Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

National Wealth and IQ at the Edge

ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:05:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 6:03:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

At least the thread title wasn't just "click this"

Answer the question or leave
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:05:30 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/15/2015 6:03:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

At least the thread title wasn't just "click this"

Answer the question or leave

No questions have been asked
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence. What problems specifically did you find in the paper?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:26:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyway, genetics can't even come close to answering the question all by itself. I seriously don't know what you're talking about.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence.

Appeal to authority. If Watson published a compelling study on the issue, then we have something to work with. But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical. I also doubt that he would have found it compelling on a professional level, seeing as it's not scientific in the slightest, and Watson was a biochemist and geneticist.

What problems specifically did you find in the paper?

I'll dig into this tomorrow, but it's the idea that anyone who has actually studied genetics can see that whoever wrote this paper hasn't, as they're working under assumptions which are by no means proven, and which are of fringe interest to serious geneticists anyway. IQ really isn't seen as a terribly useful measurement to geneticists, as there are soooo many genes which could impact it, so a lot of study deals with looking at what genes influence what specific aspects in what ways. A lot of the 'IQ heritability studies' have been driven by outside sensationalism, and really detract from the already monumental task of sorting out the genetic aspect of intelligence. IQ is a psychologists tool, and like most psychologist's tools, its a very sloppy one which appeals to those looking for a simple solution over the complex analysis which the real situation entails. Is there a genetic component to what we call 'intelligence'? Well yeah, of course there is. It's also an incredibly complex one which links heavily into environment and can't really be simplified into a convenient metric. Brain morphology and environmental feedback, for example, are immensely more pertinent and interesting than IQ.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:04:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence.

Appeal to authority. If Watson published a compelling study on the issue, then we have something to work with. But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical. I also doubt that he would have found it compelling on a professional level, seeing as it's not scientific in the slightest, and Watson was a biochemist and geneticist.


It at least suggests that genetics is not inherently hostile to their findings. Also, by appealing to genetics, you're sort of doing the same thing.

Anyway, it's not really meant as a scientific article. It's just an interpretation of data based on premises which you happen to reject.

What problems specifically did you find in the paper?

I'll dig into this tomorrow, but it's the idea that anyone who has actually studied genetics can see that whoever wrote this paper hasn't, as they're working under assumptions which are by no means proven, and which are of fringe interest to serious geneticists anyway. IQ really isn't seen as a terribly useful measurement to geneticists, as there are soooo many genes which could impact it, so a lot of study deals with looking at what genes influence what specific aspects in what ways.

Except that the topic of this paper wasn't exclusively genetic, so just because genetics has a hard time explaining IQ that doesn't mean IQ is scientifically meaningless.

A lot of the 'IQ heritability studies' have been driven by outside sensationalism, and really detract from the already monumental task of sorting out the genetic aspect of intelligence. IQ is a psychologists tool, and like most psychologist's tools, its a very sloppy one which appeals to those looking for a simple solution over the complex analysis which the real situation entails.

IQ is actually far better understood than you seem to allow for. I have not come across any scientific criticisms of IQ which were convincing at all.

Is there a genetic component to what we call 'intelligence'? Well yeah, of course there is. It's also an incredibly complex one which links heavily into environment and can't really be simplified into a convenient metric.

Then how do you explain the g factor?

Brain morphology and environmental feedback, for example, are immensely more pertinent and interesting than IQ.

To me, IQ is far more important and interesting.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:16:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Among specialists in the field, the whole controversy over intelligence and IQ is actually far less clamorous than you'd think. Steven Jay Gould's popular book The Measure of Man was viciously mocked in scientific circles because it was so obviously not true and just meant to pander to his sensitive readers. It's really only outside psychology that "IQ" receives so much vehement criticism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:43:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

No, you need to understand the difference between a scientist musing about what they think is the case and sitting down and engaging in experimentation to prove it. This doesn't mean that he thought that science was on his side, it's just an untested hypothesis that he's bouncing around, and which he probably thinks would be proven if tested.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:53:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:04:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence.

Appeal to authority. If Watson published a compelling study on the issue, then we have something to work with. But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical. I also doubt that he would have found it compelling on a professional level, seeing as it's not scientific in the slightest, and Watson was a biochemist and geneticist.


