[NOTE FROM PUMPKIN PERSON: PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS HERE. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
When I was tested at age 12, I remembered thinking “how are they going to test my intelligence? Every question you can ask me reflects not just my intelligence, but the knowledge I have acquired. How do you create a test of innate intelligence separate from acquired knowledge?”
One of the reasons I fell in love with the Wechsler scales is that when I finally sat down to be tested, I was blown away by one of the subtests. It was the purest, most culture reduced intelligence test I could imagine. It required nothing but coloured blocks being manipulated to create abstract designs.
It struck me as such a culture free test, that not only could you travel back 2000 years in times and give this test to Jesus, but you could go back 40,000 years and give it to wild Neanderthals.
Another fairly culture reduced test on the Wechsler involved repeating digits from memory, however this would need to be translated into the language of Jesus and Neanderthals to get good results.
Many people don’t think culture reduced tests are possible. I remember asking my cognitive science professor in university what she thought of the idea, and she said the very idea of testing is a cultural act, so no test could be culture fair.
While academics find the idea of comparing different human races on “culture reduced tests” to be anathema, they have no problem comparing the intelligence of humans and non-humans on such tests. For example, a respected study in 2007 by the prestigious Max Planck institute compared “chimps, orangutans and 2.5 year-old children” on a battery of tests and “found all to be about equal in the physical cognitive skills of space, quantities and causality. In the social skills of communication, social learning and theory-of-mind skills, the children were correct in about 74 percent of the trials, while the two ape species were correct only about 33 percent of the time.”
How can intelligence tests be culture reduced enough to compare wildly different species, yet too culturally biased to compare different human cultures?
I think part of the answer is that most of the culture reduced tests used for cross cultural comparison have been paper-pencil tests like the Raven Progressive Matrices, and paper-pencil tests are inherently cultural because they require looking at a page in a culture specific way, and school acquired habits like sitting down and concentrating.
To be truly culture reduced, tests need to have some kind of practical relevance that all cultures can relate to, such as getting food for example, as this test of crow intelligence illustrates:
As Arthur Jensen noted on page 248 of Bias in Mental Testing, more support for culture reduced tests comes from this quote from a psychologist who gave a lot of Performance type IQ tests to Kalahari Bushmen. There was clearly a positive correlation between how well the Bushmen did on these culture reduced tests and how smart the Bushmen considered each other, suggesting the tests were indeed valid for Bushmen. The Bushmen
accepted as a matter of fact that the “clever ones” would do well on them. The kind of individual the Bushmen recommended to us, e.g., as a guide when we needed one or as one whose opinion in important matters must be obtained, tended to have above average scores on our tests. The Bushmen’s concept of “practical intelligence” does not appear to differ essentially from ours (Reuning, 1972, p. 179)
Pumpkin Person 
Culturally reduced tests of intelligence.
in 2007 by the prestigious Max Planck institute compared “chimps, orangutans and 2.5 year-old children” on a battery of tests and “found all to be about equal in the physical cognitive skills of space, quantities and causality. In the social skills of communication, social learning and theory-of-mind skills, the children were correct in about 74 percent of the trials, while the two ape species were correct only about 33 percent of the time.”
Space
Quantity
Causality
social skills of communication
social learning
theory-of-mind
How can we find the common factor? (g)
Animekitty says the if you can keep it in mind you are smart at it.
It does not matter what it is, just hold it there, in mind, and you will get it.
I am still mentally disabled when it comes to drawing. (stick figures)
IQ tests are bound by culture by their very nature. ‘Culture-free/reduced’ tests are impossible.
https://www.scribd.com/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test
I wouldn’t say they’re impossible, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to test animals.
How would you be sure you’d be testing their ‘intelligence’?
Because to pass the test, you must engage in behavior which shows intelligence: goal directed behavioral plasticity
Therefore that is ‘intelligence’? You then extend this to digit span etc and say that that is an ‘intelligence proxy’? How would just those few subtests test ‘intelligence’? You also have to think of confounding and access to cultural/psychological tools along with the sociocognitive-affective nexus.
You also have to think of confounding and access to cultural/psychological tools along with the sociocognitive-affective nexus
Are you saying crows would do better on the rising water test if they were raised by upper class whites?
Your argument makes sense for the SAT & perhaps even the Raven, but doesn’t seem to apply to the kind of tests used in animal research.
When things get more complex the mind can only handle so much complexity until it cannot deal with keeping track of what it is supposed to do. That is why pumpkins blog is way better than mine. Pumpkin can handle a lot more complex than me. My blog posts are much simpler than his. Attracts way less attention.
