There’s a section in the book The g Factor by Arthur Jensen, where positive and negative correlates of g (general intelligence) are listed. Among the positive correlates are variables like education, height, income, social skills, supermarket shopping ability, talking speed, emotional sensitivity and sports participation in university. Among the negative correlates listed were smoking, alcoholism, crime, impulsivity, dogmatism, racial prejudice, weight/height ratio, and hysteria. When I saw that hysteria was negatively correlated with IQ, I was reminded of a movie they used to repeat on TV every couple years when I was young, and that I have been trying my whole life to hunt down. Finally I found a clip of it on Youtube; it’s called Special People.
The film is about mental retardation, and as a kid I found it mesmerizing. I estimate the characters (who seem to be largely played by themselves) have what is sometimes known as “Educable (mild) Retardation” (IQ 50ish to 70) which is one level up from “Trainable (moderate) Retardation” (IQ 40ish to 50ish). The educable are more likely to have what Jensen called familial retardation (biologically normal low IQ) while the trainable are more likely to have organic retardation (biologically abnormal low IQ), though both types of retardation are found at both levels; the main difference is that familial retardates look normal and tend to come from low IQ families while organic retardates look unusual and can come from any family.
Back to hysteria. At around 10 minutes into the below video, one of the disabled characters goes absolutely ballistic. In sharp contrast, the highest IQ people I have ever known have been generally very calm and composed, even under pressure:
that’s nice. Jensen was a moron and a liar. are there any Canadians who aren’t prole?
it may depend on how alcoholism is defined, but…
alcohol consumption and even “moderate” dypsomania is positively associated with
1. income
2. education
3. IQ
in the US and the UK. it may be different elsewhere.
obviously the average cerrhotic liver on the street is below average.
one reason may be that smoking is considered disgusting by the higher classes but alcohol is legal.
W was an alcoholic. he’s never have been a crack head.
fussell makes a comment on this.
he compares two families with identical incomes.
one is well educated and drinks every day out doors.
the other is prole and only drinks occasionally as shutters the windows when it does,
in fact Chomsky has commented on this.
prior to Prohibition in the US one could buy marijuana in a drug store. after the repeal it was still illegal.
the reason given by Chomsky is that marijuana, as the name suggests, was a drug of poor, non-white people, that is Mexicans.
at least in the US class is even more strongly associated with habitual inebriation than income, IQ, or education.
Peggy Lee’s is the anthem of the WASPs.
Talking speed is a positive correlate?
Do you mean that high IQ people talk slower?
pp is a prole, so she can’t see through the Jensen prolisms.
rapidity of speech varies a lot with geography in the US. Angelinos speak even more slowly than Southerners. New Yorkers are disgusting. New Yorker = human cockroach.
if you read the last link Pepe le Pew provided it was just another demonstration of Jensen’s penchant for lying.
Also, conscientiousness and IQ apparently negatively correl
http://uk.psytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf
High IQ people talk faster (on average) though obviously other factors like culture play a huge role
Or language or climate, as with Southern Euros who spit words like bullets from a machine gun. The laid back PIGS basking in their Mediterranean Sun, will have no patience with the lethargic speech of your American hillybilly.
Talking fast would probably be a negative correlate of IQ, then.
Your American redneck is no smarter than a South Euro, if anything, he or she is dumber.
Swanknasty, a negative correlation means that as one variable increases, the other decreases.
Since talking speed & IQ both increase together , the correlation is positive
Now talking time correlates negatively with IQ because the greater the time it takes you to say a given number of words, the lower the IQ (on average)
But talking speed is the amount of words you say per unit of time so it correlates positively with IQ
Not so obviously, understand, ”culture” do not change bio-phenotype, ”culture” can change the external manifestation of behavioral biology of human beings. Culture in nano-therm don’t change phenotypes.
I can stay 20 years without speaking any word, if i’m smart, it don’t will change my intelligence, but the external manifestation of it.
Look to Langan.
