One of the weapons IQ deniers try to use against IQ tests is the fact that culture loaded crystallized tests of intelligence like vocabulary and general knowledge appear to be more heritable than culture reduced “fluid” tests of intelligence that call for spatial reasoning and novel problem solving. This fact has been used by IQ skeptics to argue that so-called genetic innate IQ is really just acquired knowledge and skill, and that there’s no such thing as culture reduced tests or measures of fluid ability.
Admittedly, it is ironic that tests like general knowledge (who wrote the novel Beloved?) and vocabulary (define the word “obsolete”) would be better measures of innate genetic ability than tests that directly measure your ability to solve novel problems, because IQ tests were created in the first place to measure native intelligence independent of school learning, and indeed tests like general knowledge and vocabulary were initially rejected by psychologists as too education loaded to measure innate talent, so why are heritability studies showing the opposite? Scholar Scott Barry Kaufman explains it as follows:
The researchers argue that their findings are best understood in terms of genotype-environment covariance, in which cognitive abilities and knowledge dynamically feed off each other. Those with a proclivity to engage in cognitive complexity will tend to seek out intellectually demanding environments. As they develop higher levels of cognitive ability, they will also tend to achieve relatively higher levels of knowledge. More knowledge will make it more likely that they will eventually end up in more cognitively demanding environments, which will facilitate the development of an even wider range of knowledge and skills. According to Kees-Jan Kan and colleagues, societal demands influence the development and interaction of multiple cognitive abilities and knowledge, thus causing positive correlations among each other, and giving rise to the general intelligence factor.
To be clear: these findings do not mean that differences in intelligence are entirely determined by culture. Numerous researchers have found that the structure of cognitive abilities is strongly influenced by genes (although we haven’t the foggiest idea which genes are reliably important). What these findings do suggest is that there is a much greater role of culture, education, and experience in the development of intelligence than mainstream theories of intelligence have assumed.
I have a different explanation. I think what’s really going on is that verbal ability is more heritable than spatial ability, and since most of the crystallized tests are verbal, and most of the fluid tests are spatial, experts are falsely assuming crystallized scores are more heritable than fluid scores, when really the connection might be largely spurious.
Why would verbal ability be more heritable than spatial ability? Most likely because as social animals who depend on the cumulative knowledge of many generations to survive, the verbal ability to learn from your culture was more useful to most humans than the spatial ability to create tools and shelter on your own, so when the brain suffers numerous environmental insults (prenatal malnutrition, hits to the head, alcohol, drugs etc) it evolved to preserve our verbal abilities and verbal memories over non-verbal intellect. Since verbal ability (which tends to be emphasized on knowledge tests) is less sensitive to environmental damage, it better reflects our genetic potential.
A second reason why knowledge tests might be more heritable than ability tests is that your performance at learning new tasks and solving novel problems vacillates dramatically based on the amount of sleep you’ve had and how much alcohol you’ve consumed or whether or not you have dementia, or simply how motivated you are on a particular day. By contrast, your performance on tests of general knowledge is much less influenced by any of these factors, so rather than measuring your ability and willingness to learn new tasks on a given day (fluid test), crystallized tests reliably measure how much you have learned over an entire life time, allowing factors like fatigue, alcohol, dementia, and motivation, to cancel out. In other words, a reliable indirect measure of intelligence (crystallized knowledge tests) is often more useful than an unreliable direct measure (fluid ability tests).
A third reason why crystallized knowledge tests might be more heritable than fluid ability tests is that the former are just better measures of general intelligence (g) and g is the most genetic component of IQ. A century of research shows that the more complex and abstract a task is, the more it loads on Spearman’s g factor, and acquiring knowledge over a lifetime is a very complex mental task. Acquiring vocabulary in particular requires lots of abstract reasoning because of the very subtle distinctions between how people use words in different contexts, and the many abstract concepts these words describe. By contrast, a lot of fluid tests are spatial, which tends to require less abstraction, but more concrete and mechanical practical hands-on ability.
A final reason why crystallized knowledge tests might be more heritable than fluid ability tests is that we live in a society where almost everyone is so over-educated by endless schooling, television, the internet, etc, that virtually everyone in First World Western countries has the opportunity to learn about virtually everything, so differences in knowledge largely just reflect inequality that is genetic rather than socio-economic. But in studies where there are large differences in social environments, crystallized knowledge becomes less heritable than fluid ability. For example, scholar Richard Lynn wrote:
…improvements in cognitive stimulation would be expected to act most strongly on the verbal-educational abilities which are learned formally and informally in the family and in schools, and least strongly on the visuo-spatial abilities. The verbal IQs of the Wechsler are more highly correlated than the performance IQs with socio-economic status (0.21 and 0.08 respectively in the calculation of Jensen & Reynolds, 1982). Similarly in Dumaret’s (1985) adoption study in France in which lower class infants were adopted by professional families and compared with their half siblings who remained with their biological mothers, the adopted siblings at the age of approx. 9-10 yr showed a 20 IQ point superiority in the verbal scale of the WISC but only an 8 IQ point superiority on the performance scale. The most straightforward interpretation of these results is that the better cognitive stimulation provided by higher SES parents acts more strongly on the verbal abilities. This is further supported by the results of Burks (1928) and Starr and Weinberg (1976) that the adopting parent-adopted child correlation for vocabulary is higher than for other abilities.
In addition, excellent research in the 1920s showed that canal boat children who lived a nomadic existence where they were virtually deprived of schooling, showed massive declines in IQ as they got older. Because IQ tests are normed for age, and because these kids were kept out of school they fell further and further behind their chronological age-mates on the type of knowledge that IQ tests measure. Young canal boat kids would have an IQ around 90, but older canal boat kids would have an IQ of 60. However in a footnote on page 1001 of this document, scholar Arthur Jensen reveals that this extreme social deprivation mostly afflicted crystallized knowledge, while leaving scores on fluid ability preserved:
When the canal boat children were tested on nonverbal performance tests, there was much less decline in scores and the average IQ of the children was 82, which is a typical value for unskilled workers, as the canal boat people were. Fewer than 1 in 10 obtained performance IQs below 70, and in fact there was a slight positive correlation between performance IQ and age.
Chuck (aka John Fuerst) criticized Kees-Jan Kan, et al’s article on heritability and culture-loaded tests here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141117114821/http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/literacy-and-numeracy-in-england-by-race/#comment-4155
Thanks for the link. I wasn’t aware he had discussed this.
Because verbal ability correlates strongly with autobiographic mememory**
Yes. When environment damages the brain, evolution would preserve the parts that memorized life experience & generational
knowledge, because cultural learning was key to our survival. That’s why verbal IQ is less sensetive to environment and thus more genetic i think
Yes, Verbal iq is ”accumulative” but of course , have individual ceiling . I Strongly disagree with Cale theory about supposed superior spatial iq to understand reality. I think unique and Intellectually functional personality profile that correlates with cognitive wisdom. Aboriginous have higher spatial intelligence an don’t seems to be wises.