Cultural fair IQ tests simply make a complex task that is not based on symbols/abstraction/artifacts. They are based on goals achievement. The steps need to achieve goals linearly and nonlearning determines complexity. Socially it’s about knowing how to work together.
I do not even know what my goals are. I am just learning stuff to build up a library of ideas I can use later. I suck at dealing will complex tasks. I relay totally of my 140 IQ information. I know stuff so I can use my 130 logic ability (confirmed as Figureweights) to combine everything I know and into the most reasonable explanation for whatever it is that I have been researching a long time.
Complex test measure complex intelligence.
The tests must be culture fair if the complexity of the test was not an artifact of human design by which I mean the artifact was designed for a human purpose. The complexity of the tests must result from items on the test that the tests take is meant to use to solve a problem without the problem being predefined set how to solve it.
Convergent vs Divergent Thinking.
I get a box of legos, K’nex, professional electronics robotics. And I solve a problem.
That is not on a normal IQ test.
The is an Engineering Personality Genius mechanic guy.
Have you even seen what some people can speed pain in Youtube videos nowadays?
Or the 3D model people make on the computer. Smart people that can make physics engines from scratch.
Convergent vs Divergent Thinking.
The logic I use in my mind is the parietal lobes. 130
But the frontal lobes is where working memory is. I am 95.
I am good at logic but I cannot hold stuff in my mind.
I am not a mechanical genius like my brother.
I only work with what I know 140.
My blog has my ideas on it but they are condensed for clarity.
Divergent thinkers will move things around to find multiple ways of solving problems. IQ tests only want you to solve the problem in one way. this makes IQ tests flawed. What IQ tests should do is measure the complexity of what you can do. that means it should measure if you can handle 3 items or 9 items or 90 items of complexity. And how you are able to manipulate them. Because multiple answers exist. And it must be noted that there is a difference between inside the head and outside the head. Working memory is inside the head. For me, logic is outside the head. I see things in the world and I make conclusions about them based on my information I conclude that under certain rules (causality) things are this or that way and they can be this or that way by applying the rules to make things different.
Culture-fair tests all begin with internal and external mental manipulation of complexity.
my logic is complex my information is complex, my working memory is internal by not complex.
“Complex test measure complex intelligence.”
Based on what criteria? You’re making assertions but have provided no evidence.
RR
You want me to put the qualifier “should measure” in my statement?
Also, you are being obscure, the criteria is in the definition.
And what evidence do I need to provide that my claim that higher intelligence handles higher complexities better than lower intelligence?
If I say computers with larger memory can handle more complex programs and you say I need to provide evidence that makes you look like a fool.
I knew a person at work 6 years ago IQ 85, 30 points lower than me. He was a nice guy but I doubt that the complexity of what he could handle with his mind was very complex.
what evidence do I need to provide that complex things can only be understood by a level of intelligence capable of understanding them?
I can only understand a certain level of complexity. The guy I worked with can only understand a certain level of complexity. I do not see the impossibility of a test capable of measuring the level of complexity a person is capable of understanding.
Asking for more evidence and criteria and stuff like that at this point would just be a failer of creativity. I am making proposals based on a new conception of what intelligence is. IQ tests never tell you what intelligence is. And good Job selecting one sentence from everything else I said. What are the most complex types of things you can understand RaceRealist? What complex things are way to complex for your own understanding so you avoid them? That might show your true level of intelligence RaceRealist. The complexity your mind can handle.
“Are you saying crows would do better on the rising water test if they were raised by upper class whites?”
That was for your assertion on digit span.
“Your argument makes sense for the SAT & perhaps even the Raven, but doesn’t seem to apply to the kind of tests used in animal research.”
Animals are different from humans. You’re attempting to make an analogy for humans to have similar ‘culture-reduced/fair’ tests, but it doesn’t work like that because all IQ tests are steeped in culture. Your attempt to use subtests doesn’t work, either.
For instance, regarding the Wechsler scales, are based on other items that ‘worked’ in other tests.
The other most popular test, the Wechsler (1958) scales, was based broadly on the kinds of items that had been found to ‘work’ in previous tests (Anastasi, 1990). New types of items—especially non-verbal, or so-called ‘performance’ items—have been devised in the same pragmatic way, with little improvement in theory about cognitive processing to guide it (see further below). As Anastasi (1990) said about the Wechsler scales, ‘The weakest feature . . . has been their lack of theoretical grounding, which makes it hard to find a coherent basis for interpretation’ (p. 222)
Click to access 3398d781543cd0edcf51f181074f4c3ff35b.pdf
Your argument on digit span doesn’t seem to work cross-culturally. There were no differences on simple tests, other than Dutch children being “much faster on more complex tasks” (whatever that means, I’ll discuss that in my comment to AK). They used the vocabulary and forward and backward digit span subtests from the WISC. Digit span and SES explained all of those differences. Therefore “cross-cultural performance differences on elementary cognitive tests cannot be interpreted at face value because of their susceptibility to non-target factors, such as test understanding and previous test exposure.”
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/13803610802048833
So it wouldn’t work cross-culturally.
Your attempted analog is invalid; all ‘IQ’ tests are culture-bound.
Animals are different from humans. You’re attempting to make an analogy for humans to have similar ‘culture-reduced/fair’ tests, but it doesn’t work like that because all IQ tests are steeped in culture.
I’m saying that if the cultural differences between humans and animals are not enough to invalidate inter-species testing, why would the much smaller cultural differences within humans preclude intra-species testing? Merely asserting that IQ tests are steeped in culture doesn’t answer that question.
The other most popular test, the Wechsler (1958) scales, was based broadly on the kinds of items that had been found to ‘work’ in previous tests (Anastasi, 1990). New types of items—especially non-verbal, or so-called ‘performance’ items—have been devised in the same pragmatic way, with little improvement in theory about cognitive processing to guide it (see further below). As Anastasi (1990) said about the Wechsler scales, ‘The weakest feature . . . has been their lack of theoretical grounding, which makes it hard to find a coherent basis for interpretation’ (p. 222)
It’s true that when IQ tests were created, they had very little theoretical understanding of why they worked and were just selecting items pragmatically, but now with a hundred years of hindsight, they have a better theoretical understanding of why their tests worked and continue to work.
Your argument on digit span doesn’t seem to work cross-culturally. There were no differences on simple tests, other than Dutch children being “much faster on more complex tasks” (whatever that means, I’ll discuss that in my comment to AK). They used the vocabulary and forward and backward digit span subtests from the WISC. Digit span and SES explained all of those differences. Therefore “cross-cultural performance differences on elementary cognitive tests cannot be interpreted at face value because of their susceptibility to non-target factors, such as test understanding and previous test exposure.”
Interesting research but very contrived interpretation. From what I gather from looking at it, it seems they found cross-cultural differences in ECTs (elementary cognitive tasks) were well explained by a combination of socioeconomic and digit span differences. And this invalidates digit span how? Both SES and Digit Span are proxies for g, so it’s hardly surprising that in combination they would predict another proxy for g (ECTs).
“My blog posts are much simpler than his.”
Are my blogposts more complex than his?
“I do not even know what my goals are. I am just learning stuff to build up a library of ideas I can use later. I suck at dealing will complex tasks. I relay totally of my 140 IQ information. I know stuff so I can use my 130 logic ability (confirmed as Figureweights) to combine everything I know and into the most reasonable explanation for whatever it is that I have been researching a long time.”
Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
“Complex test measure complex intelligence.”
No they don’t.
“The tests must be culture fair if the complexity of the test was not an artifact of human design by which I mean the artifact was designed for a human purpose. The complexity of the tests must result from items on the test that the tests take is meant to use to solve a problem without the problem being predefined set how to solve it.”
All tests are designed by humans. All humans have culture. Therefore all tests have some sort of cultural bias in some way.
“Culture-fair tests all begin with internal and external mental manipulation of complexity.”
Right, using psychological tools which are used to generate processes unique to the problem in question but informed by its underlying informational structure.
“You want me to put the qualifier “should measure” in my statement?”
How ‘should’ they?
“Also, you are being obscure, the criteria is in the definition.”
I’m not being obscure. You’re just making a bunch of assertions sans evidence.
“If I say computers with larger memory can handle more complex programs and you say I need to provide evidence that makes you look like a fool.”
Because it’s more than a computer’s memory that dictates the complex programs it uses. A computer can have a lot of memory but other basic parts and not be able to handle complex programs like a computer with say 2GB lower memory and a more up to date hardware.
“I knew a person at work 6 years ago IQ 85, 30 points lower than me. He was a nice guy but I doubt that the complexity of what he could handle with his mind was very complex.”
How do you know his IQ? What makes your assertion valid?
“Asking for more evidence and criteria and stuff like that at this point would just be a failer of creativity.”
No it’s not because that’s how this works. You make assertions and you need to provide evidence for that assertion when asked.
“What are the most complex types of things you can understand RaceRealist? What complex things are way to complex for your own understanding so you avoid them? That might show your true level of intelligence RaceRealist. The complexity your mind can handle.”
Because I avoid things means things are too complex for me? Or I’m not interested in them? I understand human physiology and anatomy very well; I understand cell biology, I understand how the body works. I know biology. Why does it matter? What about you? My mind can handle a lot of ‘complexity’. I wouldn’t be where I am in life without it.
