for low-income students. Naturally, the low-income kids who did best after the free test prep were whites and Asians. So in four years the number of blacks receiving offers to a specialized high school has decreased by 25%.
Demanding that the government fix black underachievement results in more black underachievement. However, due to the country’s racial history, school officials are required to try something when they receive complaints.
http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/new-york-city-specialized-high-school-complaint
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zCiEkk7ghaw/VtnXBJUAROI/AAAAAAAAX80/D65zvsvnaOU/s1600/CcuTtSfXIAE7hPo.jpg
Besides, a lot of "educators" agree with those "community activists, the NAACP, parents, test makers, and a whole host of other groups."
Oh, yes they do.
"Educators" aren't the ones advocating for those expenditures. They just go along in order to stay employed. The ones who want the expenditures are community activists, the NAACP, parents, test makers, and a whole host of other groups.
Take New York City's specialized high schools as an example (Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, etc.). The only admission requirement is doing well on a test. Since blacks don't do well on the test, the NAACP issued a complaint in 2012 about the low number of blacks receiving offers to these schools. Because public schools can't offer test prep for particular races, NYC started spending millions on test prep for low-income students. Naturally, the low-income kids who did best after the free test prep were whites and Asians. So in four years the number of blacks receiving offers to a specialized high school has decreased by 25%.
Demanding that the government fix black underachievement results in more black underachievement. However, due to the country's racial history, school officials are required to try something when they receive complaints.
http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/new-york-city-specialized-high-school-complaint
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zCiEkk7ghaw/VtnXBJUAROI/AAAAAAAAX80/D65zvsvnaOU/s1600/CcuTtSfXIAE7hPo.jpg
The functional difference between “going along” and “directly supporting” being what, exactly?
Besides, a lot of “educators” agree with those “community activists, the NAACP, parents, test makers, and a whole host of other groups.”
Oh, yes they do.
1. The article, while fascinating, doesn't account for the possibility that the brightest Africans may be playing scrabble, while the brightest Europeans may not be. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person (for example I have a Phd but that is as much about tenacity as anything else) and I have always been contemptuous of scrabble as a "grandma's game." The kind of game you played with Memaw after a ham and buttered cornbread dinner, but before the onset of that night's Heehaw episode. It's hard for me to look at scrabble as a respectable pursuit. That's admittedly my bias, however.
2. We often hear criticism of IQ tests as relating to a particular cultural context, yet the substance of the tests are never discussed, which for a novice such as myself is a little mystifying. I know that I scored a 147 on a test from long ago, but that's been so long I only remember a few questions, and those seemed fairly universal.
3. IQ denialism contradicts my personal experiences. I taught high school for a number of years when I was younger. Because I was a radical leftist as a youth, i insisted on teaching in a "failing" (read; 85% + black) school. Eventually my staunch leftist mentality was crushed by the stark reality of black underachievement. The same thing was experienced during my travels in Africa. I had a girlfriend who had been in the peace corps; they were teaching the natives to plant their crops in rows, which can hardly be seen as a development unique to
Industrialized societies. My personal
experiences are not science, however, though I can't really go against them either.
3. My ultimate problem with the critique of IQ tests is that the critics seem to ignore the massive and near universal nature of the issue. If we perform an analysis of multiple countries, we find that IQ correlates with economic, military, scientific, and social success, on a very large scale. The inability of males descended from Africans who speak Bantu languages to build or maintain anything approaching civilization is virtually constant wherever a population of Bantu Africans exist. Black Bantu Africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit, but they are, in general, wealthier in these mixed societies than they are in societies that are purely Bantu. To me, this "on the ground" pattern is very significant.
I also don't concur with the relativistic dismissals of "g" due to differences in culture, as I don't believe all cultures are "equal." It's fairly obvious to me, that what we mean by "intelligence" is much more prevalent in NASA scientists than in most fishermen in the Congo River, whose techniques are generally remarkably primitive still. To argue otherwise is ridiculous sophistry from my point of view.
Furthermore, IQ isn't so relevant simply in the abstract. It's a hot button issue in Western countries because those elites who insist on race replacement via mass immigration also insist that blacks and whites are equal according to Western standards. The standard is therefore clear. Analytical and critical thinking skills trump other cognitive skills. A Kung Bushman's ability to register five times the smells of an average Swede has little bearing on the debate on IQ in the current discourse.
My thoughts, anyway.
Black Bantu africans are always the poorest in every mixed society they inhabit?Hmm, let’s see.
The top black african economies are Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana …
Nigeria is mixed but the drivers of the economy are the bantus who inhabit the south,Igbo, Yoruba etc. And as you’re aware Zulus, Xhosa from SA are all bantu. So are the Akan peoples of Ghana. The wealthiest ethnic group in Kenya is bantu (Kikuyus) which contradicts your claim since Kenya is mixed – bantus, nilo saharans and cushites. Even in neighbouring Tanzania, the wealthiest group is Chagga, who are bantu in a mixed society.