It isnt my theory, its just what suggest pumpkins ideal method to mesure intelligence. Read my last comment on the article “some thoughts on the nature of intelligence” in which I suggest that according to pumpkins method spatial IQ might be superior but I also say this method could be wrong and I explain why.
I have already said on another comment that verbal subtests were more g loaded and that gifted people were more likely to have a verbal IQ > spatial IQ because of the higher sensibility to stress of spatial subtests(gifted tends to be hypersensible).
Aborigenes doesnt appear to have a high spatial IQ .
Btw Pumpkin, do you think that spatial IQ is more sensible to malnutition because it is a more basic and primitive ability which develop more before verbal IQ ? May be malnutition affect less verbal IQ and executive fonction because they are more developed later in life (not really when the baby is in his mothers womb) ?
By Lynn, aboriginous score higher in some spatial subtests.
Btw Pumpkin, do you think that spatial IQ is more sensible to malnutition because it is a more basic and primitive ability which develop more before verbal IQ ? May be malnutition affect less verbal IQ and executive fonction because they are more developed later in life (not really when the baby is in his mothers womb) ?
Interesting theory Cale, but it would be very hard to test. For example, we could look at people who developed malnutrition late in life, but these would probably also show the verbal > spatial profile, but for a different reason.
Verbal tests measure crystallized knowledge acquired before the onset of malnutrition, while spatial tests measure current functioning so of course they’d be more sensitive. What is needed is a verbal test that is almost entirely fluid, or at least as fluid as the spatial tests. These exist but they’re rare.
well, all human beings or most human beings can learn a language. Seems, verbal capacity is more fixed while spatial is more recessive.
I think fluid intelligence comes from the parietal lobes and that crystallized intelligence comes from the frontal lobes. I deal with fatigue allot but I got into 99th percentile of the stoop test. My brother plays video game better than me but he is impulsive and when I play games I make few mistakes with puzzles, he learns them by trying out all possible combinations really fast. I am trying to expand my awareness so I can be faster. In Buddhism its called absorption. This uses the thalamus to stabilize perception. I also have bad anxiety in my amygdala so I find it hard to read wikipedia continuously. Sometimes the concepts get too hard because the become unrelated to the basic concepts needed to understand them. A few days ago I figured out why the speed of light is a constant and a year ago I saw a video about why dark matter does not exist because mathematically we exist in the 3rd dimension not the 2nd dimension. These concepts are not explained to people and is why I have trouble learning from such study materials. I do not have the right reference frames to extrapolate from.
I do not play video games any more since 2009 and I spend about 10 hours a day on the internet. I take Omega-3 and I am trying to get a job because I am on SSDI but want get on a better diet. I would go to school too much brain fog and I do not think you really learn stuff in school just networking. I want to learn about computers and A.I. but I cannot do the “basics courses” because I can’t memorize things.
Word association makes it easier to memorize things.
Wikipedia is not good as textbook. With a job, your self-esteem should improve and your anxiety will improve as well . 10 hours in the pc tire anyone, even the most workaholics programmers. Try to exercise as well. This will likely improve the brainfog.
Wow o wow…I was wondering when you were going to talk about this.
I’ll write more later…
wow o wow, that’s brilliant, or wow o wow, that’s stupid. 🙂 I guess we’ll have to wait for you to write more.
You forgot about Raven’s Progressive Matrices
Wait hold on I have a better response, I need to go to work though first.
pee pee’s entire blog, like those of all hbdtards. is an attempt to save psychology from its rightful place among tarot cards and astrology and palm reading etc.
adhd prevalence by us state:
autism prevalence by us state:
hbd = pseudoscience for people to dumb to get a phd in psychology. phd in psychology = person too dumb to get a phd in natural science.
psychology and economics and anthropology departments and social science departments only exist to allow people too fucking retarded to be in college to get degrees and thus support the pretense of equal opportunity and social mobility.
they do enormous harm every day. bill clinton and barry and michelle obama both have ug degrees in social sciences.
all social science divisions should be shut down and their students made to work at the city dump.
hbd = pseudoscience for people to dumb to get a phd in psychology. phd in psychology = person too dumb to get a phd in natural science.
hbd troll = person too dumb to discuss hbd
by their own retarded standards i’m smarter than any hbder.
You’re smart on the SAT (and similar tests like the GRE), but the SAT only correlates 0.7 with g.
So in the average case, an IQ of 160 on the SAT (assuming you even scored that) become 0.7(160 – 100) + 100 = 142 on a pure test of g.
And then unless you’re a rare case, your constant boozing has likely had an absolutely devastating effect on your level of fluid g & you could be easily below 130 by now, but you’ve acquired enough crystallized knowledge from back when you had a functioning brain to convince my more naive readers that you’re still smart.
And of course, constantly telling people how smart you are almost everyday for about a year has been an effective strategy. Propaganda works best when you keep the message simple and constantly repeat it.
you don’t even know what g is fucktard.
yet more proof that hbders are mentally retarded:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/22/3/317/
constantly repeated but hbders are too fucking retarded and evil to get it.
and then unless you’re a rare case, your constant boozing has likely had an absolutely devastating effect on your level of fluid g & you could be easily below 130 by now,
no such effect exists pp. you just made it up. alcohol has no effect on IQ. none. let alone a 30 point effect.
you’re such a fucking prole. did you parents raise you to worship rich people, spend like a drunken sailor, eschew drink, and be a racist piece of shit? or did you just inherit their prole genes?
this from a candian prole who discusses above how “crystallized” iq is more heritable than “fluid” iq, yet how “fluid” iq is the basis of “crystallized” iq.
you’re just an ignoramus with a low iq, both fluid and crystallized pp. learn to live with your disability.
and aside from the crystallized/fluid dichotomy being nominal only, just more psycho-babble, it has been shown that dichorionic and monchorionic twins are most discordant in the heritabilities of their “fluid” iq scores.
prole racist morons are so self-contradictory.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115802/intelligence-and-drinking-studies-say-theres-correlation
you might cite a swedish study, but its subjects were all adolescent swedish proles.
i drank hardly anything until i was 25.
if anything moderate alcohol use improves cognitive ability in the old.
even wk there’s no reduction in iq. there is a reduction in some tests. yes! but none of these would ever be included in an iq battery.
pp’s one of those proles who believes what she’s told, nevermind the facts.
it used to beclaimed that marijuana lowered iq by a lot.
well…NOT TRUE. it has NO effect.
of course given her learning disability pee pee will simply dismiss ALL DATA FROM PEOPLE UNDER AGE 18.
SHE CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THAT THAT’S ALMOST ALL THE DATA THERE IS. ADULTS DON’T TAKE IQ TESTS.
no such effect exists pp. you just made it up. alcohol has no effect on IQ. none. let alone a 30 point effect.
Don’t be stupid, of course it has an effect. though I never claimed 30 points; as usual you’re having comprehension problems. My point was that an IQ 160 SAT score would statistically predict about a 142 fluid IQ score in NON-DRINKERS…if you significantly under-performed that prediction, it might imply some decline. Either way, you should cut it down.
you’re such a fucking prole.