It at least suggests that genetics is not inherently hostile to their findings. Also, by appealing to genetics, you're sort of doing the same thing.

What? You cannot fallaciously 'appeal to authority' to a scientific field. It's not hostile to their findings, science is never hostile to findings, it's hostile to their methodology.

Anyway, it's not really meant as a scientific article. It's just an interpretation of data based on premises which you happen to reject.

Lol, what premises?

What problems specifically did you find in the paper?

I'll dig into this tomorrow, but it's the idea that anyone who has actually studied genetics can see that whoever wrote this paper hasn't, as they're working under assumptions which are by no means proven, and which are of fringe interest to serious geneticists anyway. IQ really isn't seen as a terribly useful measurement to geneticists, as there are soooo many genes which could impact it, so a lot of study deals with looking at what genes influence what specific aspects in what ways.

Except that the topic of this paper wasn't exclusively genetic, so just because genetics has a hard time explaining IQ that doesn't mean IQ is scientifically meaningless.

I never said that. IQ is important to psychologists, because it's the best metric that they have. But people attach much more meaning to it then warranted.

A lot of the 'IQ heritability studies' have been driven by outside sensationalism, and really detract from the already monumental task of sorting out the genetic aspect of intelligence. IQ is a psychologists tool, and like most psychologist's tools, its a very sloppy one which appeals to those looking for a simple solution over the complex analysis which the real situation entails.

IQ is actually far better understood than you seem to allow for. I have not come across any scientific criticisms of IQ which were convincing at all.

,,, I'm not saying that it's not understood, I'm saying that it's not useful when it comes to an interpretation of genetics and intelligence, because it's far too generic. It's a statistical tool for comparing general intelligence which has developed an odd sort of cult following.

Is there a genetic component to what we call 'intelligence'? Well yeah, of course there is. It's also an incredibly complex one which links heavily into environment and can't really be simplified into a convenient metric.

Then how do you explain the g factor?

... I don't have to? I don't understand this question.

Brain morphology and environmental feedback, for example, are immensely more pertinent and interesting than IQ.

To me, IQ is far more important and interesting.

Yeah, but you're a layman, not a geneticist. These people love epigenetics and chi squares, they're a bit quirky, like all scientists.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:00:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 2:16:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among specialists in the field, the whole controversy over intelligence and IQ is actually far less clamorous than you'd think. Steven Jay Gould's popular book The Measure of Man was viciously mocked in scientific circles because it was so obviously not true and just meant to pander to his sensitive readers. It's really only outside psychology that "IQ" receives so much vehement criticism.

I never said that IQ itself is controversial, I say that people misapply it all of the time. It's a statistical tool for the general comparison of intelligence. Great, fun times. But seeing a geneticist musing about genetic influences on intelligence, and then instead of addressing a particular gene and it's causes on the body we see them start testing for IQ, it's like watching the surgeon's hand pause over the scalpel and then move to pick up the sledge hammer. There are so many genetic factors involved that you're not going to find much that's useful, so I think that they've probably either got an ax to grind, or are going for the low-hanging fruit instead of reallying digging into the nuances of the problem. My thought is always 'well, we already obviously know that there's some genetic component; why are they beating a dead horse instead of asking further questions?'
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:33:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

Someone mentioned cherry picking, I agree.
I saw no mention of natural resources, as an example. The U.S. is lush with natural resources. Obviously that adds to the income per capita and national wealth.
The U.S. is the original modern day consumerism nation. This is a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly encourages desire for more income.
No mention of quality of life that I saw, as if to assume more stuff means better life.
Lots of issues about IQ that seemed ignored.

Lots of room for doubt about conclusions.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:58:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:05:30 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/15/2015 6:03:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

At least the thread title wasn't just "click this"

Answer the question or leave

Well played liberalprolifer.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:26:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:16:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among specialists in the field, the whole controversy over intelligence and IQ is actually far less clamorous than you'd think. Steven Jay Gould's popular book The Measure of Man was viciously mocked in scientific circles because it was so obviously not true and just meant to pander to his sensitive readers. It's really only outside psychology that "IQ" receives so much vehement criticism.

