With Christmas only days away, what better topic to discuss than Martha Stewart and cold winters. Few people better personify the theory that cold winters selected for high IQ, particularly high spatial IQ, than Northern ancestry Martha Stewart, who Oprah describes as a genius for her domestic inventiveness. While most rich people seem to have earned their fortune through verbal or mathematical talents, Martha Stewart got rich by making things: pies, crafts, clothing, omelettes, soap, furniture etc. “I’m a doer”, she likes to say. If there’s one gazillionaire you’d want to be stranded with on a deserted island, it would be Martha Stewart, because she has the adaptability to actually survive without modern ammenities.
Around the turn of the century, Martha Stewart was adaptable enough to briefly overtake Oprah as the richest self-made woman in America, when she took her company public causing her net worth to skyrocket to billionaire level. I estimate the average American billionaire has an IQ around 130 (98 percentile), but because self-made women are so rare at the highest levels, I estimate that both Oprah and Martha tower with an IQ around 140 (99.5 percentile). Despite having such similar overall ability (in my opinion), the two women have opposite cognitive profiles. Oprah (whose ancestors lived in tropical Africa, where evolution favoured talents that helped in mating success; sexual selection) has, in my opinion, a social IQ > spatial IQ profile while Martha (whose ancestors lived in freezing Northern Europe, where evolution favoured talents that helped in survival; natural selection) has a spatial IQ > social IQ profile, so when Martha would appear on Oprah’s show, it was television at its best, because Martha would provide the practical survival skills, while Oprah would make the hour funny and entertaining. Martha would teach the audience how to make their own soap and insist that each guest in her home gets a fresh bar of soap, causing Oprah to inspire roaring laughter by adlibbing “because you wouldn’t anyone else’s hairs, in your nice homemade soap.”
So while Oprah and Martha would bring different cognitive abilities to the table, one day Oprah’s enormous brain size seemed to allow her the higher level cognitive ability that transcended cognitive abilities themselves: Meta cognition; self-awareness, the ability to mazimize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, is not well understood, let alone well measured by IQ tests, but it is pivotal to our ability to adapt situations to our advantage (the essence of intelligence) and in some ways is more important to intelligence than all other intellectual abilities combined, including g (general intelligence). This is something I have long believed and I was incredibley impressed to discover that commenter Santoculto had the same understanding. He wrote:
…the self awareness is the bio-cultural differentiation of human beings compared to other animals, its true soul. And I believe that self awareness is therefore the cognitive component hierarchically superior to all others. It is as if our intelligence were divided into several spaceships, where self awareness is the mothership.
How did Oprah display self-awareness? Martha Stewart began showing Oprah a very efficient way to maneuver a bed sheet, and asked Oprah to grap one corner of the bed sheet. Sensing she didn’t have the spatial ability to perform the task competently and not wanting to look foolish in front of millions of TV viewers, Oprah was forced to adapt. Instead of grabbing the corner of the sheet, Oprah spontaneously ran to the audience to grab a Martha Stewart fan. The woman couldn’t believe her good luck, for Oprah was giving her a chance to maneuvre a bed sheet with her hero. Meanwhile Oprah took the woman’s seat in the audience and watched the two of them on the stage. I don’t know if Martha had enough social IQ to understand Oprah’s true motives in bringing the audience member on stage, but she rolled with it, and began instructing the lady to copy all the elaborate complex rapid twists and turns Martha was doing with her corner of the bed sheet. Not having the spatial IQ to keep up, the lady began twisting and turning the sheet in wrong directions causing Martha to scold the lady for screwing up.
At that point Oprah stood up from the seat in the audience she had taken and yelled “I’m so glad I didn’t do it” and started dancing around with joy as the audience howled and clapped with laughter. This demonstrates how having the self-awareness to know what her strengths and weaknesses were allowed Oprah to adapt a potentially humiliating situation (failing to correctly maneuver a bed sheet) to her advantage (laughter and applause from the audience).
Conversely, a lack of self-awareness would prove to be Martha Stewart’s Archille’s heel. Oprah once said to Martha “I heard your ex-husband got a court order forbidding you to speak to him. I’ve never heard of such a thing”. That was a kind of punishment, Martha explained. “Was it punishment for being too smart?” Oprah asked.
Men are very threatened by women who are smarter than they are, and Martha’s limitless competence at doing work inside and outside the home and making gazillions of dollars in the process, must have made her husband feel inadequate and inferior. But when Martha became a self-made billionaire, she made the whole world feel inferior, with the smug way she embraced her billions, and the world took its revenge by putting her in jail and causing her fortune to tumble. Had Martha Stewart had the self-awareness to know social IQ was not her strength, and had a publicist coach her on dealing with the public, she might still be a billionaire today (though she remains super rich). But this demonstrates the hierarchical nature of intelligence that Santoculto described. You can be brilliant in virtually every area and have extremely high g (general intelligence), but if you lack the self-awareness to know where your blind spots are, your will fail to adapt situations to your advantage, and you will not be intelligent, in the truest sense.