Salt of the earth.
did you parents raise you to worship rich people, spend like a drunken sailor, eschew drink, and be a racist piece of shit? or did you just inherit their prole genes?
Neither. My family is very anti-HBD, to the point where I can’t even discuss it without getting them extremely upset. I suspect my interest in HBD was caused by a genetic mutation that altered my personality, to find this kind of thing endlessly fascinating, but it has nothing to do with racism, which I abhor.
this from a candian prole who discusses above how “crystallized” iq is more heritable than “fluid” iq, yet how “fluid” iq is the basis of “crystallized” iq.
you’re just an ignoramus with a low iq, both fluid and crystallized pp. learn to live with your disability.
Actually it’s you who’s too disabled to follow a very simple argument which is that an indirect measure of your ability to learn (crystalized IQ) is more heritable than a direct measure of your ability to learn (fluid IQ) because the latter is just a snapshot of your functioning at a brief moment in time, while the former is the cumulative knowledge of a lifetime of learning.
Now my theory might be completely wrong, but you’ve failed to show why.
and aside from the crystallized/fluid dichotomy being nominal only, just more psycho-babble, it has been shown that dichorionic and monchorionic twins are most discordant in the heritabilities of their “fluid” iq scores.
The problem again is the crystallized/fluid dichotomy gets confounded with the verbal/spatial dichotomy. As I’ve explained, spatial IQ is more sensitive to prenatal conditions for reasons I explained in my post.
i drank hardly anything until i was 25.
if anything moderate alcohol use improves cognitive ability in the old.
The key word is “moderate”
even wk there’s no reduction in iq. there is a reduction in some tests. yes! but none of these would ever be included in an iq battery.
That sounds wrong. In the early 1940s David Wechsler showed that while non-pathological alcoholics had very normal overall IQs, they were impaired on four key Wechsler abilities: verbal abstract reasoning, auditory memory, unstructured spatial organization, and grapho-motor speed. Of course inferring causation is always hard, but Wechsler compared old and young alcoholics too.
Over the 20th century, several studies largely replicated Wechsler’s landmark discovery, and it was a conservative one, because as you imply, the tests most sensitive to neurological damage are excluded from even the Wechsler scales.
And while longitudinal studies are few and far between, these too tend to confirm Wechsler’s findings.
Adhd exist???
If hbd’dears are too dumb why you don’t comment in leftist blogs??
Idiot, they’ve found genes for socio-economic status. Where’s your “pseudoscience” accusation now>?
Mate, do you even keep up with the literature?
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2015108a.html
Plomin’s gon n’dun found out the genes for high intelligence through GWAS on high IQ individuals. Guess what, more rare variants involved than in normal IQ range.
mate, you’re too fucking retarded to discuss this topic. you don’t even understand the little literature you try to read.
no genes have been found to have a stat sig, reproducible, and environment independent effect on any behaviora trait. none.
http://memecrunch.com/meme/3OVBP/that-s-the-fact-jack/image.jpg?w=817&c=1
apparently you don’t understand what stat sig, reproducible, and environment independent mean.
if plomin’s study is ever repeated its results will NOT be reproduced.
mark my words.
dear fucking god chuck,
i took your word for it, but you didn’t even read the abstract! let alone “keep up with the literature”.
We did not observe any individual protein-altering variants that are reproducibly associated with extremely high intelligence and within the entire distribution of intelligence. Moreover, no significant associations were found for multiple rare alleles within individual genes. However, analyses using genome-wide similarity between unrelated individuals (genome-wide complex trait analysis) indicate that the genotyped functional protein-altering variation yields a heritability estimate of 17.4% (s.e. 1.7%) based on a liability model. In addition, investigation of nominally significant associations revealed fewer rare alleles associated with extremely high intelligence than would be expected under the null hypothesis. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that rare functional alleles are more frequently detrimental than beneficial to intelligence.
let me ‘splain this to you fucktard.
it means that plomin and his circus of fucktards are still holding out hope that common vaiants will explain the heritability.
but this is becoming less and less likely, laughably unlikely:
http://www.nature.com/news/smart-genes-prove-elusive-1.15858
—BGI volunteer
You’re too stupid to talk to, buddy.
“it means that plomin and his circus of fucktards are still holding out hope that common vaiants will explain the heritability.
but this is becoming less and less likely, laughably unlikely”
And you’re accusing me of not reading the literature? Read up, fucktard:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518920/
And more on IQ:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26240470
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/2/41
Additivity:
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000008
The latest in the literature. You’re way way behind, friend!
i’m way behind?
you can’t even read the abstract, let alone the whole paper, let alone understand it.
all of your citations are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.
but you’re too fucking retarded to understand why.
here’s a LIE from one of your IRRELEVANT citations:
Common variants can account for about half the heritability of intelligence and show promise that collaborative efforts will identify more causal genetic variants.
except they DON’T account for ANY OF IT!
100s of alleles cause mental retardation, yet no allele has ANY IQ raising effect.
ALL (non-retarded) HUMANS ARE COGNITIVE SECRETARIATS. HUMANS AS A SPECIES HAVE REACHED A SELECTION LIMIT.
“all of your citations are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.”
You say without reading any. Try to admit being wrong once in a while. But I guess neuroticism is heritable, ain’t nothing you can do about that 😉
The Bell Curve was basically a book about the NLSY, a large longitudinal study which for historical reasons was administered a highly g-loaded test. Whole chapters are pretty much just “this is the relationship between IQ and X in the cohort. This is the relationship between IQ and X after controlling for Y and Z…” Not much more to it than that.
You probably also think that Charles Murray was a bad scholar or some, whatchamacallit? Racist? Well, read:
R/S is essentially the change in the trait over a short space in time. That is what h^2 comes from. While the response in one generation can be used to model the response over a short interval, over longer intervals or where the environment varies, the model will break down. The tangent to a curve != the curve.
The trait itself seems to be a moving target; for example, the FE indicates that in addition to g changing between cultures, it also changes between cohorts in time.
That is incorrect, swank. This is a good explanation of why:
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2015/08/explain-it-to-me-like-im-five-years-old.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/on-best-understanding-nisbett-and-co.html
https://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/book-review-the-ten-thousand-year-explosion-2009-by-greg-cochran-and-henry-harpending/
Cochran & Harpending’s 10,000 Year Explosion is probably the best HBD book around. It would definitely benefit to read for all you HBD ignorants.
Well…Jorge is right again. None of those links even scratched the point I made, Chuck.
“no genes have been found to have a stat sig, reproducible, and environment independent effect on any behaviora trait. none.”
Dude, you’re fucking retarded. That’s what was expected all along! Every behavioral trait is heritable, but the heritability is made up of many many genes of small effects!
Steven Pinker mentions that in this interview also:
http://www.ipscell.com/2015/08/stevenpinker/
“We now know that heritable psychological traits such as intelligence and personality are the product of hundreds or thousands of genes, each with a tiny effect, many of which may have harmful effects as well, such as an increased risk of neurological disease or cancer. With each enhancement gene providing a nugatory benefit and a non-negligible risk”
anti-HBDers are MORONS
uhhhh….
rrrrrr…
so the effect is so small it can never be detected?
better to read your horoscope than your genome.
many genes of small effect is code for…
no genes of any effect.