So, no, bantus are not generally just wealthier in mixed societies.
Or maybe you meant another african country? Botswana, maybe? No, total bantu. There isn’t one african country that backs up your specious claims.
Now compare this to Nilo Saharans and Cushites. South Sudan is exclusively Nilo Saharan. So is Chad. And Mali. Somalia is exclusively cushite as is half or more of Ethiopia. None of these countries are considered to be growing, dynamic economies.
It would appear you’re egregiously misinformed.
Karlin’s feeble response is especially disappointing.
I see everyday your lies walking in the streets near to my house, you can convince people who are dependent from the environment where they are, like some (surprise!) naive europeans who live in white nations but not
those who live near to this hidden ''above-average intelligence'' of color ones
those who are not dependent from the places where they are (like whites who vote ''liberal'' in sissy-white places and who vote ''conservative'' in deep south's)
I admit your argumentations are quite creative and intelligent, but not factual, period.
Your argumentation in this text can be summarized like that
''Look!!! Many Africans have already won international scrabble contests. This proves that they are so [or more] intelligent than the bad racist whites''.
No, the point he is trying to make is that , the mean of these countries are so low, they should not be capable of producing such individuals capable of engaging in tasks and achieving records that demand great cognitive ability.
Firstly of course scrabble is a high 'g' loaded game. Just google analyses of championship scrabble matches to see the logical convolutions of thought involved in high level scrabble - involving analyses of the probability of the opponent holding certain letters and the probability of them knowing certain words, leading to complex strategic choices of where to place your letters. In addition, vocabulary is highly correlated with 'g' anyway as HBD'ers usually point out themselves.
Secondly, despite the hand waving by some commenters here I don't see a refutation of the author's key claim (made more convincingly here than in previous articles) that countries like Gabon (if the stated average IQ for that country is correct) should not produce as many champion level players in a highly 'g' loaded activity.
Thirdly many commenters, rather bizarrely, given their love of HBD, seem to be engaged in shifting the goal posts on what 'intelligence' is to refer to empirical facts about GDP, etc rather than intellectual potential. I thought the whole point of HBD was a rigorous mono-causal relation between 'g' and outcomes like wealth -so you can't start measuring 'g' using wealth itself as a measure!
Fourthly, and more generally, any contemporary conservative political and social theory cannot be based on a mono-causal theory, which HBD is. Mono-causal theories are almost always wrong when they try to explain 'open fields' like civilizational success. There are simply too many variables and too much interaction between units. Tying your ideological fortune to HBD is potentially disastrous because any banal empirical refutation of HBD will threaten the whole edifice. I happen to think conservative political thought has a future but HBD can only be a small part of that.
The inherent problem in this article is the apparent attempt to correlate the presence of very small numbers of scrabble champions with the very large number of people who take IQ tests.
.
The author’s argument appears to be: “how can the average IQ of people in Gabon be so low when they have so many scrabble champions?”. Obviously no attempt has been made to evaluate the scrabble-playing ability of EVERY person in Gabon vs the scrabble-playing ability of EVERY person in the US for example.
.
Supposing that was done (hypothetically), you might discover that the AVERAGE American was much BETTER at playing scrabble than the average person in Gabon. You might also discover legions of White, scrabble-geniuses with heretofore undreamed of levels of ability. Generally speaking young men in the US are more interested in chasing women than playing nerd games.
.
Three other considerations:
1) It is likely that the genetic diversity of Africans is far GREATER than the genetic diversity of Europeans, and MUCH MUCH greater than the genetic diversity of African Americans. This would follow since Europe was originally colonized by people who moved out of Africa and through the middle east – i.e. a small fraction of the total number of people who REMAINED in Africa. The African-American population derives from a relatively small number of slaves who were imported from a small area in West Africa. It can be expected therefore that the standard deviation of almost any factor, including IQ, would be greater in Africa than in Europe or amongst the African-American population.
2) It’s harder to make money in Africa than in Europe or the US. Any person who showed any ability in ANY area would be encouraged to work hard to pursue that goal because they don’t have many options. For all we know Gabon may be littered with failed scrabble-players who are now reduced to herding goats, while failed scrabble-players in the US go back to programming computers.
3) Idiot savants. “A person who is considered to be mentally handicapped but displays brilliance in a specific area, especially one involving memory.”
.
It isn’t uncommon for people who are functionally retarded to excel in certain very limited areas. Interestingly that kind of ability is often seen in inbred populations – precisely the kind of popualtions that are seen in sub-saharan africa:
.
“This latter form of marriage [mother’s brother’s daughter] is common in Africa and in patrilineal societies generally. Often, in Africa, it goes along with marriage to the wife’s brother’s daughter. A man either marries his wife’s brother’s daughter or passes the privilege on to his son (at least this is one way of looking at it). In many societies it is simply a straightforward privilege to marry the mother’s brother’s daughter.”