Yes pumpkin duh.
Here….talking fast would be a BAD TRAIT that is CORRELATED with IQ.
of course, rather than assume I meant negative as in bad….the assumption is in the other direction….more proof of my points re: HBD
You need to explain in mininum details…
incidentally talking speed, properly defined, would be a negative correlate of IQ. Within normal speech variation, it is good to talk SLOWER, rather than FASTER.
Sorry, but i’m with bullyingmania with you!
With what iq?? verbal iq, possibly not.
“where positive and negative correlates of g (general intelligence) are listed.”
There is a presumption on the part of some that if something is positively correlated with intelligence then it’s probably a good thing. Or that if smart people think something then it’s probably right. Meh. Maybe. Maybe not. People overlook the fact that the intelligent, wealthy, etc are subject to their environment and psychology the same as anyone else. For example, today divorce is correlated with less intelligent, less wealthy, etc. A century ago it was the opposite due to economic factors. Similarly, friends who went to an upper middle class catholic school told me there was probably more drug abuse there than public schools because they “could afford it.” I doubt anyone would say divorce and drug abuse were smart or good.
So it’s more complicated than simply saying smart people believe and do smart things. This is particularly true when it comes to beliefs because people’s views and opinions are more a result of psychology than reason. Studies show that people develop their views first and then use reason to justify them afterwards. Now, if someone grew up in a polite, sheltered environment they’re more likely to have a warm fuzzy outlook because the environment they grew up in screened out most of the violent criminals. The reason for this is simple. Smart people make more money and people with money have the means to buy themselves out of unpleasant environments. You certainly wouldn’t expect a wealthy person to choose a shack in a high crime slum. They’d buy themselves an apartment or house in an exclusive area. In other words, they’re sheltered and naive which will very much influence their psychology, values and beliefs. The following commercial was designed to appeal to that psychology. They’re very naive and foolish.
Many intelligent people are intellectually lazy. They do well and that is enough for them. They don’t reflect on what it is that allowed them to do well. And they pick up that this attitute is somehow a mark of intelligence.
Exactly.
I believe that the more angry and grumpy you are, and if their motivations are extremely cohesive, more intelligent you really will be.
The blame for the idiotic societies in which we live is precisely the so-called ‘cognitive elite’ ‘or’ ‘smart fraction’ ‘. And the amazing thing, to blame if rightly places because of entrance examinations in higher education institutions, SAT, IQ, even the evidence of ” specialties ” (ie, memorization of knowledge that was passed by the faculties). No one is measuring intelligence as a whole. It’s just based on silly comparisons, as the commentator in the text Razib Khan, who said that ” people ” with ” IQ above 124, lol, are the only ones able to understand the world through the multiple perspectives, that is, without unilateral generalizations’. But making a kind of statement like this could no longer be regarded as a generalization *
This wrongly arrogant commentator does not know that the word ‘generalization’ really means, so that then used examples of truisms to rebut my criticisms.
looks like you’re falling for one of the many leftist IQ lies http://tinyurl.com/efvbddsddfeufhe maybe they seem lazy because they are so fast , like finishing the assignment first in school . There are lazy and ambitious high-IQ people . you cannot generalize and say they are all lazy
I won’t generalize and say they are all lazy, but I will say that motivation and other factors explain the variance in performance between high IQ individuals far more than g does.
Destructure,
I think it depends on whether IQ directly cause the view or whether it’s just an indirect effect of high IQ people being sheltered, as you say, or being brainwashed by the ideology of their professors. For example a lot of high IQ people deny HBD & more low IQ people seem to accept it, so that’s an example of high IQ people being wrong.