Wasn’t it suggested that the genes for certain Ashkenazi diseases are linked to their high IQs. Has anyone looked at those genes?
yes supposedly gaucher’s is iq enhancing as is heterozygosity for tay sachs.
but these claims are 1. uncorroborated, 2. unique.
even in the case of looks environment plays a big roll.
the good looking are more symmetric supposedly. symmetry is a congenital and developmental trait which can’t be genetic.
then there’s adiposity and physical fitness and clear skin, etc. all of which are heritable yet 100% environmental.
Speaking of the genetics of fat, Robert Lindsay went on a hilarious rant against those who say it’s 80% genetic. Also check out the comment section for response by Lion of the Judah-sphere:
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/the-problem-with-the-notion-that-obesity-is-80-genetic/
and that’s just mercastan/white-trashistan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/
http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/researchers-track-down-autism-rates-across-the-globe
Shared heritability among twins or biological relatives may no have same % of heritability than ”classical” or ”conceptual heritability, intergerational transmissive heritability, fathers to sons, 😉
The problem is that even if crystallized g does include impacts from education/environment, it doesn’t mean that crystallized intelligence is any less genetic. What I mean is that genetics cause you to seek out education and good environments. Someone with low crystallized ability could be put at Eton or given the best private education, but because they aren’t genetically suited to seeking out information, their crystallized intelligence will hardly go up at all. Someone with high crystal. could be put in a 1st world ghetto and they’ll seek out knowledge anyhow despite being in a shitty environment. SO it’s kinda like GxE interactions, but the environments are caused directly by genes.
I like your theory that fluid intelligence is impacted by stress moreso than crystallized. Do you have any papers backing this up? Also, what are some example of fluid verbal tests, and spatial crystallized tests?
Lastly, I scored 19/19 on both Information and Vocabulary but my working memory score is only 106. So since working memory is less g-loaded, does that mean I should value my Info and Vocab scores more, thereby acknowledging my genius and intellectual superiority? 🙂 🙂 🙂
I hope no one is jealous of me.
What it’s actually called is the last gasp of a failed paradigm.
GE covariance essentially concedes the arguments against heritability and whether the traits are determined, but it holds on to some form of genetic determination.
The “genes cause you to create/seek out environments” line doesn’t make sense. Is that what was selected for in humans? The ability to seek out certain environments? Seems like another attribute was selected for: the ability to respond to whatever environment one found himself in and specialize cognitively in order to thrive in that environment.
Hence, blacks and poor people are “street smart” and “wise.” A black guy is the world’s best poker player!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/making-time-for-kids-study-says-quality-trumps-quantity/2015/03/28/10813192-d378-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html
“GE covariance essentially concedes the arguments against heritability and whether the traits are determined”
[b]FALSE[/b]
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/why-do-rich-parents-give-birth-to-rich-kids/
“The “genes cause you to create/seek out environments” line doesn’t make sense.”
Bullshit.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/
And the same is true of this link batch.
It’s simple, do you believe that humans learn how to thrive in their current environment or not?
Except they don’t, intelligence is a result of natural selection.
Look at Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence by Cochran, and learn about the Breeder’s Equation.
indeed it is the result of intense natural selection which is why it likely exhibits low genetic variance and heritability among humans and why the only “genes” found are mutations that cause mental disorders.
and what was “selected for?” it wasn’t fixed action patterns. it was an ability to readily learn from an environment, not ‘seek out environments.’
byproduct of varying levels of IQ
Which assumes children start out with different levels of IQ, which is false. There is no IQ to measure at birth; higher order cognitive processes are virtually zero, and they only emerge through interaction with the environment.
what other model would you propose?
I haven’t proposed another model. I’m drawing different implications from the same GE correlation model, based on what likely evolved in humans and what we observe in society. Poor people increasingly experience the reality of being poor; rich people experience the opposite, and the two realities increasingly diverge.
But then you have to explain why genetic variance also increases for traits like height.
Only if you believe height is like IQ, which it seems like you do, even though it’s less selected for, less plastic, has a higher beneficial mutation rate, and thus more likely to vary for “genetically determined” reasons between and within populations.
Hi Swank,
I’ve been following Robert Lindsay’s blog ever since I’ve been banned. We are also exchanging mails in private and the guy is even more disturbing taken alone.
I have an option for you, you know Robert’s concerns are all about politeness and respectability so it would be great if you leave his comment section and let him with the insane morons that his posts attract.
With respect to me, I won’t waste my time on any HBD (scientific racism, put frankly) blog anymore. I may be there times to times backing some of your arguments with my insight on certain topics. But I’ve given up on the idea of having objective discussions. We’re dealing with mental illness in this dark part of the web.
Hey, “afrosapiens”
Can you afrocentrists explain:
And what about the Baltimore crime rates recently?
How about you, Swank? lol I doubt you have much to say
The problem is that even if crystallized g does include impacts from education/environment, it doesn’t mean that crystallized intelligence is any less genetic. What I mean is that genetics cause you to seek out education and good environments.
That’s a plausible explanation for the higher genetic loading of crystallized IQ, but I think it’s simpler to just say that crystallized IQ is more genetic because it samples a lifetime of learning ability, while fluid IQ just samples how well you learn at the exact moment of the test, which can be influenced by fatigue, drugs, alcohol, anxiety, motivation, etc.
I like your theory that fluid intelligence is impacted by stress moreso than crystallized. Do you have any papers backing this up?
Understanding that fluid ability and non-verbal ability get confounded in the research, the evidence I’ve seen comes from Lynn who talks about how verbal-educational abilities are less sensitive to nutrition (including prenatal nutrition) than visuo-spatial abilities:
Other evidence comes from studies of the elderly where crystallized word recognition
is used as a proxy for premorbid IQ because it’s apparently less sensitive to cognitive ageing:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01510.x/pdf
Also, what are some example of fluid verbal tests,
Certain items on the Wechsler Similarities test though the scoring is very crystallized. Any verbal analogy item would be considered fluid assuming the question and answer required only basic vocabulary.
and spatial crystallized tests?
Probably the Picture Completion subtest on the Wechsler. Tests of mechanical knowledge. Even picture vocabulary tests to a some degree. I suppose among the deaf, sign language vocabulary is spatial crystallized.
Lastly, I scored 19/19 on both Information and Vocabulary but my working memory score is only 106. So since working memory is less g-loaded, does that mean I should value my Info and Vocab scores more, thereby acknowledging my genius and intellectual superiority?
Info and vocab are both more g loaded and genetic than digit span, yes., but a composite score of all tests is much more so
Thanks for clarifying the fluid/verbal/crystal/spatial thing, that makes a lot of sense.
I always used to think that Raven’s Progressive Matrices was one of the most g-loaded tests but I guess that I changed at some point.
Why do blacks do better on the SAT verbal than SAT math even though SAT verbal is more g-loaded?
I always used to think that Raven’s Progressive Matrices was one of the most g-loaded tests but I guess that I changed at some point.