As interesting and unexpected as the disproportionate success of Africans in Scrabble competitions is from an HBD perspective, it hardly “spells doom” for the century of data showing a large IQ gap between blacks and whites. In the first place the fact that black males outperform white women in Scrabble competitions despite the large documented IQ gap that favors the latter hardly indicates that the IQ research is false as IQ has been found to be highly correlated with “real world” success. If gender is more salient than race in predicting IQ as you think Scrabble statistics indicate, why are there far more white women than black men in fields that require high g, like STEM and medicals fields? What evidence do you have that the proportion of a given population that produce Scrabble champions is a better indicator of intelligence than standardized IQ tests? It is more likely that, rather than the voluminous IQ data being flawed, the Scrabble gap is indicative of greater competitiveness in men vs. women.
The question remains; why are Africans, despite relatively low IQ scores, so over represented in Scrabble competitions. Maybe because Scrabble is more popular and more intensely studied in Africa than anywhere else…in fact some quick Googling shows that to be the case. To wit:
The story of Scrabble in Nigeria is fascinating, and the Journal’s article, by Drew Hinshaw and Joe Parkinson, explains the cultural side well. Scrabble has been a government-sanctioned sport in Nigeria since the 1990s. Tournaments get corporate sponsorship and offer big cash prizes. Results are reported in the media. When the 32-year-old Jighere captured the 2015 world championship in Perth, Australia, he received a congratulatory call from Nigeria’s president.
Whereas in France the game is viewed as a hobby, in several African countries Scrabble has been elevated to the status of an official sport. Mali’s Ministry of Sports paid for 10 players to fly to the competition that ended here Friday. Senegal’s Minister of Sports attended the closing ceremonies of this year’s championship and made a declaration calling the tournament one of the year’s most important sports events.
Top Scrabble players are celebrities in Senegal and have been able to parlay their success at word combinations into political careers, like former doubles champion Arona Gaye, now an adviser on sports to Senegal.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f2t1QB9G8HUJ:usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-26-scrabble-senegal_N.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“The sponsorship, the media coverage, having Scrabble training groups and curricula makes player development much more effective in Nigeria—and other places like Pakistan and Thailand—than in the more traditional Scrabble powerhouses like the U.S. and U.K., where players are usually on their own to develop their skills and network to find mentors,” says Chris Lipe, a top American player. “That’s a real cool, new thing that’s changing the game at the top levels.” As a result, Nigeria boasts 23 players in the top 100 in the world rankings, compared to 18 for the United States, 13 for Australia, and 11 for England.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/gaming/2016/05/have_nigerian_players_developed_an_amazing_new_scrabble_strategy_don_t_believe.html
So it turns out, for whatever reason parts of Africa have a big “Scrabble culture” It is sponsored by governments and big businesses in Africa and is taken seriously as a sport, just as chess was and is heavily promoted in the former Soviet Union. Many young people see Scrabble as a ticket to fame and, perhaps, modest fortune. Another interesting observation from the above Slate article: Africans employ a strategy of using shorter words as opposed to Westerners who tend to favor longer words:
“It’s easy to come away from the Journal story thinking the Nigerians are eschewing “bingos”—words that use all seven tiles on a player’s rack, earning a 50-point bonus—in favor of shorter moves. That’s what Deadspin concluded, dubbing Nigerian players “real Scrabble ascetics who abstain from splashing the most esoteric rack-clearing words they can muster and instead stick to humble five-letter plays.” The headline in the print Journal gave that impression too: “Scrabble’s New Stars Prefer SHORT to SHORTER.” ”
Given that there is an element of random chance in how the Scrabble board is laid out it is possible that certain board set ups prefer a “big word” strategy which may require a higher IQ and others a “small word” strategy which requires less thinking but that more intelligent players tend to overthink.
Chanda,
While I tend to agree with most of the points you raise in your essays, I have to take minor issue with your insistence that Indians (South Asian variety), somehow lack the physical or genetic wherewithal to become world class sprinters. There is nothing that prevents Indians from being great sprinters. If sprinting held the same prominence in India that it does in Jamaica, it’s safe to say that India would be a major sprinting power.
A note on your so-called detractors. These people are dyed-in-the-wool racists and supremacists. No argument, however exquisite and scientifically sound, will cause them to reconsider their often inane and nonsensical believe systems. They will simply move the goal post or talk gibberish or troll or obfuscate. I’ve been debating these clowns for years so I know how they operate.
Mr. Chisala, I found this article fascinating, particularly in light of the recent attention that has been given to the correlation found between language development and rhythm – the idea being that when learning rhythm, one learns to anticipate the next tempo (beat). When learning language, one learn’s to anticipate the next word (sound).
Using this logic, it would make some sense for people who grow up in rhythm centric societies (African culture) would excel at something like scrabble.
Regards