Of course with the amount of jealousy, resentment and hate directed at successful women, perhaps no amount of intelligence is enough to avoid the traps the world sets for you, and Martha continues to be one of the richest women in America, despite no longer being a billionaire. But competition threatens her business, particularly from TV star Rachael Ray. Despite the fact that Ray has a self-described “huge head” and reportedly scored above 150 on an IQ test, she is of Southern European ancestry so her ancestors were not exposed to the extreme cold that pruned the gene pool of spatial incompetence, and Martha regards ray as unworthy competition:
lol………..
I guess managers, leaders and CEO’s the world over have Oprah’s “social IQ.”
or as I have already said:
‘lets just assume that IQ is real and meaningful for this one. i dont know why any leader needs an IQ above the bare minimum. it doesn’t take a colossal intellect to pick genius lessers and then referee the arguments made by those genius lessers.
What do you think a lot of these people do? Why do Presidents have speech writers, etc. etc.? They KNOW their weaknesses and they OUTSOURCE the labor so as to maintain their credibility.
That being said…..
if Oprah doesn’t have enough spatial IQ to “maneuver a bed sheet,” then either she has literally the world’s largest ability split (if her IQ is as you say it is — it’s on par with Feynman’s!), she doesn’t have a particularly high IQ, -or- she just knew it’d be a good moment for publicity.
…
YOU REALLY LIKE OPRAH THO.
…
Back in the 60’s or whenever, Martha was a looker.
Her father was a gym teacher.
By all accounts she’s a cheating, lying, horrible woman — who also went to jail.
join us, if you haven’t already, Swank…
the people, of all races, who…have overcome the world. http://biblehub.com/john/16-33.htm
it’s full of procuresses like pp. they take, but they make nothing.
ego sum qui sum.
the shit shall inherit the world
I have hope…
the lower orders have always taken Darwinism as a good.
perhaps the Dinos said, in so many words, “fuck this!”
former friends describe Martha as `the PMS poster girl from hell,” “Captain Queeg in drag,” an irrational insomniac, an “extremely aggressive” woman with “many masculine characteristics.”
Anytime a woman is successful there are jealous bitter people who will call the woman a bitch
Not saying martha can’t be aggressive. She told Oprah she read a letter some lady wrote to the newspaper which said “martha never does anything for anyone but herself” or something to that effect
Martha looked up the woman’s phone number, phoned her up and said “hi, this is martha Stewart. Your ignorance is really pitiful ”
And then hung up
the fact that a famous person with millions upon millions of dollars would do something like that should serve as a clue: these labels are probably well-deserved. she also went to jail lol.
so there’s the difference.
anytime a woman…
pp is a woman obviously and a woman whom hoes hit on…so a bull dyke.
the problem isn’t sexism per se.
the problem is that the careers which women are either most suited for or which they are formed for in a sexist culture are for the most part bullshit.
Oprah is bullshit.
Martha is bullshit.
billions on top of bullshit…
it stinks no less.
if women have a complaint it’s that they live in a culture where female engineers and natscis and financiers are expected to fail are expected to not exist.
there’s a simple test…
when the ladies stop with the makeup an jewelry.
everything I can recall tends to paint her husband — Yale law grad, publisher — as the smarts behind her success.
The Cabots speak only to the Lodges, and the Lodges speak only to God.
and the Marthas speak only to the Oprahs.
this r.K thing is making more sense.
if only Rushton had knew how r he was.
Well what i found impressive with Oprah in that situation was not just the social IQ but the self awareness IQ to know immediately she lacked the spatial IQ & improvise a way to use her social IQ instead
Your hero Robert Sternberg has a longer definition of intelligence than i do, but one that applies here: intelligence is the ability to adapt to your environment & if that’s not possible, to change your environment and if that’s not possible, find a new environment and adapt to it
Oprah knew she couldn’t adapt to the spatial environment on stage so she adapted by moving to the audience environment where she adapted by being an entertaining heckler
One weakness of IQ tests is they don’t well measure this kind of dynamic adaptability
pp hit the iceberg the day she was born.
Madam, I swear I use no art at all
That he’s mad, ’tis true, ’tis true ’tis pity,
And pity ’tis ’tis true—a foolish figure,
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
I guess I don’t see it as particularly noteworthy because many if not all effective leaders possess the same skill.