It is very g loaded
Why do blacks do better on the SAT verbal than SAT math even though SAT verbal is more g-loaded?
According to Jensen, blacks have lower g but when you control for g or overall IQ, blacks do better than whites on short-term memory, worse than whites on spatial ability, and equal to whites on verbal ability, so perhaps the SAT math has a large spatial component.
Also one reason the math is less g loaded is probably that it’s more sensitive to schooling than even the verbal. I doubt kids in lower middle class or inner city schools are getting much practice at algebra and geometry.
I think Mugabe is probably actually pretty smart (IQ > 130) but he sits at home in his mom”s basement all day, masturbating and posting on HBD blogs. No way a fully employed person has that much time to comment.
i only hang out in your mom’s basement, lion, with your mom.
she just has to have the john holmes dick.
In your dreams Duke of Leinster!
My mom doesn’t even like drunk autistics.
Jorge,
What accounts for variance in mental abilities?
I think you labor under the typical mind fallacy and greatly underestimate your abilities. No matter how hard I study, I could never get a perfect score on the GRE. Hell, I wanted to be an engineer. I studied 18 hours a day, but I finally realized that I would never be able to keep up with my peers who could solve problems much faster than I could.
It’s possible that I am retarded. But it sure seems like abilities seem to cluster in families even when the parents let their kids go feral. A classmate in engineering school came from four generations of engineers. He was brilliant at it despite the fact that he barely talked to his father and never knew his x-fathers. I, however, came from laborers who did everything in their power to expose me to science and engineering growing up.
It took a lot of really depressing self-reflection that maybe people have, as they used to say, talents and no amount of effort can overcome it.
I just wish that I hadn’t destroyed most of my life with the the particularly American Delusion of You Can Be Anything You Want to Be. Instead, I could have taken tests when I was young to figure out at what I’d be good–probably being a laborer lol *sigh*
why doesn’t everyone score the same on tests?
why would an arab fail a test on some tractate of the talmud given in hebrew in haifa?
why would pele have been a bad american football player?
why would dennis lillee have been stuck in the minors of major league baseball?
why was reinhold messner better adapted to high altitude than any tibetan?
the vs in “nature vs nurture” isn’t exclusive. each person is a result of an often circuitous and unpredictable trajectory which is harder to undo the older it is.
in humans the behavioral/psychological phenotype results from an interaction of genes and environment. it does not result from genes or environment independently.
rather than ask what environment would make every idiot smart, it is much more instructive to ask yourself how might your environment have been different such that you would have been a world beater?
“in humans the behavioral/psychological phenotype results from an interaction of genes and environment. it does not result from genes or environment independently.”
Twin studies have always proven independent effects.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html
except they haven’t.
and those doing these studies are too fucking retarded to understand what an independent effect is. let alone the fucktarded fucktards who take them seriously.
Two men with equal “muscle memory ability” pick up an instrument. The first man learns good habits because he follows a book and has a teacher. The second man has neither and learns several bad habits. Eventually, they will both reach a point of technique that the first man will be able to surpass, because he has learned good habits and ingrained good muscle memory, but the second man will not be able to surpass this barrier because he has done the opposite.
So in this instance, it is true that the second man will probably never overtake the first man and that “muscle memory” differences are responsible for their divergence and also that both men could have reached the same potential.
”Extremist environmentalist” have lack of self-awareness and self knowledge potential, most part of time people just make self-projection when they defend some idea or ideology. Our ideas expose us.
Schopenhauer,
my case, my mathematic ability stopped in the 12 years old ”mental age”. this people who say ”environment is a cause for cognitive differences” make me mad!!!
The ”uber-specialists” in nothing!!!
Logically i would like to be (cognitively, technically) smart on everything but not, certain little ”thing” called biology tell me that i’m not brilliant, even average, in mathematics. My elastic for numeric abstractions is little.
Of course all of us are unique individuals but it doesn’t mean that all of us have the same quantitative potential.
“I have a different explanation”
May I know Pumpkinperson’s scientific legitimacy ?
None.
KJK tore apart his would-be detractors here
http://humanvarieties.org/2014/05/15/research-on-genetic-g-and-differential-heritabilities/
If you want to, you give me contact information for me to share you a consterning private conversation I have with Robert Lindsay. It’s against my moral principles but I’m really mad at him gossiping about me on his blog. What kind of real man does that ?
You linked to a blogpost about pseudoscience not too long ago. Go comment on that blog. We can talk there.
Oh and you know there is one very important thing that scientific racism does not integrate. They downplay Verbal IQ (in which group differences are low) thinking it only equates smooth talking, litterary talent and “lower” intellectual skills of this kind.
Actually, verbal IQ is the most important, it is the ability of understanding and using any written and spoken information, it does not describe your ability for poetry or using upper language register. It just means understanding precisely the meaning of a word in its context and being able to deal with man-made information transmitted on any support.
Non-verbal IQ, which try to find one’s fluid intelligence deals more with real time strategy, and how to solve problems for which no or little man-made information can help. It is the intelligence of manual work, sports, creativity and many other things HBDers have little respect for.
Now that I’m leaving the HBD thing, I’m impressed by their level of ignorance, their ignorance of the world that leads them to their moronic theories and more importantly, their ignorance of each notion that is a the core of their theories, like heritabiliy as you pointlessly repeat it on Robert’s blog.
Is that other blog yours ?
Nope.
Ok, I will like to share my experience in the heart of the HBD blogosphere, have a lot to say about the load of mental illness, hatred, dishonesty and obvious stupidity there.
None.
KJK tore apart his would-be detractors here
http://humanvarieties.org/2014/05/15/research-on-genetic-g-and-differential-heritabilities/
What the hell does that have to do with my scientific legitimacy? I didn’t partake in that discussion. Although I agree that I have no scientific legitimacy…I’m just giving my opinions like everyone else.
Hi Afrosapiens, glad to see you here. I’m sorry you got banned from Robert Lindsay’s blog. Even I’ve been banned from his blog so don’t take it personally.
Anyways there are a lot of very open-minded people in the HBD-o-sphere; you might even pursuade a few if you treat us with respect and give us the benefit of the doubt
No offense to you Pumpkin Person, I’m just saying it because you know, in scientific racism blogs, your theory can become something taken as reliable scientific information.
You know, I see you are creating IQ estimates of persons and races. You can’t do it, you can’t do it, you’re not administering tests to anyone. All of what you do is purely fictional. If you want to call some people “niggers” you don’t need that pseudoscientific make-up. I believe you live in the country where freedom of speech is total, no matter how false, no matter how wrong the said speech.
I got mad when I saw Robert Lindsay is still talking sh*t about me when I’ve been banned for days now. Can’t he just leave me alone if he does not give me a right of response ?
As I said before, I started commenting on HBD blogs thinking opponents were sane and objective. From an outsider’s point of view, you look like people who know what they are talking about as long as you are just talking to each others. It’s only when mentally balanced contradictors come crashing your party that you expose the real you, that you expose your ignorance, your psychopathy, your hatred. I’m not talking about you in particular, just a global trend in this cyber-community.
I’m a regular traveler to Africa, I thought at first that you draw your conclusions from a similar experience and knowledge as mine. I told myself, well, they went there, read a lot about Africa, they don’t understand what they have experienced and learned so they’re only left with this theory which makes no sense whatsoever to me because I went there and understood quite well their situation.
At first I thought we would discuss real African issues, not myths. You know I’m not even denying that they currently score lower on IQ tests, It is just obvious to me that these tests do not reflect their actual potential and neither do they reflect their current intellectual performance. They are incredibly wise and ingenious in my eyes and that’s the first thing that appears to anyone visiting the continent: how they make a lot from little. So I thought we would be able to discuss why they don’t turn individual ability into a common, organized collective effort. But you’re far away from asking yourselves this kind of questions.
So now, I’m not wasting my time in HBD the sphere anymore, I will only talk about Africa with Africans as I’ve always done before Dylan Roof brought me in your ugly blogosphere.
Well Afrosapians, there are a few black people (including our very own Lion of the Judah-sphere) who believe HBD, so even if it is true, it’s no big deal.
There are all kinds of groups differences in IQ. Rich people tend to score higher than poor people. Educated people score higher than uneducated people. Tall people score higher than short people. Scrawny people score higher than robust people. Big headed people score higher than small headed people. Anti-racialists score higher than racialists etc. All of us belong to at least one group that scores low on these tests for whatever reason.
The black-white IQ gap is only one IQ gap out of many, and hardcore HBDers only believe the genetic component is about 1.33 SD at the most, and that’s only between “pure” blacks and whites (hybrids it’s even smaller). To put that in perspective, a 1.33 SD gap in adult male height is only about 3.4 inches.
Regardless of whether HBD is true or false, these are only average differences and there are many many brilliant blacks, so enjoy the debate and don’t let it disturb you, because your anger will be more toxic to you than it will be to the racists.
“so even if it is true, it’s no big deal.”
It does not need to be true to be a huge problem. I don’t think you will have the intellectual honesty to admit to it now but in a rigorous scientific perspective, HBD is totally false. Yet, you have a neo-nazi institution (the Pioneer Fund) and quite influential publications that claim it to be irrefutably true and call for eugenic policies based on it. Eugenics is recognized as one form of genocide and is a crime against humanity. And you could tell me, well all blacks are not dumb but:
1) apparently, low IQ is only a problem in black people while the 16-18% of White Americans who score below the African American mean do not seem to be targeted by any of these remedial solutions.
2) You have invented this “regression to the mean” thing that clearly tells us that high or normal IQ blacks are just abnormal and that their offspring are doomed to become irrefutable hoodrats. So, it’s better to sterilize all of them (all of us) so the whole race will be “phased out” as Lynn said.
So, I won’t say that your theories are not offensive wether they are true or false, they have already done and still do too much harm. Now I think it’s time the sane part of you says OK, it’s not funny anymore, we are inventing whatever because we are ignorant and we’d rather get better informed before saying some people are inferior.
“because your anger will be more toxic to you than it will be to the racists.”
No don’t worry for me i’m doing well in life, I’m currently pissed off, not because of the theories. I’ve been taking them as jokes all along. No my anger is a man-to-man thing with Robert Lindsay, I’m even sorry to be here trashing you while you don’t deserve it any more than other blogers in the HBD-sphere. I just can’t stand Lindsay’s childish and girlish attitude.
So I thought we would be able to discuss why they don’t turn individual ability into a common, organized collective effort.
intelligence is a social phenomenon.
but the aglo-prole-sphere and hbders even more remain individualists — autistic.
individual psychological traits aren’t individual…because there are no individuals.
the individual’s traits would be bifferent in a different society as would be the “adaptability” or lack thereof of his traits.
the individual is an ideological fiction. the individual; results from an interaction of his genome, his society, and to an often much smaller extent his particular experience.
the explanation of social stratification and balkanization with “individual differences” —political hereditism— is IDEOLOGY BOLD FACED ALL CAPS.
shop girl thatcher even said, “there is no such thing as society.”
the opposite of the truth…a fanciful idea turned into a “fact”.
hereditism is a form of autism. and this also because hereditism is motivated by an inability or unwillingness to see the very person one is as contingent.
You have invented this “regression to the mean” thing that clearly tells us that high or normal IQ blacks are just abnormal and that their offspring are doomed to become irrefutable hoodrats. So, it’s better to sterilize all of them (all of us) so the whole race will be “phased out” as Lynn said.
I think you or whoever you got this from is misinterpreting “regression to the mean”. You regress to the mean of your recent lineage, not the mean of your entire race/population.
The latter interpretation would mean natural selection as we know it couldn’t happen.
See, HBD relies on a big fallacy that works that way:
1) heritability = genetics,
2) genetics = race
So from the speculated 50-80% heritability of IQ, they come to the conclusion that inter-racial IQ gaps are 50-80% genetic in origin.
Only verry limited cognitive function can lead to such a misinterpretation because:
1) heritability estimated by twin studies does not corresponds to the share of one’s IQ that may be attributed to genetics.
2) from genetics to race, there is a universe separating the two.
@lion
You know, when they see samples of high IQ blacks, often African immigrants, they always invent studies that find their children to fall down to the African genetic IQ in the high 80s.
And they never see the glass half full, regression also implies progression, it would mean that 70IQ African Americans should see their children scoring close to the high 80s, which is enough to be a perfectly teachable kid and functional adult. But no, appearently, we all need to be phased out.
Swank, KJK didn’t debunk anything.
I cite Nyborg, 2003 here, you can find the part I quote in the pdf link and read the defense of g, which goes against what KJK says:
“Researchers who are concerned with this structure in one way or another, like Bums & Nettelbeck (in press). Case, Demetriou,
Platsidou & Kazi (2001), Deary (2000), Garlick (in press), Jensen (1998), and Plomin
(1999) can be assured that a general factor g exists, along with a series of second-order factors that measure broad special abilities. “
Another good sources that tears apart KJK’s contention:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6761supp/full/402c25a0.html
From Nyborg 2003 (http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth_Nyborg_The_Scientific_Study_of_General_IBookos.org_.pdf)
read Chapter 7: Molecular Genetics and g
“The case for substantial genetic influence on g is stronger than for any other
(Mackintosh 1998) human characteristic. As Jensen says in his overview of genetic
research in The g Factor, “the following concatenation of several overwhelmingly wellestabhshed
facts in behavioral genetics is impossible to explain or understand without
invoking a substantial degree of broad heritability of IQ” (Jensen 1998: 177)”
The case for substantial genetic influence on g is stronger than for any other
(Mackintosh 1998) human characteristic…
right. it’s stronger than for huntington’s disease and reintoblastoma and early onset alazheimer’s…
of course not.
1. the “evidence” isn’t evidence.
2. there is no such thing as g.
3. what is claimed as “evidence” for psychological traits is strongest for IQ.
it goes without saying…unless you’re an hbder…and therefore mentally and morally and socially retarded:
1. psychology is a pseudoscience which attracts the dumbest college students.
2. jensen was a moron.