I never said that IQ itself is controversial, I say that people misapply it all of the time. It's a statistical tool for the general comparison of intelligence. Great, fun times. But seeing a geneticist musing about genetic influences on intelligence, and then instead of addressing a particular gene and it's causes on the body we see them start testing for IQ, it's like watching the surgeon's hand pause over the scalpel and then move to pick up the sledge hammer. There are so many genetic factors involved that you're not going to find much that's useful, so I think that they've probably either got an ax to grind, or are going for the low-hanging fruit instead of reallying digging into the nuances of the problem. My thought is always 'well, we already obviously know that there's some genetic component; why are they beating a dead horse instead of asking further questions?'

We don't need to identify the genes involved in intelligence to know it has a genetic basis. We can obtain that information from twin studies.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:53:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:04:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence.

Appeal to authority. If Watson published a compelling study on the issue, then we have something to work with. But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical. I also doubt that he would have found it compelling on a professional level, seeing as it's not scientific in the slightest, and Watson was a biochemist and geneticist.


It at least suggests that genetics is not inherently hostile to their findings. Also, by appealing to genetics, you're sort of doing the same thing.

What? You cannot fallaciously 'appeal to authority' to a scientific field. It's not hostile to their findings, science is never hostile to findings, it's hostile to their methodology.

That's why I said "sort of". You have taken a scientific question and insisted that it be answered by your field of choice without proving that psychology is incapable of giving us plausible answers. Genetics is obviously not able to answer the question all by itself.

Anyway, it's not really meant as a scientific article. It's just an interpretation of data based on premises which you happen to reject.

Lol, what premises?

The significance of IQ.

What problems specifically did you find in the paper?

I'll dig into this tomorrow, but it's the idea that anyone who has actually studied genetics can see that whoever wrote this paper hasn't, as they're working under assumptions which are by no means proven, and which are of fringe interest to serious geneticists anyway. IQ really isn't seen as a terribly useful measurement to geneticists, as there are soooo many genes which could impact it, so a lot of study deals with looking at what genes influence what specific aspects in what ways.

Except that the topic of this paper wasn't exclusively genetic, so just because genetics has a hard time explaining IQ that doesn't mean IQ is scientifically meaningless.

I never said that. IQ is important to psychologists, because it's the best metric that they have. But people attach much more meaning to it then warranted.


Which people? IQ is certainly not everything, but then again, neither is intelligence.

A lot of the 'IQ heritability studies' have been driven by outside sensationalism, and really detract from the already monumental task of sorting out the genetic aspect of intelligence. IQ is a psychologists tool, and like most psychologist's tools, its a very sloppy one which appeals to those looking for a simple solution over the complex analysis which the real situation entails.

IQ is actually far better understood than you seem to allow for. I have not come across any scientific criticisms of IQ which were convincing at all.

,,, I'm not saying that it's not understood, I'm saying that it's not useful when it comes to an interpretation of genetics and intelligence, because it's far too generic. It's a statistical tool for comparing general intelligence which has developed an odd sort of cult following.

Not only is it useful, it's absolutely necessary. Without it, we have no way to go about answering the question. General intelligence is not "irrelevant" by any means. It's positively correlated with a lot of things.

Is there a genetic component to what we call 'intelligence'? Well yeah, of course there is. It's also an incredibly complex one which links heavily into environment and can't really be simplified into a convenient metric.

Then how do you explain the g factor?

... I don't have to? I don't understand this question.

You claimed that intelligence cannot be expressed by a single figure. Yet, the way in which seemingly unrelated cognitive tasks are correlated with one another suggests that they are all measures of a common factor, known as g.


Brain morphology and environmental feedback, for example, are immensely more pertinent and interesting than IQ.

To me, IQ is far more important and interesting.

Yeah, but you're a layman, not a geneticist. These people love epigenetics and chi squares, they're a bit quirky, like all scientists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:46:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:43:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

No, you need to understand the difference between a scientist musing about what they think is the case and sitting down and engaging in experimentation to prove it. This doesn't mean that he thought that science was on his side, it's just an untested hypothesis that he's bouncing around, and which he probably thinks would be proven if tested.

It's hardly an untested hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com...
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:49:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:54:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:05:30 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/15/2015 6:03:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

At least the thread title wasn't just "click this"

Answer the question or leave

No questions have been asked

You need to debate the facts.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 4:34:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To those who don't think IQ matters, here are a few facts for you to consider.