And yet high IQ HBD denial is probably unique to the modern western world; in other times & places, i suspect the smart have been pro-HBD, suggesting high IQ does not cause HBD denial
On the other hand, high IQ people seem more likely to not believe in God & this seems true in every religion, all over the world & throughout history. So in that case i would say high IQ is largely causing atheism & so high IQ people are probably right that God does not exist
On the other hand, some high IQ atheists promote religion anyway because it is the glue that holds their culture together. Attacks on Christianity & all the values that go with it has done enormous damage to western civilization
Guys like Aristotle and Socrates were the opposite of intellectually lazy. They were different, maybe very different from one another, but the same in the sense no conventional bullshit was good enough for them. Most smart people, meaning moderatly smart so that life is an easy ride for them, just don’t think very much, And if they try to think it is shocking what clichés they regard as deep wisdom.
The idea that hysteria, which is a childish and stupid behavior, especially in adults, is not correlated (on average) with higher intelligence (IQ) does not make sense, especially when we see the multitude of readers of the New York Times (average iq 107 at least with fat ”smart fraction”, those understand differences between generalizations or dogmas and multiple perspectives **) doing their # manifestations devoid of meaningful content.
IQ correlates with intelligence, but it is not intelligence itself. This is one of the ‘blind spots’ most important of the hbd knowledge.
People of high IQ are not perfect. Really smart people have a tendency to seek perfection (because after all, nobody’s perfect). And that does not necessarily have to manifest through worldly achievements because the smarter looking for perfection, already through microscale interaction.
Just to be clear, I’m saying hysteria is negatively correlated with g, so low IQ people are more hysterical.
I agree that IQ is not intelligence… I believe intelligence is the mental ability to adapt which is such a complex capacity it may be beyond measurement & science
But IQ tests measure g & if you believe g exists, then g is the variable that makes all mental abilities function better. Since intelligence is just all mental abilities hierarchically organized into an adaptive system, g is hugely important to how well that system functions
I don’t think iq measure g too. Why**
then by your definition of intelligence, pond scum is intelligent because it has adapted to its environment . IQ and intelligence are the same thing (it’s called an intelligence quotient)
Pond scum is adapted to it environment, it does not much adapt to its environment. In other words, humans have the capacity to adapt at the behavioral level; other organisms adapt at the genetic level. When lower life forms enter the cold, they evolve fur over many generations. By contrast humans make a fur coat in one day. That’s what makes intelligence fundamentally different from so many other adaptations. It is the ability to adapt itself.
The Spanish aspie here made a pertinent observation that the Pump not researched. In fact, alcohol relate with iq, but probably with only some subgroups ‘to’ high iqs and not with all subgroups. It is part of the normal distribution of a variety of behaviors that are also found in all other layers of technical and utilitarian intelligence, which are thoughtfully measured by cognitive tests.
Kanazawa found this relationship and stipulated that the consumption of alcohol is a kind of evolutionarily new behavior. My friend Astor, reminded me something very important about the theory, most likely not be 100% correct, the theory of Savannah, by Kanazawa. He reminded me that Kanazawa developed his theory through the study of birds with larger brains and greater ability to open new flight paths for the group.
Kanazawa determined that this would be a greater capacity ‘evolutionarily new behavior’ and held ‘the same analogy’ to humans. However, he stipulated that certain human behaviors that are not related to intelligence, would amount to alternative routes of the most intelligent birds, such as drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana or be ” socialist ” (the primitive mind liberal hysterical).
However, your analogy, in my pseudo-humble opinion, is wrong, because there is no great advantage (on the contrary) in drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana. Only if it were to expand human biological resistance to certain types of foods or food combinations such as ” destiled drinks ”. Still, it is a less cohesive correlation of the ” complex behavior, creative and holistic adaptation ”.
Then I thought of intelligently objective unconformity, in other words, the problem solvers. The most intelligent birds open new alternative routes for the group, to increase the area of operation of your group and to mitigate risks. The larger the area and the amount of routes of the groups, the smaller the chances of risks. For this, the intelligent birds need to have a high-risk behavior (necessarily, not in the social-recreational sense as drinking alcohol), which however, will present at least some margin of safety.