“1. the “evidence” isn’t evidence.”
Weak. Read Nyborg 2003, Plomin wrote whole of chapter 7 compiling the evidence. I linked the pdf you lazy disingenuous fuck, for fucks sake…
“2. there is no such thing as g.”
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/
“3. what is claimed as “evidence” for psychological traits is strongest for IQ.”
Recent twin studies show higher heritability and lower non-shared and zero shared environment for many behavioral traits. Most of these papers authored / co-authored by Brian B. Boutwell, look up on google scholar.
“intelligence is a social phenomenon.”
Bullshit.
“individual psychological traits aren’t individual…because there are no individuals.
the individual’s traits would be bifferent in a different society as would be the “adaptability” or lack thereof of his traits.”
Complete and utter bullshit.
“—political hereditism— is IDEOLOGY BOLD FACED ALL CAPS.”
The only ideologue here is you.
“Political hereditism” is a fabrication of your deluded mind. Even since E. O. Wilson debunked Gould and his bullshit ideas of “punctuated equilibrium” and evolution stopping at the neck, it has been apparent that anti-racists and anti-HBDers have had absolutely nothing to their claims. But that wasn’t enough, then we went on to Jensen having to debunk Flynn and Nisbett. The bullshit just keeps on a comin’
IQ is highly predictive of most categories of life outcomes. (Childhood SES matters a bit, yes, but IQ typically dominates it.) In order to make this point, Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve demonstrated that IQ measures in blacks what it does in whites, i.e. that IQ tests are not significantly culturally biased and hence predict outcomes in both groups.
And no, the adult black-white IQ gap has not been fixed by any intervention thus far, and some have done their best on this question: Perry Preschool, the Abecedarian project, the Infant Health and Development Program, straight-up adoption at birth… nothing we’ve tried so far fixes the IQ gap. Let’s assume the most convenient possible world for the statistical issues that each intervention raises. (I’m referring to honest difficulties in experimental design, not hackery as in the case of the Milwaukee Project). Then we’re looking at, at best, +1/3 sigma in adulthood. And none of them scale. We should continue to look for effective interventions, because the potential benefits of a working, scalable program are very high and hey who knows. But to my knowledge “this can’t be fixed” is a pretty fair gloss of the literature at present, so I don’t understand quoting it as though it were self-evidently preposterous.
Carl, any program made with “fix these people once for good” mentality is doomed to fail.
The parralel reality of head-start does not sets people to deal with their true teenage and adult environment. It’s not their kinky neurons that take over after being straightened up, it’s the life as black persons in the US that just catches up to them as they grow up.
The heritability that increase with age is just due to the fact than one more year of life is one more year of dealing with a similar environment. Not that the thousands of genes involved in cognition all have the property of reaching the peak of their influence in adulthood.
There isn’t much evidence for “racism” in society to begin with, it’s almost mythical. Neither is there any reason to think that that would depress black IQs. The IQ race gap is found throughout all SES groups, too. That’s hard to explain for the environmentalists.
If racism substantially depresses IQ, differences in racism should cause differences in IQ. So let’s grant a gentle set of assumptions that I think approximate “the consensus view” about race relations in America. Like, stuff you could say in public.
Assumption 1: white racism towards blacks has decreased measurably. It’s not zero, but it’s gone down. For example, consider the below graph:
On every question asked, racist attitudes have decreased. If I’m reading this graph correctly, all but one of the questions were eventually discontinued, probably because the racist response dropped too low.
Assumption 2: Other racial minorities in the U.S. experience racial discrimination of some sort. Surely no one doubts that Hispanics and Native Americans have gotten the short ends of various sticks throughout American history. East Asians too but, uh, nevermind. So all of these other groups get lumped into “Other”. I don’t have data for this, but I’m just granting the consensus that everyone knows.
Contrary to both hypotheses, the black and white IQ gap has not dissipated as racism has gone down. I don’t need to cite a graph for this, I don’t think. The second hypothesis is self evidently wrong.
Sorry sir, where did I talk about racism ?
It’s funny the way you HBDers are able to find non-existant information in any text, how the hell did you get from “life as a black person” to “racism” ?
Check your verbal IQ, seriously.
If “life as a black person” means “life as a person genetically predisposed to a lower IQ range” then I’m not disagreeing with you. That’s exactly why the interventions fail, they assume that IQ can be raised.
No it means “life as a person environmentally predisposed to a lower IQ range” and you can’t disagree with me on this one.
IQ is 80% or more heritable. If you’re denying this, then you’re denying the finding that behavior genetics has found over and over again.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/
of course it’s predictive fucktard…
but that’s MEANINGLESS…
because society is not a mere heap of atomic individuals.
intelligence is a socxial phenomenon. without society one couldn’t even speak and would never have learned arithmatic.
chuck has a very low IQ. get into the bgi study chuck. then have an opinion. and in general:
HBDers’ IQs are too low to respond to anymore. they can’t be reformed. they can only be laughed at. but if they ever have any power then they’ll have to be defeated by force of arms.
the bullshit asymmetry principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
From heredity to race-related heredity, there is quite a gap.
Moreover, I have no issues denying what behavioral genetics find since its status as a science is highly debated and its fidings quite scrace and fragile.
“They are incredibly wise and ingenious in my eyes and that’s the first thing that appears to anyone visiting the continent: how they make a lot from little. ”
————
LOL, but that’s just not true, Afrosapiens. You argue with strong emotions, while telling obviously untruthful things back and forth at the same time.
Above: you can tell whatever in your eyes, no problem as that’s just an opinion. But is that really “appears to ANYONE visiting the continent”?
Leave “how they make A LOT from little” aside(because that A LOT may appear quite a little in eyes of others, as without comparison anything can be called A LOT), why don’t you bother to ask why “from LITTLE” to start with? And It has been “little” for quite some centries, don’t you think?
Your “100% environmental” opinion is worth nothing except you can predict things according to it, and can be proven true later. Only then it’ll become something to be respected.
HBD can predict most things closed related to the topic with high accuracy.
Can your “theory” predict the racial-breakup rankings of incoming PISA results as per country? Or the A levels result in England of 2015, 2016? or SAT results for 2016, 2017…? or your baccalauréat / le bac result of 2016? or the general provincial ranking for the Chinese Gaokao for the next year?…etc
You can’t.
HBD pretty much can.
Why?
The only thing you can predict with consistancy according to your “100% environmental” opinion is that your prediction result would be pretty much negatively corrected to the facts on the ground, right? ROFL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_hypotheses_suggested_by_the_data
But what does that suppose to mean, swank? ROFL.
You put up a theory. You go predicting things according to your theory.
Then you check up the facts on the ground. Simples.
But what does that suppose to mean, swank?
Exactly the point.
Panda, I won’t discuss things with you. You just don’t know anything on whatever topic you try to handle. You don’t even understand the very concepts your theories are based on. And please, stop your LOLs, ROFLs and third person self-reffering. It makes you look even more stupid.
Thanks, not NO, Panda rejects resolutely your suggestion. LOL.