1. IQ is highly correlated with all the things we normally associate with intelligence e.g., success in school, income level, life expectancy, etc.

2. IQ is quite stable throughout one's life: In 1932, the entire population of Scottish 11-year-olds (87, 498 children) took an IQ test. Over 60 years later, psychologists Ian Deary and Lawrence Whalley tracked down about 500 of them and gave them the same test to take again. Here are the results:

Turns out, the correlation was strikingly high -- .66, to be exact.

3. IQ is correlated with brain size at about .45, and there are very good reasons to think brain size affects intelligence. In the first place, it's absurd to think billions of extra neurons wouldn't improve cognition, all else being equal. A person with a large brain has the cognitive faulty of an average brain plus some. Unless that extra brain matter is doing nothing, or is interfering with the rest, the simplest explanation is that it will contribute to cognition just like the rest of the brain. Second, human's ancestors had smaller brains and lower intelligence. It wasn't until our brains increased in size that we started to advance.

4. Ashkenazi Jews, whose IQ has been consistently measured at around 115 (one standard deviation above the norm), are extremely overrepresented in cognitively-demanding fields, which is exactly what we would expect if IQ was in fact a measure of intelligence. "While only about 3% of the U.S. population is of full Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century, 25% of Fields Medal winners, 25% of ACM Turing Award winners, 6 out of the 19 world chess champions, and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners have either full or partial Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry."

The dominance is even more apparent when we look at the issue from a global perspective. 0.2% of the world population is Jewish, while 22 percent of the Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish, and that figure is even higher in scientific fields.

According to IQ data, approximately 1/21 Jews has an IQ of 140+, while among gentiles it's only 1/261.

Approximately 1/741 Jews has an IQ of 160+, while the fraction is only 1/31,560 among gentiles. Jews are thus overrepresented by a factor of 42 at that level.

These facts are best explained by the hypothesis that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence.

5. Identical twins reared apart have very similar IQs (correlated at about .80). It's therefore a real feature of the brain and not just a social construct.

6. "The g factor (short for "general factor") is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance at one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to his or her performance at other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual variance in IQ test performance, and IQ scores are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:03:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 3:26:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:16:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among specialists in the field, the whole controversy over intelligence and IQ is actually far less clamorous than you'd think. Steven Jay Gould's popular book The Measure of Man was viciously mocked in scientific circles because it was so obviously not true and just meant to pander to his sensitive readers. It's really only outside psychology that "IQ" receives so much vehement criticism.

I never said that IQ itself is controversial, I say that people misapply it all of the time. It's a statistical tool for the general comparison of intelligence. Great, fun times. But seeing a geneticist musing about genetic influences on intelligence, and then instead of addressing a particular gene and it's causes on the body we see them start testing for IQ, it's like watching the surgeon's hand pause over the scalpel and then move to pick up the sledge hammer. There are so many genetic factors involved that you're not going to find much that's useful, so I think that they've probably either got an ax to grind, or are going for the low-hanging fruit instead of reallying digging into the nuances of the problem. My thought is always 'well, we already obviously know that there's some genetic component; why are they beating a dead horse instead of asking further questions?'

We don't need to identify the genes involved in intelligence to know it has a genetic basis. We can obtain that information from twin studies.

Genetic component, not basis. Nothing is based entirely in genetics. And yes, we can. But science works by answering questions and then asking more questions once we have the answers. We don't go 'oh, cancer has a genetic component? That's neat. Let's drop this now.' We go 'oh, I wonder what the component is, how the genes interact, are expressed, and are inherited, etc. etc. etc.' The fact that any scientist wants to stop and just talk about how something has a genetic 'basis' should immediately raise red flags to any scientifically literate person.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 5:03:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:26:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:16:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Among specialists in the field, the whole controversy over intelligence and IQ is actually far less clamorous than you'd think. Steven Jay Gould's popular book The Measure of Man was viciously mocked in scientific circles because it was so obviously not true and just meant to pander to his sensitive readers. It's really only outside psychology that "IQ" receives so much vehement criticism.