To find new routes, the most intelligent birds, need to be more creative and have more efficient memory, which learn from the experience. A memory that can capture a variety of relevant information in order to navigate more safely in new environments. The same could be applied to humans.
acredite ou não, eu sou Papai Noel nem espanhol nem um Aspie. Mas quem faz longos comentários enfadonhos e converte-os com google translate é um Aspie de certeza.
selecao 1, germany 7.
Copa do mundo de futibol???
Tão prole… 😉
Hbders are one of this smart birds, lol, was at all times on the nose of Kanazawa, but he preferred a more politically correct theory.
Santoculto
I have a hard time understanding your perspective on things. It seem to me to all over the place, changing from one posting to the next, almost. And I may not be alone thinking that. So could you calmly in a few sentences give your view on. let’s pick a few topics you can select from
Is affirmative action benefitting blacks, long term, why/why not?
Why do the jews seem to be so smart? Are they?
Are men on average smarter than women?
Why are the french, with their civilization, perhaps the most racist in Europe?
What system has the best prospects for “successful” integration of immigrants/ethnic people, cut-throat capitalism or scandinavian soft-touch?
Hugh,
”Is affirmative action benefitting blacks, long term, why/why not?”
It is a question that requires a complex and speculative answer. Depends on the way it is being done, not benefit black people in general but individuals of black race (stupid athletes). Most blacks DON’T were born to this kind of intellectual propension. Those who can contribute in some way, should be helped, because often their intelligence profiles are not equal those of the most high iq Europeans and East Asians.
”Are men on average smarter than women?”
On average I believe not, but the amount of men with spectacular cognitive profiles is so significant that compensate.
”Why do the jews seem to be so smart? Are they?”
Parasites need to be very intelligent. The parasites usually have great self-consciousness, which is a rare type of intelligence. It’s a different kind of intelligence, I’ve talked about it here. Are very, very smart, but you can not compare with European Caucasians, because it’s a very different cognitive profile (on average).
My theory about the Jewish talent would take place because of a large presence of people with anomalous lateralization, which results in asymmetric faces (note that this is a very common trait among them), higher incidence of left-handed, gay, well, extreme behavioral and cognitive profiles.
A lot of Ashkenazi with rare cognitive profiles, great connection between them. But like any parasite, just too exploiting their victims enough to destroy it.
Think of high-functioning psychopaths. They are very smart in their strategies, their innate talent to charm, socialization, handling. But they are not wise. The wisdom of a psychopath is used to worldly things and selfishly, short-term.
”Why are the french, with their civilization, perhaps the most racist in Europe?”
Why*
”What system has the best prospects for “successful” integration of immigrants/ethnic people, cut-throat capitalism or scandinavian soft-touch?”
I do not understand.
1) Yes.
2) Culture. Yes.
3) No. But the theory is that more men are at the extremes. Culture would explain this as well. Remember, SLODR predicts that “g” explains less of the variance among higher IQs than lower IQs.
4) Good question
5) Assimilation requires one dominant culture. Melting pots/multi-culturalism won’t really work. So no cultural relativism.
Ashkenazi Jews have a lower visio-spatial IQ, if not, they are not renowned for their crafts.
Correct, Ashkenazi Jews don’t really produce things, they work in professions that are in the service sectors, instead of making stuff for a living. He has no civilization like the Europeans because he can’t build. Well, now he does in Israel, but Israel is disgustingly shoddy for a Western Nation, with billions of dollars of money poured in from the USA. So he’s very bad at it.
One needs to distinguish him from his counterpart, the Sephardic Jew from Spain and Portugal. Much smaller in population, many of them became “Spaniards” through force and also assimilation. The Sephardic is more noble, of honor, and has done well in crafts (which is needed for civilization).
Depends how you define hysteria. I’m of the opinion high-IQ people are more easily incensed than low-IQ people because they have to patience to deal with a world filled with slower people and eventually this causes a lot of repressed anger and frustration, and eventually is manifests in various ways such as ‘snapping’ and going mad.