Even Thomas Jefferson refused to oppose Alexander Hamilton directly because he recognized that Hamilton was simply better at making his point.
I suspect most effective leaders are indeed extremely high on social IQ & self awareness IQ, but what made Oprah’s seem noteworthy in my admittedly subjective evaluation was that she adapted rapidly in real time.
The examples you cite take place over days so folks have time to reflect & consult about what decision to make
the blind leading the blind.
the shit has multiplied. the gold has dwindled.
lol attend a business meeting. A stunt like this will be pulled at almost every one of them. Typically, it’s more subtle. “I’ll go ahead and tackle X and I’ll let Mark discuss Y…” Y being the bad thing, the difficult to discuss thing, etc.
But sure, this could be an example.
Pumpkin, look at this
http://www.marthastewart.com/269141/how-to-fold-a-fitted-sheet
If her IQ is truly as high as you say, then the split would have to be ridiculous.
I’d also add that spatial IQ VERSUS execution are two different things. Otherwise, every egghead astrophysicist would understand how to play sports very well…
Swank, i agree it happens in business meetings (i see it in my own job every week) but the difference is It comes off as slimey where Oprah was able to do it artfully & inspire laughter & applause
Statistically you would expect a black women with an overall IQ of 140 to have pure spatial IQs around average (many below average). That’s because sheeting folding would only correlate 0.45 or so with overall IQ so brilliant black women would regress 55% to the black female spatial mean which would be less than 80 since both blacks and women do worst on spatial visualization
pp has no job.
or rather what she takes as a job is not.
as a prole pp thinks a paycheck equals work.
It only comes off as slimy because they wear a suit when they do it. Signals.
As far as I know, tests of spatial IQ supposedly correlate highly with g….probably not as high as vocabulary, but very high nevertheless.
Spatial IQ can also be trained, which is why a lot of the “differences” between men and women can be explained by the fact that men play a lot of video games — lending more support to a cultural explanation behind the ‘gaps.’
Last, there is a difference between VISUALIZING and EXECUTING. I can visualize all the angles I want, if I can’t hit the cue ball correctly, it really doesn’t matter.
don’t make the mistakes of the Jensen-tards.
g is not only a mirage.
the coordinates of the mirage vary from one population to another.
Can spatial ability be trained? Specific narrow skills yes, but spatial ability in general?
And you can’t say categorically that spatial ability is highly g loaded. It depends which spatial ability & which population
As far as I know, block design tends to have a range of high correls with ‘g’ and block design is a measure of spatial IQ.
As for training…
“”There are limitations involved with looking at individual studies one by one. What we found when we brought together this large body of literature on training effects and analyzed it was a very powerful message, said Newcombe. “People of all ages can improve at all types of spatial skills through training, period.””
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725120634.htm
Block Design is highly g loaded because it requires a lot of reasoning & analysis, not because its spatial
Jensen argued that cognitive abilities are resistant to training. I summarized the evidence here, but I’m sure you can find experts who disagree
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/why-knowledge-education-can-not-make-you-smarter/
this g stuff is bullshit, though it is curious that of my 9 year old WISC scores my highest performance subtest score was in the most g-loaded iirc or maybe it was mazes…
and a really smart guy I went to school with was dumbfounded by mazes…huh?…I thought at the time.
he couldn’t play chess worth a tinker’s damn either.
whatevs.
Vocab is learned….
And yes, we’re all familiar with what Jensen thought about everything.
But…
“Following training of working memory using the dual n-back test, the subjects were indeed able to transfer those gains to a significant improvement in their score on a completely unrelated cognitive task. This was a super-big deal.”
“Here, we present evidence for transfer from training on a demanding working memory task to measures of Gf. This transfer results even though the trained task is entirely different from the intelligence test itself”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract
Re: what block design tests
“A block design test is a subtest on many IQ test batteries used as part of assessment of human intelligence. It is thought to tap spatial visualization ability and motor skill. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_design_test
Mazes is a spatial test that has such a low g loading its an optional test not used to calculate IQ unless one of the legit tests gets spoiled
Your score on the WISC is your correct IQ. The wechsler is the gold standard
I read that n back research has been overturned. No training transfer effect after all in other studies
again the black lesbian is confused.
when i took the WISC, mazes was one of the subtests. period!
rules of black lesbians:
#1 they have no sense of history
#2 they have no sense of place
#3 they have no sense of history…
they responded, limiting it to around 3-4 IQ points but explaining why it’s likely an underestimate…so nearly 1/3 SD. Of course the increase is the result of weeks spent in n-back training, which is a pretty short intervention.
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-et-al2014_nback-training-gf-meta-analysis.pdf
the very idea of the culture reduced or culture free test is an idea which only mentally retarded people can entertain.
that is,
Terrance and Phillip.
Interestingly enough, the last “consensus” left off in 2012 before the 2013 refutation. So actually, in this area, there may no longer be any real agreement.
what Americans, ALL Americans, actually think of Canadians…actually it’s much worse…
And I should add that it’s not uncommon for high IQ people to be low on pure spatial tasks like complex rapid bed sheet twisting because the kind of spatial IQ you see on IQ tests is more about reasoning than it is about pure spatial visualization . For example, men and women don’t differ on g but women have much lower pure spatial ability. It’s hypothesized that men have bigger brains because spatial ability takes more room in the brain analogous to how 3 dimensional graphics takes up more room on a computer than word processing
pp’s an example of how someone with a very very low IQ can still be Mesmerized by the IQ bullshit.
as i’ve said do many times.
quit your bullshit job.
drink a bottle of Chartreuse.
see God.
your temperance and atheism will be cured for only $75. might be more in Canada.
dear God what a fucking prole.
pp makes her living by stealing and accounts it honest work.
Canada is the prolest country in the developed world.
martha stewart is a prole extraordinaire.
much more prole than Oprah.
better to conclude that the human experiment reached an apex and since has been shit, than to prostrate oneself to this shit-queen, let alone Oprah.
her cunt smells like limburger.
martha, like Ralph Lifshitz, is especially sick-making, because she affects sophistication she doesn’t have and sells this faux-sophistication to proles.
Oprah, Martha, Ralph, whoever…it makes no difference.
the very idea that a former British colony should have any class at all or the the British should have any class at all is ridiculous.
ER II is a CHAV!
they wouldn’t make limburger if people didn’t eat it.
that’s what i thought until i ate some.
you could put it under your car to scare away criminals.
Liar. You’ve never had limburger. You’re a virgin.
monk says to all this jive:
whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner.
but I say unto you…
whoever wants to understand anti-HBD must first know Thelonius Sphere Monk.
Little Rootie Tootie sounds like GOD HIMSELF is playing the piano.
Then God’s a terrible pianist.
[Daniel and Bob are at a garden restaurant; Daniel is enjoying a chicken lunch platter]
Bob Diamond: We have about 400,000 residents here. We service half of the United States dead. That’s about 2,500 people a day.
…
Bob Diamond: … What about your chicken? How do you like it?
Daniel Miller: Oh, delicious!
Bob Diamond: Yeah.
[Bob is eating a meatloaf-like substance]
Bob Diamond: Mmm!
Daniel Miller: [curious] What are you eating?
Bob Diamond: You wouldn’t like this. Ha-ha-ha.
Daniel Miller: What is it? What’s it taste like?
Bob Diamond: You’re curious, aren’t ya? Good. I like that about you. You wanna try?
Daniel Miller: Yeah. It looks so weird.
[Daniel tries the substance, but it has a terrible taste; he gags and chokes; Bob laughs]
Daniel Miller: Oh, my God!
Bob Diamond: A little like horseshit, huh?
[Daniel nods as he spits it out]
Bob Diamond: As you get smarter, you begin to manipulate your senses. This tastes much different to me than it is to you.
Daniel Miller: Eww! This is what smart people eat?
and in my case this isn’t some affectation.
i’ve loved monk since i was 14 and heard him for the first time.
he’s not an acquired taste…not like Spaten Pils or sauerkraut.
monk is the real deal.
he’s the favorite of no less an authority than wynton marsalis.
That might mean something if I didn’t find jazz grating on the ears.
“Monk is the second-most recorded jazz composer after Duke Ellington, which is particularly remarkable as Ellington composed more than 1,000 pieces, whereas Monk wrote about 70.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelonious_Monk
A lot of jazz musicians rave about Monk.
More than cold weather. Lowland regions may have also contributed to select spatial IQ. Look at aboriginous, very higher spatial iq combined with lower general technical intelligence.
Pumpkin,
vocabulary is not LEARNED but CAPTURED. Specially for higher verbal ability people. People with higher verbal skills is apt to increasing and sofisticated their vocabulary WITHOUT any great effort, is natural, like ”savant-painters-stylish”.
To people with higher-to-very higher specialized cognitive ability, the effort is not to learn the natural talent they inherited, but how transcends it, in this case, how to be creative and innovative.
If Mowgli had a very high verbal IQ, he would invent new ways of communication, why do not you stop personal destination.
Oprah is like most other people in terms of empathy. That is, any ordinary person who became rich, would do little for the most deprived persons or by their country.
Ideally speaking, Oprah try to calm the mood of the American population that is being prepared for a racial civil war. However, she is just an ordinary person, in this perspective, with some unusual cognitive well integrated advantages, not to mention the very favorable environment for a black and intelligent woman in entertainment. The luck factor is very important (for any celebrity). However, I think you should give more emphasis to other (real) black social geniuses, who do more for their people, directly, than Oprah would never have done. It has many black women (interesting that are almost always women, the vast majority of black men seem to be completely useless, disposable) in Africa itself that decided to fight for the welfare of the population of his country, an atomized individual, fighting against everything and everyone . Some of these women won nobel peace prize, deservedly. People tend to generalize the nobel peace prize (because Obama et tal), but I think this award, under ideal conditions of merit, would relate significantly to social intelligence.
Oprah would be like my mother, who is a smart, creative woman, very high verbal IQ (an excellent teacher), but in terms of deep, existential and transcendental personality, is an ordinary person like most who likes to proleness and which is conformer.
Oprah seems a nonconformist person, but so far, she just followed the totalitarian agenda of the liberal ruling elite.
However, there is to point out that Oprah has self awareness, but not in the genius level, which is extremely dysfunctional in a society in which we live. She is self-actualizer (above average levels of self awareness). In above average levels of self awareness it proved very efficient to improve before their public and give them what they want.
”Spatial IQ can also be trained, which is why a lot of the “differences” between men and women can be explained by the fact that men play a lot of video game”
Indeed Pincher Martin,
Swankynastadhominem is not only dishonest but stubitch.
Swankynastadhominem is stubitch. 😉
I’m sorry that actual facts disagree with you. Here is a tissue. Maybe you and spunky can cry on one another’s bony shoulders.
Swanknastyadhominem is a stubitch!
I found a picture of santoculto
Men tend to have higher spatial iq than women because men selected more feminine than masculine women. Masculine women and lesbians tend to have similar masculinized brains. Masculine women are less feminine and dislike more to have babies. (Many masculine women are liberal and femenist).
If masculine women have more babies, probably, iq spatial ”sexual gap” would be reduced.
Men who like video games tend to have spatial iq that related with mathematical iq or in other words, the classical nerds.
I have more feminine brain and i stop my evolution in video games in super nintendo (i liked, hihihihi).
Yes, I understand that you enjoy endless speculation. However, there is data behind what I said — a substantial reduction in the gender spatial IQ gap after a few hours of playing video games.
Swankbitch is a adhominen. Dementianassty is a adhominen.
Let me know when you need to be burped…
wow, what a HATER.
U will answer my question darlin’??? huumm??
http://www.thetumbrel.com/.a/6a00e5539012518833017742fd83d8970d-pi
Swankbeacht have social equality. AAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN, so EM-pathetic.
Good people only love.
A liberal would want to tax both individuals. But I see that you’ve bought in to the “job creator” myth.
U’ see wrong darlin’.
Both is wrong, but STUBITCH ”liberal” multimillionaire self-celeb is a worst, absolutely worst.
Refute it.
I don’t see much of a difference.
”Yes, I understand that you enjoy endless speculation. However, there is data behind what I said — a substantial reduction in the gender spatial IQ gap after a few hours of playing video games.”
AFTER A FEW HOURS…
Understand it alone.
Brain is a muscle.
Understand it alone again.
But muscles can still be improved through exercise to a nontrivial degree. A hardcore HBD person might say the brain is like height so exercise can’t make you taller so mental exercise can’t make you smarter.
But you can fake height with the right posture & right shoes just like you can fake intelligence with the right vocabulary & education
Swanknasty says mental exercise or training can make you smarter. I’m skeptical because so many studies showed the opposite
You don’t fake smarts with a high vocabulary. Your vocabulary is only fake if you misuse the words, and in which case, you don’t have an expanded vocabulary. Vocab is recognizing the difference between interdict and prohibit. But one learns these differences.
Vocab can be real, but if it was acquired by memorizing word lists rather than the normal learning through inference most people engage in, it will give a spuriously high estimate of one’s true IQ
I don’t see a difference. If the word list gives the exact definitions of each word, and an individual can remember those exact definitions, he has a high vocabulary. The ‘learning by inference’ thing is nice in theory, but it can actually depress a score as well. Most people use moxie and boldness interchangeably. Moxie is a type of boldness. If we learned by ‘inference,’ we’d miss the difference.
Although, really, both are different types of courage.
The difference is vocabulary is what you have learned while some define intelligence as the ability to learn. It’s the classic distinction between an aptitude test & an achievement test, fluid vs crystallized
Now the more ability to learn, the more words you will learn, all else being equal, which is why vocab is highly g loaded & a lot of confused people deny the distinction between fluid (aptitude) & crystallized (achievement )
However if you acquired your vocabulary in some unusual way, then the high correlation between ability & vocabulary in the genetal population will not apply to you
Conversely, if you were denied an opportunity to learn vocab, the correlation between IQ & vocab would not apply
For example, on a vocab test given in Chinese, all of us except the learned Pincher Martin would score in the retarded range, but does that mean PM is the only non-disabled person here? Of course not.