I never said that IQ itself is controversial, I say that people misapply it all of the time. It's a statistical tool for the general comparison of intelligence. Great, fun times. But seeing a geneticist musing about genetic influences on intelligence, and then instead of addressing a particular gene and it's causes on the body we see them start testing for IQ, it's like watching the surgeon's hand pause over the scalpel and then move to pick up the sledge hammer. There are so many genetic factors involved that you're not going to find much that's useful, so I think that they've probably either got an ax to grind, or are going for the low-hanging fruit instead of reallying digging into the nuances of the problem. My thought is always 'well, we already obviously know that there's some genetic component; why are they beating a dead horse instead of asking further questions?'

We don't need to identify the genes involved in intelligence to know it has a genetic basis. We can obtain that information from twin studies.

Genetic component, not basis. Nothing is based entirely in genetics. And yes, we can. But science works by answering questions and then asking more questions once we have the answers. We don't go 'oh, cancer has a genetic component? That's neat. Let's drop this now.' We go 'oh, I wonder what the component is, how the genes interact, are expressed, and are inherited, etc. etc. etc.' The fact that any scientist wants to stop and just talk about how something has a genetic 'basis' should immediately raise red flags to any scientifically literate person.

So a person is not allowed to reflect on the implications of the high heritability of IQ without tracking down the genes involved? And if they do so, they are therefore not interested in anything else? Why?....
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 3:42:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:53:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:04:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Most of the people peddling this sort of stuff are sociologists, fringe economists, and disciples of other 'soft sciences'. Not geneticists.

There are pretty good reasons for that. Their metrics are absurd. Their analysis is absurd. Their cherry-picking of the historical data is absurd. I doubt that a paper predicated on this sort of thing would even survive thesis defense in a mid-level genetics grad program.

James Watson, one of the world's most prominent geneticists, would have probably found the article quite compelling, considering the things he's said on race and intelligence.

Appeal to authority. If Watson published a compelling study on the issue, then we have something to work with. But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical. I also doubt that he would have found it compelling on a professional level, seeing as it's not scientific in the slightest, and Watson was a biochemist and geneticist.


It at least suggests that genetics is not inherently hostile to their findings. Also, by appealing to genetics, you're sort of doing the same thing.

What? You cannot fallaciously 'appeal to authority' to a scientific field. It's not hostile to their findings, science is never hostile to findings, it's hostile to their methodology.

That's why I said "sort of". You have taken a scientific question and insisted that it be answered by your field of choice without proving that psychology is incapable of giving us plausible answers. Genetics is obviously not able to answer the question all by itself.

Psychology is a soft science which has a lot less credibility than any hard science because of the limitations put on its ability to eliminate variables due to ethical and practical considerations. I think that the entire field of psychology can be, and already is beginning to be, replaced by neurology, genetics, and their various segues into the existing schools of cognitive and behavioral psychology, just as alchemy was gradually replaced with chemistry as we grew to understand the levels of supervenience which lead to the general rules which we observed. Once that happens we can have much more rigor when it comes to studies on these subjects, because we will be studying components of people instead of people themselves.

Anyway, it's not really meant as a scientific article. It's just an interpretation of data based on premises which you happen to reject.

Lol, what premises?

The significance of IQ.

It has significance. Limited significance.

What problems specifically did you find in the paper?

I'll dig into this tomorrow, but it's the idea that anyone who has actually studied genetics can see that whoever wrote this paper hasn't, as they're working under assumptions which are by no means proven, and which are of fringe interest to serious geneticists anyway. IQ really isn't seen as a terribly useful measurement to geneticists, as there are soooo many genes which could impact it, so a lot of study deals with looking at what genes influence what specific aspects in what ways.

Except that the topic of this paper wasn't exclusively genetic, so just because genetics has a hard time explaining IQ that doesn't mean IQ is scientifically meaningless.

I never said that. IQ is important to psychologists, because it's the best metric that they have. But people attach much more meaning to it then warranted.


Which people? IQ is certainly not everything, but then again, neither is intelligence.

The hoi polloi who don't understand the intricacies of neurology, genetics, and history, and don't want to.

A lot of the 'IQ heritability studies' have been driven by outside sensationalism, and really detract from the already monumental task of sorting out the genetic aspect of intelligence. IQ is a psychologists tool, and like most psychologist's tools, its a very sloppy one which appeals to those looking for a simple solution over the complex analysis which the real situation entails.