”then by your definition of intelligence, pond scum is intelligent because it has adapted to its environment . IQ and intelligence are the same thing (it’s called an intelligence quotient)”
Grey enlightment,
Do not say stupid things. You only know how to interpret what is evident and not what is hidden. They can only see a piece of the landscape and not all its details, its chains of disharmony and harmony.
He didn’t say anything stupid. Intelligence is more complicated than ‘mental ability to adapt to your environment.”
The heritability paradigm is about to shift anyway. HBD is losing — on the merits — in a big way.
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/
((”IQ and intelligence are the same thing (it’s called an intelligence quotient)”.))) Grey
((((He didn’t say anything stupid.))) Swanky
Intelligence is more complicated than ‘mental ability to adapt to your environment.”
The basis of intelligence is adaptation. The rest is a consequence and sofistication. A complex result, as required by human intelligence.
Ha! I didn’t see that. I stand corrected. IQ and intelligence aren’t the same thing.
((SANTOCULTO (and not Swankynast)
I have a hard time understanding your perspective on things. It seem to me to all over the place, changing from one posting to the next, almost. And I may not be alone thinking that. So could you calmly in a few sentences give your view on. let’s pick a few topics you can select from)))
Insolent.
Pick what you believe are my inconsistencies.
Hugh,
”What system has the best prospects for “successful” integration of immigrants/ethnic people, cut-throat capitalism or scandinavian soft-touch?”
Some immigrants is not bad. It may even be good for genetics, to avoid inbreeding depression in some populations. But an excess of immigrants, of course it is bad. Many immigrants assimilate, are generally less endogamized, smarter, it is very common for homosexuals coming from the Middle East, fully assimilate the culture of countries like France and Sweden.
The collective assimilation does not work, so there is a need to maintain a demographic balance between immigrants and natives.
What is happening in Europe and the US is completely wrong. Especially in Europe, which is a small and demographically dense and diffuse continent.
Grey enlightment,
your text sucks. Luberals are not entirely wrong in what they say, not only have the cognitive capacity to explain.
The Terman study is a great nonsense, with regard to what he tried to prove. Terman wanted to prove that ” child prodigies ” are mentally healthy as other children tend to be. Their motivations were purely emotional and personal. He defined himself as a ” genius ”. ” I, a genius, I can be mentally normal than most other common people ”.
The Terman study failed miserably in its most fundamental hypothesis, prove that humhum, ” geniuses are more mentally healthy normal people ”.
His dear friend Terman, forgot a little detail called creativity. Creativity defines the genius rather than own intelligence itself. He forgot to ” measure ” the creativity of their termites.
Education, in fact, to select certain cognitive profiles, which usually most of the time, not relate to genius at any time, otherwise.
Facts about IQ
It does not measure ” intelligence ” as a whole, measures technical and utilitarian aspects that are important,
It is not synonymous with intelligence, the concept of intelligence as well as the psychological, behavioral and cognitive characteristics of intelligent people can not be summarized to iq,
Kanazawa compared the weight balance with IQ, but the weight scale does not measure all the attributes of weight,
Again, iq measuring the quantitative cognitive traits, but not measure cognitive qualitative traits, which can be measured by psychological counseling,
You can not divide and gifted than ‘non-gifted’ by means of an abstract line as ‘gifted = iq above 130′. As you can not (believe really) divide the earth in borders and meridians,
IQ measures the static utilitarian intelligence, but does not measure dynamics of intelligence in the complex of the environment(s) of human and non-human interactions,
Yes, intelligence is at its base, the ability to adapt, but inside a human social context will be much more complex than compared to animals such as birds,
Iq don’t measure empathy,
Human intelligence is POLYgenic, then, human intelligence manifest in many different ways and combinations (cognitive castes ’cause humans divide themselves in many cognitive specialisations)
Stupid elite is much worse than stupid people, look at South Africa in apartheid era (far from perfection, but increíble because less than 30% of population was white, in true, 1-3% of south africans dominate 98% during 70 years),
If the cognitive elite were abysmally superior to the others, then we would have no more wars, foolish conflicts, mass immigration to Europe, USA and Canada, poverty and unfair inequality.
”Ha! I didn’t see that. I stand corrected. IQ and intelligence aren’t the same thing.”
Swankynast,
Alleluia.
Yes. To say IQ and intelligence are the same thing is stupid.
Correlates very well, but is not same thing. Some people are only ”higher iq”, and not smart. Culture***
That is where we disagree. I do not believe in ‘g,’ nor do I believe that ‘IQ’ correlates particularly well with “intelligence.” IQ measures skills, and it measures useful skills. IQ is very useful.
Thanks for your answers both Santo and Swank
On the question of affirmative action, true, it can be understood in many ways, I meant it as – will it help the black collective to rise from relative poverty etc. I say affirmative action is the opposite of self reliance, wouldn’t all black institutions better help with the formation of a black intelligensia? Is affirmative action even benevolently intended, I’m not so sure.
On the question of integration, which system does it best. Clearly no system seems to be working. Maybe the question should be – why are western countries bothering to try at all. Is there anything sign of a benefit to enjoy at the end of it?
Affirmative action is not the opposite of self reliance. It’s not much different than plus points for legacy, plus points for ‘extracurriculars,’ etc. etc. etc. If a black cognoscenti forms, then that’s a powerful cultural force for the black community.
For the elite, it is excellent to have a stupid people, because with the evolution of technology, they can implant chips in the useful idiots and the rest of mixed and predominantly non-white population to slave them.
For example, more intelligent people there are in England, the greater the danger of the monarchy be destitute.
The black population, as I have spoken here, as are the Amerindians, only that they live in cities and their ancestral cultures were destroyed, or the connection between them and their ancestral cultures disappeared.
There are smart, decent black people, great people, who do not deserve to be put together of black psychopaths low functioning.
This shows a bit that differences in intelligence among human populations is especially a matter of statistics and you can raise many of them intelligence through selective breeding.
English multicultural system and has the American system, hyphens-nationalities. The American system seems to work best, because it respects the diversity of human cultures. But there needs to be the imposition of native values, universally correct, to make it clear to the communities who are the masters of the country but with respect.
That is a theory, a kind marxist theory. Protect capitalism by bringing in scabs.
I don’t understand.
Ok, the theory is that the élite bring in immigrants to divide the lower classes, let them fight on cultural issues and not challenge the capitalist system. Maybe, they even calculate that some ethnic groups will be less prone to revolt, maybe. All that requires pretty long term thinking on the part of the élites, and coordination. Are they so coordinated?
Yes, i think they are very coordinated.
Also…self-reliance is a joke anyway.
— If a black cognoscenti forms, then that’s a powerful cultural force for the black community.
Yes, and how will that come about? My guess is not via affirmative action. Affirmative action confuses and tears the black communitiy apart, and lord knows if that is not its exact purpose.
Disagree about AA.
”Ashkenazi Jews have a lower visio-spatial IQ, if not, they are not renowned for their crafts.
Correct, Ashkenazi Jews don’t really produce things, they work in professions that are in the service sectors, instead of making stuff for a living. He has no civilization like the Europeans because he can’t build. Well, now he does in Israel, but Israel is disgustingly shoddy for a Western Nation, with billions of dollars of money poured in from the USA. So he’s very bad at it.
One needs to distinguish him from his counterpart, the Sephardic Jew from Spain and Portugal. Much smaller in population, many of them became “Spaniards” through force and also assimilation. The Sephardic is more noble, of honor, and has done well in crafts (which is needed for civilization).”
JS,
i think sephardic are less endogamic than ashkenazim or have less psychopatic personalities proportion.
I think I have some Sephardic descent, the colonial period. Speculation. Western European Jews seem to be a mix between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Sephardim have the same predispositions, but are less extreme than in Ashkenazi.
Many Jews are high-level inventors, ” maybe ” at the same rate as whites Caucasoids. However, the proportion of Jews in professions that are not ‘things producers” is considerably higher because of the higher verbal IQ.
In areas with large numbers of Ashkenazi and European sephardim in Israel, the standard of living may be higher. Israel is very confusing.
”That is where we disagree. I do not believe in ‘g,’ nor do I believe that ‘IQ’ correlates particularly well with “intelligence.” IQ measures skills, and it measures useful skills. IQ is very useful.”
Swank,
I believe in the concept of g. IQ correlates well with intelligence, but that does not mean everything and in itself it is to a major fault.
Very useful to modern civilization?? useful to what??
acredite ou não, eu sou Papai Noel nem espanhol nem um Aspie. Mas quem faz longos comentários enfadonhos e converte-os com google translate é um Aspie de certeza.
selecao 1, germany 7.
Mas é um mala, disso eu não tenho dúvidas. Enfadonhos?? Se enxergue, inseto!! Seus comentários são ad vomitorium, confusos, estúpidos, infantis, colocas ”falácia de Rushton”, ”cérebros de elefantes são maiores que de humanos”, ”os antigos antropólogos determinaram que os andameses pertenciam à raça negra”, como argumento… Faça me o favor, querido!
‘G’ is simply not real. Spearman’s g is gone, anyway. G(f) and G(c) are all that we have left for “falsifiable” hypothesis. First, SLODR kaboshes a lot of g’s importance. Second, overwhelming evidence suggests that G(f) can be altered and trained. Third, most gaps around the world appear to be environmental, save the “anamolous” black-white gap. Fourth, there are too many examples of outlier environments having a marked effect on performance (Feynman, Unabomber, etc.)…Jensen would say ‘oh yeah right, they’d have to have 1/10mil environment for that kind of boost,’ but it occurred to me that the sheer difference between goal-oriented, focused parenting, and lax parenting is more like 0/1 than some continuous distribution. As in, there’s a random distribution of try-less parents, and then on the far, far, far, far, far, far, far, right…you would have these extreme environments.
G is no real Like ADHD?
The question is how much of this adaption is intelligence versus an involuntary reflex? If you place an obstacle in front of a path of ants , the ants will go around it. is this adaptability to a change in environment due to the ants having the IQ of a 3-year old or some auto-reflex? I suspect the later. Pumkin seems to be moving the goal posts, by trying to create a new definition for intelligence that isn’t measured by tests. If some group or individual doesn’t score well on IQ tests but seems ‘well adapted’ to his environment then he’s equally intelligent as someone who does sore well.
Did some googling on IQ vs. Intelligence and I found a wishy- washy definition that seems to conflate IQ with EQ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201212/can-we-stop-confusing-iq-intelligence
A behavior or an activity that seems stupid to outsiders may seem rational to the high-IQ person. There’s a lot of subjectivity, which is why administered IQ tests are so useful in creating a more objective way of measuring intelligence.
Actually i think IQ tests do a good job measuring the mental ability to adapt your environment to your advantage. Populations that score low (bushmen & pygmies) are poor & powerless. Populations that score high are rich & influential (Ashkenazi jews)
Scientists have done the most to adapt our environment to humanity’s advantage & they have high IQs
So IQ is an excellent measure of intelligence (cognitive adaptability) but not perfect because the mind is so complex
EQ tests are all over the map. Many seem to be measuring personality traits not intelligence
”’So IQ is an excellent measure of intelligence (cognitive NOVEL AND CONTEXTUAL adaptability) but not perfect because the mind is so complex.”
http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com.br/2010/10/unexpected-benefits-of-poor-working.html
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/02/10/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
Yes, is more complex.
Intelligence and personality relate considerably. We are not talking about computers, but human beings.
I don`t know who to say ”Inteligent people can do stupid things”
Stupid is a stupid does.
Pingback: The IQ of President Obama | Pumpkin Person