Commenter and blogger destructure recently wrote on this blog:
…People from different groups who may have an individual IQ of 70 are not the same because different groups have different averages. The further away from the average one gets, the more likely it is to be the result of a defect. For example, a person with an IQ of 85 from a group that averages 100 is still within 1 stdv. There’s probably nothing functionally wrong with them or at least nothing serious. They’re just not very bright. If you go 2 stdv’s to 70 then it’s no longer an issue of being not bright. The deviation from the norm is so great that there is something wrong with them. However, a person with an IQ of 70 from a group that averages 85 is still only 1 stdv frm average. There’s nothing functionally wrong with them either. They’re similarly not very bright for their group. But you’d have to go lower, perhaps 60 or so, before you started to see the same kind of functional problems you would for someone from a group that averages 100.
To make the point, chimpanzees are often quoted as scoring from 35 to 50 on IQ tests. Yet they’re not defective.
destructure is 100% correct. A Chimpanzee with an IQ of 40 is far more functional than a human with an IQ of 40 because chimpanzees evolved to function (in their narrow environment) with an IQ that low, and thus evolved other abilities that compensate for a lack of overall intelligence, including certain cognitive abilities as this video illustrates:
I also believe that low IQ human races tend to have certain other compensatory cognitive abilities such as relatively high social IQ, relatively high rhythm IQ or size constancy (the ability to estimate the size of an object at a distance). Richard Lynn claims that Bushmen and pygmies have the lowest IQs of any human population but cites studies showing they have superior size constancy than whites and says “it implies that the ability may have deteriorated in European and East Asian peoples who gave up hunting about 8,000 years ago and adopted agriculture.”
What this suggests is that low IQ populations may actually be smarter when it comes to adapting to certain situations than high IQ populations , but the real test of intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt in a wide range of environments and situations. Brain size tripled in 4 million years of evolution to make room for more and more cognitive abilities, and increasingly general cognitive abilities (i.e. abstract reasoning) until humans had a large and flexible enough behavioral repertoire to adapt in almost any environment on Earth, and perhaps some beyond.
that explains pp. IQ = 45, but can still type.
pp should volunteer for the BGI study. she could be part of the “familial retardate” group for the sake of comparison with the actual volunteers.
but i jest. pp’s not a “familial retardate”. in addition to lacking a Y chromosome, she has several extra autosomal chromosomes.
that explains pp. IQ = 45, but can still type.
If my IQ’s 45, then yours must be 15 because I can do math and you can’t.
But your genetic IQ is probably 25.
Alcohol robbed you of 10 points.
pp should volunteer for the BGI study. she could be part of the “familial retardate” group for the sake of comparison with the actual volunteers.
You didn’t even know what a familial retardate was until I explained it to you.
What’s ironic is that for a while there were studies claiming working memory = the g factor, and yet chimp WM exceeds humans.
Destructure boiled down and popularized Rushton’s explanation very well.
And nobody said working memory = the g factor. The claim was that expanding the working memory was a quick way to a boost, where other types of practice helped little. It’s almost the opposite of g-factor.
Dude, lots of people claimed working memory was more or less the g factor:
http://jtoomim.org/brain-training/working%20memory%20is%20almost%20perfectly%20predicted%20by%20g.pdf
working memory of what?
what was the info being remembered?
every type of info may have its own working memory capacity for each individual.
chimps more working memory than humans?
no! just more than Blasian. but that’s not a high bar. that’s the limbo world record!
Blasian, g is just whatever causes all mental abilities to positively correlate within a given population. It’s not necessarily the same thing between populations or between species, though it might be.
But the ambiguity is why I prefer to define intelligence as cognitive adaptability, rather than as g, although the two concepts would be very highly correlated among biologically normal humans at the very least.
Like a saying a person with an IQ 100 can function well in life, but would not function too well at the MIT math department . Nothing groundbreaking here
Richard Lynn claims that Bushmen and pygmies have the lowest IQs of any human population but cites studies showing they have superior size constancy than whites and says “it implies that the ability may have deteriorated in European and East Asian peoples who gave up hunting about 8,000 years ago and adopted agriculture.”
A cheetah has superior speed. A hawk can see really well. does’t make it smarter. compensatory ability is moving the goalposts if the purpose of the discussion is about intelligence
moving the goalposts? what is “intelligence” other than one game among many?
you’re just another FUCKTARD!
He’s not.
You are.
A cheetah has superior speed. A hawk can see really well. does’t make it smarter. compensatory ability is moving the goalposts if the purpose of the discussion is about intelligence
The difference is vision and speed are sensory and physical abilities respectively. Size constancy is a mental ability and thus part of intelligence, but admittedly not a very large or important part in the grand scheme of things. Abstract reasoning is a much bigger part.
So, the people living in the (according to Rushton) wildly unpredictable and variable environment, somehow did not develop the ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental situations. The people who went to an environment that was more predictable and less variable somehow developed an ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental situations.
The original people in that unpredictable environment developed “compensatory traits” like charisma, etc. that should be positively correlated with IQ (after all, IQ is correlated with height, verbal ability, and many other things we associate with charisma), but the people who went up North and who were selected for IQ lost those abilities.
…
Mmmhm…
soon i will post a picture of a plastic replica of my giant penis.
So, the people living in the (according to Rushton) wildly unpredictable and variable environment, somehow did not develop the ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental situations. The people who went to an environment that was more predictable and less variable somehow developed an ability to adapt to a wide range of environmental situations.
You evolve the ability to adapt when you encounter new environments. Since primate brain size grew when we left the trees for the open savannah (a new environment), and then again when we left the tropics where we lived for millions of years for the newness of freezing cold of Eurasia.
The original people in that unpredictable environment developed “compensatory traits” like charisma, etc. that should be positively correlated with IQ (after all, IQ is correlated with height, verbal ability, and many other things we associate with charisma), but the people who went up North and who were selected for IQ lost those abilities.
Unless an IQ correlate is directly causal (i.e. brain size), IQ correlations within populations are often different from IQ correlations between populations
Lol………
Now quoting one of the originators of r/k selection theory gets deleted?
No, going on & on gets deleted.
Well tell a consistent story and I won’t have to explain why it’s inconsistent or why it’s at odds with actual science.
HBD tells a very consistent story. Far more parsimonious & elegant than what you consider “actual science”.