Panda’s talking to you is purely out of courtesy and politeness. You seem to have a not very good habbit that whenever your blatant lying and self-contradictions are exposed by others, you frequently resort to ad-hom attack.
Do you think you are worth Panda’s effort to engage you a bit seriously if you’re not even honest with yourself when you lie casually in the hope of swindling through arguments naively assuming that Panda’s IQ and morality are in the same category of yours hence either hasn’t taken or is unwilling to take notice? Oops, isn’t this also determined “100% by environmental factors ” according to your own theory , is it? ROFL
Since Afrosapiens has joined our blog and has started on a emotional rampage, I feel the need to respond:
I can understand your anger a little bit. I actually read JP Rushton back in middle school and I remember being somewhat shocked but not too surprised by what he said. Even though I mostly grew in a middle class environment in a major southern city with a lot of smart black people, I always questioned the standard environmental thesis that some people or races did poorly in life because of racism, poverty or discrimination, or whatever other excuse (in the same way I always questioned religion- it just seemed stupid to me). If anything, the fact I knew smart blacks made me question the environmental hypothesis even more, because I saw they succeeded despite supposed discrimination
Later on, in my late teens, I started reading blogs and books that solidified and confirmed my understanding of racial differences in IQ and other factors. None of this was too disturbing to me because most of it seemed obvious. And besides, HBD just represents what most people thought for most of history- racial differences exist, so deal with it. It’s only in the post-1960s West that people have been so butt-hurt over race.
Of course, most people would think I’m crazy for being black and believing in IQ racial differences, so I don’t even discuss them. But I score high on the general factor of correctness (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/23/the-general-factor-of-correctness/#comment-221882) and prefer to be rational than believe what’s popular. It’s always been hard for me to believe in bullshit, and I always like to call out the emperor when he has no clothing.
I do worry though that if knowledge of racial differences came out that it could affect me or my family members. Many, or maybe most people, will not see racial differences objectively and understand that there is range in a trait for every population. They will not understand that there are smart and creative members of every race; they will simply think that everyone of any given race can be assigned the same traits regardless of who they actually are. In other words, it will give more credence to racist generalizations for many people. Worst yet, people might argue for the return of Jim Crow, and I know from my grandparents how terrible that was.
Of course, many if not most people are racist anyhow. But public knowledge of this will cause people to be less sympathetic to members of minorities races like you and me who try to be contributing members of society.
But on the flip side, I hope that knowledge of racial differences can improve social relations. Contrary to what many HBDers think, I believe knowledge of racial differences will lead to socialist policies that help bring the less able up, and help conservatives realize that not everyone can do it by themselves. Of course, I believe such welfare policies should be accompanied by eugenics, which will be the most important policy outcome of all HBD-theorizing. I wouldn’t even mind forced eugenics on prison inmates and other institutionalized people, but I think eugenics should be mostly voluntary.
Afrosapiens, you’re very smart guy, but like a lot of people in the non-sciences, you approach things emotionally. Nothing wrong with that; very few people, even Spocks, are totally emotion-less with regards to issues they hold near and dear to them. You’re not an expert on these topics, just a layman, so have a little more modesty in what you know. As Santoculto might argue, a sign of true intelligence is havng the “meta-knowledge” or self-awareness to know when you’re wrong.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. And don’t get too caught up in people on the internet; a lot of bloggers have ulterior motives and are not entirely fair in how they moderate. Robert Lindsay is an interesting writer but he bans people randomly and purposely tries to create controversy to bring in more readers. And besides, he lives on welfare and seems like a crook. So don’t put too much stock into what he thinks.
Yes, that all sounds nice but….
Roughly parity on the Terra Nova test
“For Bahamas and Bermudas, a 13% European ancestry was documented in British African-Caribbeans.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01441.x/full#ss14
and also…
“Based on the incomplete and unanalyzed DZA IQ correlations that have been published, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference between the MISTRA MZA and DZA groups on either the Wechsler (WAIS) IQ test (MZA correlation = .62, versus DZA = .50), or the Raven Progressive Matrices IQ test (MZA correlation =.55, versus DZA = .42).”
I did not join the blog, I tried to join swank.
I don’t believe you’re weird being a black HBDer, ignorance and prejudice, even self-directed make no racial distinctions. I don’t remember if it’s you who put the black American history of oppression at the same level as that of the Jews and the Asians, not making any nuance between a huge mass of unvoluntary migrants who were brought as non-humans and tiny populations of highly self-selected migrants who came when America was willing to accept them and who had the drive of people starting their lives over. So I think by this simple observation, I can tell you’re not really able to identify the meaningful factors that give weight to the environmental mainstream position.
And you know, you can call me an emotional no specialist but there are no specialists in HBD, only soft and hard believers. It’s just intellectual laziness, ignorance, hatred and mental illness that variably contribute to each one of you to get convinced by your theories even when you often face their limits.
Regarding Robert lindsay, I know he’s a low-life I privately tested his morality, I even tried to corrupt him and he was not far from accepting. The deal was that I would make him live over the international poverty threshold of 2$ a day, and he made a public dismissal of HBD. He wanted the money, but not the whole deal. It would not have bothered me buying an HBD blog, I’m a wealthy dude and I would have found it hilarious to be the black man maintaining the racist white afloat 🙂 .
For the record Lindsay commented on this blog about his income sources saying:
I live off a trust fund, and I also work as a therapist. I make some money writing and I do a few other things like brokering deals between consultants and clients, things like that. The reason I do not work is due to health. I am not in good enough health to work. Otherwise I have been working or in school my whole life. My last job title was Linguist/Cultural Anthropologist.
Yes it was in response to Anti-hereditarian, my former pseudonym.
Pure BS in my opinion.
And how did you call me a “semi-intelligent Negroid” ? Were you out of your mind ? A real man does not disrespect someone who can’t take part in the argument.
I was being silly. You’re very intelligent and I meant no disrespect. And Robert Lindsay is just being a douchebag.
You should not allow yourself being silly when you write over and over about other’s genetic inferiority. Come on, be a man one second.
Just for everyone’s information:
Definition: Verbal intelligence is the ability to analyze information and solve problems using language-based reasoning.
Verbal tasks may involve concepts such as:
-Concrete or abstract ideas;
-or Internalized language-based reasoning.
Verbal tasks involve skills such as:
-The ability to listen to and recall spoken information;
-Understanding the meaning of written or spoken information;
-Solving language based problems of a literary, logical, or social type;
-Understanding the relationships between language concepts and performing language analogies or comparisons; and
-The ability to perform complex language-based analysis.
Verbal reasoning is important in most aspects of school work. Reading and language arts tasks required verbal reasoning skills. Even the more abstract courses such as math and physics require verbal reasoning skills, as most concepts are either introduced orally by the teacher or introduced in written form in a textbook.
Verbal reasoning is typically assessed in a full intellectual assessment of IQ. Basic verbal reasoning may also be evaluated through brief intelligence tests and language assessment.
___________________________________
Verbal IQ is the most important in any human society
Pingback: Gene-environment active covariance | Pumpkin Person
Pingback: About My Employment Status | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay
Pingback: Race Differences in Intelligence –