IQ is actually far better understood than you seem to allow for. I have not come across any scientific criticisms of IQ which were convincing at all.

,,, I'm not saying that it's not understood, I'm saying that it's not useful when it comes to an interpretation of genetics and intelligence, because it's far too generic. It's a statistical tool for comparing general intelligence which has developed an odd sort of cult following.

Not only is it useful, it's absolutely necessary. Without it, we have no way to go about answering the question. General intelligence is not "irrelevant" by any means. It's positively correlated with a lot of things.

Everything is positively correlated with a lot of things. That's not an argument in favor of anything. It's whether you can control variables and get down to the intricacies that make the whole complex phenomenon tick. That means giving up convenient generalities like IQ.

Is there a genetic component to what we call 'intelligence'? Well yeah, of course there is. It's also an incredibly complex one which links heavily into environment and can't really be simplified into a convenient metric.

Then how do you explain the g factor?

... I don't have to? I don't understand this question.

You claimed that intelligence cannot be expressed by a single figure. Yet, the way in which seemingly unrelated cognitive tasks are correlated with one another suggests that they are all measures of a common factor, known as g.

No it doesn't. That's terrible analysis. When you combine that with what we know about how people and the human brain work, it suggests that there are many different factors which influence one another in complex ways to produce measurable results. For example, you could certainly measure the nutrient content of my blood and fecal matter after I eat a meal, and use that to come up with a mathematical 'digestive quotient', and it would probably correlate to all sorts things, but it wouldn't change the fact that the health of my digestion is a sum of a lot of intricate factors, and it wouldn't indicate that there's some mysterious 'd' factor hiding in there somewhere.

Brain morphology and environmental feedback, for example, are immensely more pertinent and interesting than IQ.

To me, IQ is far more important and interesting.

Yeah, but you're a layman, not a geneticist. These people love epigenetics and chi squares, they're a bit quirky, like all scientists.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 3:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

No, you need to understand the difference between a scientist musing about what they think is the case and sitting down and engaging in experimentation to prove it. This doesn't mean that he thought that science was on his side, it's just an untested hypothesis that he's bouncing around, and which he probably thinks would be proven if tested.

It's hardly an untested hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com...

Rushton? Really? There's a reason that some scientists are pariahs.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:26:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 5:21:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

No, you need to understand the difference between a scientist musing about what they think is the case and sitting down and engaging in experimentation to prove it. This doesn't mean that he thought that science was on his side, it's just an untested hypothesis that he's bouncing around, and which he probably thinks would be proven if tested.

It's hardly an untested hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com...

Rushton? Really? There's a reason that some scientists are pariahs.

Would any scientist, no matter how thorough and honest, be able to make the conclusions Ruhston's made without being ostracized? I find it very unlikely.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 3:49:15 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:54:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:05:30 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/15/2015 6:03:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2015 5:01:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.unz.com...

At least the thread title wasn't just "click this"

Answer the question or leave

No questions have been asked

You need to debate the facts.

Fact: Education is a right for liberals who are prolife.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 5:26:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:21:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 2:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:33:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:14:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:49:53 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

But being a famous geneticist doesn't mean that offhanded comments that you make to people automatically become canonical.

Not that it's particularly important, but Watson definitely thought science was on his side. It wasn't just an "oops" comment he made.

"I'm inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the evidence says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

No, you need to understand the difference between a scientist musing about what they think is the case and sitting down and engaging in experimentation to prove it. This doesn't mean that he thought that science was on his side, it's just an untested hypothesis that he's bouncing around, and which he probably thinks would be proven if tested.

It's hardly an untested hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com...

Rushton? Really? There's a reason that some scientists are pariahs.

Would any scientist, no matter how thorough and honest, be able to make the conclusions Ruhston's made without being ostracized? I find it very unlikely.

Yes, because it flies in the face of all of the other reputable research on genetics which laymen aren't interested in because it isn't sexy and edgy. If they published a flawless paper that tore the status quo to shreds, then they would become legends. But they don't. They publish vaguely crappy studies, submit them for peer review, and they're told that certain things aren't credible, and instead of fixing things they group up and moan about how they're being oppressed by the big bad scientific community, and people who sympathize with their ideas focus on the supposed oppression instead of looking at the research with a critical eye. It's the same victim complex behavior that creationists engage in.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -