A few random thoughts:
Too bad about Charlie Rose not being the upstanding gentleman the World thought he was. This is the third time in the past few years a talented interviewer (seemingly) lost his show because of a sex scandal, the first two being CBC radio’s Jian Ghomeshi and Fox News’s Bill O’reilly.
I suspect part of what happened in Rose’s case is that a lot of women were star struck by his power and celebrity, and Rose misinterpreted this as sexual interest since as a former college basketball player and media elite, he was used to women being attracted to him. But sadly the ageing process catches up with even the most alpha of males, and the ladies are no longer liked him that way.
It will be interesting to see who replaces him on CBS this morning. He and Gayle King Bumpus had such great chemistry and it’s sad to see it potentially end.
Meanwhile, I found this really interesting talk about cross-cultural schizophrenia:
Always cool when the elite psychology professor looks like a psycho himself, and the fact that elite professors are able to look like that, yet still command respect is a testament to their status.
This professor was raised an Orthodox Jew but his IQ was apparently so high he realized there was no God at just 13, though could never tell his father about his atheism.
He clearly has an extremely high verbal IQ, and an extremely high full-scale IQ, but I suspect only average or slightly below average Performance IQ . One thing I love about the WAIS-R is you can be a moron in several ways, yet still end up with an extremely high overall IQ, because intelligence is not a unitary variable, but as Wechsler said, a composite global entity.
real psychos look like patrick bateman, this guy looks like a beta schlub
PP and Mugabe,
Thoughts on GxE versus G+E?
I think IQ follows the P = G + E model for the most part, but if I’m wrong, then twin studies greatly overestimate heritability
For more thoughts, see:
PP expect a piece on GDP/education and IQ soon. I came across an article on eastern German IQ that shows causality running from education/GDP > IQ, not IQ > GDP/education like Lynn and Vanhanen claim.
Economic, educational, and IQ gains in eastern Germany 1990–2006 Eka Roivainen⁎ Verve Rehabilitation, PL404, 90101 Oulu, Finland
Lynn and Vanhanen (2012) have convincingly established that national IQ scores elated positively with GDP, education, and many other social and economic factors. The direction of causality remains debatable. The present study re-examines data from military psychological
assessments of the German federal army that show strong IQ gains of 0.5 IQ point per annum for East German conscripts in the 1990s, after the reunification of the country. An analysis of IQ, GDP, and educational gains in 16 German federal states between 1990 and 1998 shows hat IQ gains had a .89 correlation with GDP gains and a .78 correlation with educational gains. The short time frame excludes significant effects of biological or genetic factors on IQ gains. These observations suggest a causal direction from GDP and education to IQ.
Melo and PP, thoughts?
Check out table 1 in the paper. Very
Very telling *
Lynn always claimed the correlation works in both directions.
I look forward to publishing the guest article.
Well this is solid evidence that the direction isn’t IQ > GDP/education. I await to see Africa’s development to see if it holds. I bet it does.
PP et al,
I will be discussing the finer points or IQ, g, genes, and test construction with this neuroscientist in the near future.
That’s exciting. Will this be on youtube?
Yes. I will post the link when everything is set up.
Mikey Blayze said:
WHY PUMPKIN IS RIGHT ABOUT PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION
So i have changed my views on iq and evolution today. I have accumulated a summary of facts that proves mathematically, Pumpkin is right in that evolution is progressive, and not random.
Based on genetic testing 60% of all men who have ever lived on earth died without reproducing, and then of the 40% who did reproduce, 80% had 1 wife and 2-3 children while the other 20% had tens, dozens, and hundreds of children with multiple wives. Now, since a baby boy being born on earth is 1,000 times more likely to be born to a father with 1,000 children than to a father with lets say 1. That baby boy is born into an akward situation, where he is still most likely to die without reproducing,
because REMEMBER MOST MALES DONT REPRODUCE. The fact that his father had 1,000 children means absolutely nothing. He is still born a baby boy and therefore has a 60% of dieing childless.
perfect example: image a population, half of them die and the other half have 10 children.
those parents AND their children have the fittest genes.
then the children grow up into adults and half of them die.
and the other half of adults have 10 kids.
now those adults are the fittest OF the fittest!
now imagine that going on for thousands of years! this means that evolution is entirely progressive, on an ABSOLUTE SCALE, however not on a RELATIVE SCALE.
example: Ghengis Khan had over 1,000 children however we as in us blog posters have lets say 0-6. in a relative sense he was genetically superior to everyone in his generation, however absolutely compared to us we are genetically superior.
better example, imagine playing an MMORPG like World of Warcraft
max lvl is 60 then an expansion comes out and the new max level is 70
the new lvl 70s are exponentially stronger than the old lvl 60s however the relative difference between two lvl 60s is the same as between two lvl 70s.
Rätzel Virtuality said:
PP, is this realistic, this site claims that David Hasselhoff has an IQ of 73 – 78.
His head seems large.
I doubt Hasselhoff ever scored in the 70s on any reputable IQ test. People just make stuff up as click bait, since it’s almost impossible for celebs to sue for libel in the U.S.