That’s why culture reduced tests of actual ability are needed
Well, if person A reads a lot of books and person B talks with a lot of people, person A will score higher, because person A encountered these distinctions. And that’s my point — most people who have good vocabularies acquire their vocabularies in a way that is different from others.
Yes, I get that there is supposed to be this great difference between “aptitude tests” and “achievement” tests, but I don’t really buy it. People prepare for these tests in real life.
As the great quote goes, “the future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.” Substitute “culture” for “future.”
Well most people of the same generation born in the same country have had similar opportunities to learn the same vocab, so the distinction between aptitude tests & achievement tests becomes trivial & vocab is often a better measure of aptitude than actual aptitude tests hence it’s used in many IQ tests
But when comparing people of wildly different cultural experiences, the distinction between aptitude tests & achievement tests is crucial, though no pure aptitude psychometric tests exist because even the most culture reduced test assumes certain knowledge & cultural test taking attitudes
‘Well most people of the same generation born in the same country have had similar opportunities to learn the same vocab,’
Same generation, same neighborhood, same SES, same school, same race, same general treatment received….have had similar opportunities to learn the same vocab.
Few people can improve their muscles like Schwarzza. Few people can improve their brain muscles like Bill Gates, Oprah or Da Vinci.
Schwarzza used steroids.
The guy on the left has a pretty obtainable physique.
But even assuming that Ahnald had great genetic gifts beyond height and a stocky frame, most people can improve their physiques to a large degree with effort.
I know but he ever was naturally strong. Very weak argument, sorry. Most of men aren’t even with great effort.
It’s not a weak argument. A) his normal physique is pretty obtainable, and B) even if the average person falls short of Ahnald’s physique, the average person can improve their physique quite a bit.
However, I do agree that most people avoid effort whenever possible.
If you go and read several papers in academic subjects, 90% of the effort comes from understanding the academic language in which the authors speak. Once you do that, the reasoning chains and logical chains are usually very simple.
Redacted; posted wrong spot
”I don’t see much of a difference.”
Aham.
Anyone can increase your fitness considerably, depending on where it started. In other words, depends on the perspective from the starting point.
But I think I have to ‘discuss’ with people like you ??
I can really improve my physique, but never be able to develop large muscles of an individual who does not take steroids. This is denying that there are thin they can never naturally ” improve ” your physical or your muscles.
Moreover, body muscles are very different from brain muscles.
But that does not change the fact that people have different limitations of muscle development. In the case of the brain, you can put a black boy with intelligence and behavior problems to ” learn ”. I do not doubt that he can ” learn ” something, but his personal transcendence is not this. He will learn, because it does not matter to him.
And I ask you to understand for himself when he spoke of ” IQ SPACE INCREASES AFTER HOURS PLAYING VIDEO GAME ”.
After hours but not after months or years. What are you saying is nonsense, saying that a simple activity can cause fundamental changes and human brain
Smart purely do not use the intelligence only or especially as utilitarian advantage, for example to make more money, they live, breathe the intelligence, is like a religion or as I like to call, an innate neurological culture. It’s not just learn something to apply it usefully, it is something deeper than that.
You treat black people as incapable, who need help to become perfect ” educated white, urban, middle-class ”. Something tells me it sounds supreme.
Correct= Something tells me it sounds SUPREMACY.
REAL OR PURE SMART ONES do not use the intelligence only or especially as utilitarian advantage, for example to make more money, they live, breathe the intelligence, is like a religion or as I like to call, an innate neurological culture. It’s not just learn something to apply it usefully, it is something deeper than that.
‘But that does not change the fact that people have different limitations of muscle development’
The differences in actual ability to develop muscle are small. Height and frame are the main limiting factors for eventual physique and power.
‘What are you saying is nonsense, saying that a simple activity can cause fundamental changes and human brain’
Sorry that facts and observations may disagree with you.
“All the volunteers played the video games for 40 hours over six to eight weeks, and were subjected to a variety of psychological tests before and after. All the participants happened to be female as the study was unable to recruit a sufficient number of male volunteers who played video games for less than two hours a week”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130821094924.htm
“What they found is that the brains of adolescents that spent the most time playing video games showed greater cortical thickness in two brain areas: the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the left frontal eye field (FEF).”
“While this study doesn’t quite show that playing hours of videos games each week causes these brain areas to grow thicker, the correlation is strong – strong enough to consider the possibility that gaming is sort of like weight lifting for the brain.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/04/06/the-surprising-connection-between-playing-video-games-and-a-thicker-brain/
“Brain scans show that violent video games can alter brain function in healthy young men after just a week of play, ”
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/12/01/brain-scans-show-violent-video-games-alter-brain-activity/32065.html
”If you go and read several papers in academic subjects, 90% of the effort comes from understanding the academic language in which the authors speak. Once you do that, the reasoning chains and logical chains are usually very simple.”
Absolutely agree with you in this part.
This does not makes you think why???
You think I want to exterminate the ” black ” because they tend to be less intelligent ?? Do you think I treat decent black people as inferior ??
I am a socialist, I do not like social inequality, economics is a lie, economic crises are a great nonsense. I like to racial, cultural, miscegenation always happened. But I want to continue to be people and white-majority countries.
I am ” pseudo ” white, or Caucasian Brazilian, and I have not a drop of guilt in slavery anyone. Rather, I am the victim, but I do not want to be.
Our only difference as far as I can tell, is that I believe culture is far more important than you do.
No, you’re saying that culture is totally influential. Do not lie to me. And that’s not true.
When have I said culture is 100% responsible for anything? Never. I believe that genetics may explain around 25% of the variance.
There’s just too much literature that demonstrates powerful cultural effect for one to honestly dismiss culture’s importance.
Randomly assigned higher and lower status inflates Raven’s (culture fair test!) scores by 7 points.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/210006?uid=3739824&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105475321263
That experiment resulted from only FIFTEEN minutes of motivational incentive (right handers would be rewarded more than left handers).
Were the results of the study statistically significant ? Have they been replicated? I don’t doubt motivation affects Raven scores to a larger degree than most tests , which is why it’s not an ideal culture reduced test
It’s contentious.
“Dr. Angela Lee Duckworth of the University of Pennsylvania and her colleagues conducted a 2-pronged study that looked at pre-existing data on IQ scores. Their research was supported by NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institute on Aging (NIA). Results were published in the April 25, 2011, advance online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In one part of the study, the scientists reviewed 46 previous experiments that examined how financial incentives affect IQ scores. The analysis included data on more than 2,000 test-takers, mostly between the ages of 6 and 18. The scientists found that material rewards, such as money, boosted IQ scores noticeably, by about 2/3 of a standard deviation (SD), or about 10 IQ points. The effect was greatest for people who started out with lower scores. Those with an initial score below 100 showed an increase of nearly 1 SD, or about 15 IQ points.
In the second part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, which followed 250 boys from adolescence to early adulthood. The boys were videotaped around age 12 while taking an IQ test. Each student’s level of motivation was rated by 3 trained observers, who reviewed 20 minutes of footage and looked for behaviors that might indicate attentiveness or lack of interest in the test.
The scientists found that the students’ IQ scores accurately predicted later outcomes in life, including academic performance in adolescence, criminal convictions, employment and years of education in early adulthood. However, when the researchers corrected for the influence of test motivation, the predictive power of the IQ scores dropped substantially, especially for non-academic outcomes.”
http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/may2011/05022011motivation.htm
For some, motivation really doesn’t matter much at all.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960100068X
You may have noticed that I do not care iq tests.
You on the one hand says that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, but uses them to show that culture is extremely important in the behavior and intelligence.
You realize that you are contradicting yourself??
It’s not contradictory at all. IQ tests measure degree of development in certain skills. Culture tends to determine one’s development of these skills. IQ test predict success because an individual who masters these cultural skills will do well in the culture.
If my thinking about what “intelligence” is seems fuzzy, that’s probably because it is…it’s hard to come up with an operational definition of intelligence. The ‘ability’ to learn or adapt sounds nice but seems arbitrary.
Define arbitrary.
Is not arbitrary, is complex but understandable.
You’re confusing the external manifestation of intelligence, catapulted by selective pressures induced by culture. Basically, we have a great number of people who can make important contributions to society, to innovation (type 5-10%, instead of ” 2% ”). However, the ” culture ”, that is, the elite in power, not only selects those that want change but also the concept of intelligence, mainly through a regional or historical context.
However, in this sense, intelligence ends up being arbitrary in fact, but functional. We live in societies where there is no cooperation of different minds in the same field of work. That is, people are specialized and atomized.
You contradicts itself because depending on the occasion, you believe that IQ tests are useful to prove their cultural deterministic point. I’m not saying that culture is anything but I’m not defining culture as extremely important.
The specialization occurs by choice, though. People who spend more time developing “spatial” skills may lag (or be uninterested) in verbal skills.
I don’t know where I’ve ever said that IQ tests aren’t useful for determining success in a certain culture.
25% is a (average)“ genetic heritability“ of lefthandedness. ‘Intelligence” too??
”The specialization occurs by choice, though. People who spend more time developing “spatial” skills may lag (or be uninterested) in verbal skills.
I don’t know where I’ve ever said that IQ tests aren’t useful for determining success in a certain culture.”
You contradicts himself again, saying that specialization occurs by choice, because before you said that the system chooses for us.
1- You do not live in the real world
2- You’re stupid (1 and 2 are basically the same thing)
3- You’re evil character and is using Pumpkin blog to push its corrosive agenda.
When you live in a peaceful and near-perfect country, it may make sense to believe in abstractions that you believe (less in the race, which is more an abstraction, a real biological collective phenomenon), but you do not live in a perfect world, less in your city. By logic, was for you to be starting to accept certain controversial real facts. But it seems, especially in the diversity of minds that is the trunk European Caucasoid, the realities can be many. It can be said however that some realities are closer to the real world than others.
I agree with almost everything that liberals claim and in turn, I also agree with everything the Conservatives claim. The key is not in a conservative or liberal agenda. Is the union between the two, because one can not survive without the other, especially the liberal agenda.
I believe that through CERTAIN PERSPECTIVES
races do not exist,
the intelligence, up to certain levels, is relative and depends on the selective pressures induced culture (See China and Confucian culture),
genres are social constructions,
racism and any pre-judgment that in fact, is irrational and unjust, is completely wrong,
etc etc etc
But the races do not exist upon a literal perspective. No demographic agglomeration there, why not consist of a single, integrated system but the union of individual systems that are internally integrated within himself (aka individuals). But there are genetic similarities, there are families. If there are biological families, then there are breeds, which as has been said here, in the Hbd shpere if consists of an extended family.
Liberals have primitive, monochromatic minds, a good part of them. Conservatives also. The big difference is that despite the limitations of abstract conservative mind, it is well adapted and is functional.
I want you to tell me. Culture exists without human beings? Culture can exist alone, without humanity ?? In the middle of the Australian desert, you can find human cultures without human ??
When I expose my speculations and some statements, you say that what I say is not ” facts ”.
At the beginning of their discussions on this blog, you consistently disregarded the importance of IQ, but now you think should use it to show that the ” visual-spatial IQ ” of women and men will equal hours of women starting to play video games.
So your proposal is similar to the movie ” Clockwork Orange ”, let’s get the women of low visual-spatial IQ and we will force them to play video games, even they do not like. This is a brilliant proposal to end the cognitive inequalities between men and women ?? Are there no cognitive inequality of sexes in other animals ?? We know that there is homosexuality in other species, but that you happily accepts without blinking. But if homosexuality is biological, then this means that the genres are not fundamentally a social construction ??
We compare white, which are very varied, with blacks. But we must compare East Asian with black, because they are both more homogeneous behavior and intelligence. The probability of an Asian child make more money, get good grades in school and have a polished and conformist behavior than a black African child, randomly selected, is HUGE.
‘You contradicts himself again, saying that specialization occurs by choice, because before you said that the system chooses for us.’
I haven’t contradicted myself. IQ is useful. But whether IQ represents some mental quality, like ‘g,’ that is real and important and mostly fixed, is an entirely separate issue. I also didn’t say that the system’ chooses ‘for us.’
‘Culture exists without human beings?’
Irrelevant question. What rules a society follows (culture) is determined largely by the environment in which that society finds itself.
GOOD arguments always should have EXAMPLES in REAL LIFE.
I will wait…
”Irrelevant question. What rules a society follows (culture) is determined largely by the environment in which that society finds itself.”
Define environment. Define biologically the concept of society.
Relevant and subtle question. Humans are made by culture or environment??
Dishonest as ever…
Iq is useful. BY WHAT??
I don’t want its opinions.
I developed great self knowledge, and know I will NEVER chose geography, history, philosophy, biology, etc … than mathematics or physics.
You place culture at the role of genetics. You will deny that culture is emanating from humans and therefore, the human being is the force that makes a culture live ??
What does it mean ?? Means that there is a clear hierarchy where culture is not a major factor.
I do not deny that there are many environmental factors that produce injustices, but these factors do not affect only the black (not all black people), but all other races, either in the US, Canada, or Brazil.
The social organization is given at the collective level, not at the individual level.
Swankbitch adhominean, refute my NON-CHOICE ”to give” prefference for geo,his,bio, anthro etc… than ”stems stuff”…
“Men are very threatened by women who are smarter than they are”
they are?
jack ma has a huge brain. China’s richest man
everybody else in that picture have bigger head than him.