Complex cognition in real life is more complex than the hardest Raven’s items.
As a result it is suggested that the tests are remarkably un-complex cognitively, especially in relation to the complexities of cognition most people exhibit in everyday tasks and social interaction. Examples of the latter were considered for illustration, as was the reported association between IQ and (complexity of) job performance.
[…]
It was concluded that IQ differences, and apparent differences in ability for complex cognition, arise, at least in part, from differences in cognitive “distance” between multiple cognitive styles rather than in a singular cognitive “strength.”
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/0959354314551163
Are my blogposts more complex than his?
you blogs are solving different problems.
pumpkin developers his own ideas about a subject.
You are more about objective facts data and evidence.
pumpkin is not trying to prove anything but to make plausible models of his topic.
You deconstruct everything because everything must have proof.
I read what you write sometimes it is very inductive.
Pumpkin is abductive.
That does not make a complexity difference.
What it does is make pumpkins blog fun to read and comment on because I am not going to be scrutinized to the bone for my speculative ideas.
I cannot handle pure induction because I just have ideas, and I work in the detail later.
You want the details right, right now. I am just trying to be creative and work it out as I go. People asking me to explain is fine but the step by step by step process is not how I go about it. god that divergent thinking, very random.
Your blog is about details getting everything right step by step forming a conclusion.
Pumpkins blog creates a model of his new idea and explains how it works.
How do you know his IQ? What makes your assertion valid?
He told me. I interacted with him 2 years. I was part of a company that hired disabled persons. I was a custodian like him.
Complex cognition in real life is more complex than the hardest Raven’s items.
I am glad we agree that dealing with complexity at least has something to do with and is important to intelligence.
Example, my inability to draw better than stick figures. I am mentally drawing disabled.
“pumpkin developers his own ideas about a subject.”
Examples? While I agree, most are wrong.
“pumpkin is not trying to prove anything but to make plausible models of his topic.”
Wrong.
“Pumpkin is abductive.”
His conclusion is already in mind.
“That does not make a complexity difference.”
He knows things I don’t know; I know things he doesn’t know.
“I cannot handle pure induction because I just have ideas, and I work in the detail later.”
Take some logic courses.
“Your blog is about details getting everything right step by step forming a conclusion.”
That’s the point.
“Pumpkins blog creates a model of his new idea and explains how it works.”
Examples?
“He told me. I interacted with him 2 years. I was part of a company that hired disabled persons. I was a custodian like him.”
So he was disabled.
“I am glad we agree that dealing with complexity at least has something to do with and is important to intelligence.”
Which IQ tests don’t test. I’ve explained the reasoning why people score differently, on more the verbal/performance tests (WISC, Weschler etc) and the Raven. Everday life is more complex than IQ tests.
“Therefore all tests have some sort of cultural bias in some way.
Wrong. It’s perfectly possible and practical to measure intelligence. IQ isn’t perfect, but it doensnt have to be. Psychological testing does not require 1:1 repeatibility because no test will ever have the same preconditions (something Richardson doesn’t understand).
As demonstrated by me before, there are in fact Evolutionary mechanisms that have been selected for in mammals that produce cognitive functions. Culture in Humans is a feedback loop and it has been empirically demonstrated that within generation gains(among adults, not children) are not hardwired and can disappear without constant practice.
“using psychological tools which are used to generate processes unique to the problem in question but informed by its underlying informational structure.”
Please stop repeating statements after they have already been proven false. You’re starting to act like Pumpkin. In fact I’d appreciate it if you would actually address the 3 or 4 posts i made on these subjects, before continuing to parrot garbage I’ve already debunked.
Anyway, Japanese students would not score higher if Cultural Bias were that deep, you need to address this, not ignore it.
“For instance, regarding the Wechsler scales, are based on other items that ‘worked’ in other tests.”
Exactly social class was not a proxy, it was just the end result, which is to be expected and honestly it’s quite genius the way they excised items on the wechsler because it allows for objective normality in a very subjective field, hence why IQ is the most empirically powerful concept in Psychology.
“Complex cognition in real life is more complex than the hardest Raven’s items.”
Incorrect. Otherwise, you need to go ahead and take the Ravens and then post your score, if it’s not genius level your assertion is invalid. Why is your score so low if the questions were so easy? Did the British Americans pick on you? Did you go to school in the middle east? I thought you were a personal trainer, so you have to have good nutrition right? What’s your excuse. I’m very curious.
“Wrong. It’s perfectly possible and practical to measure intelligence. IQ isn’t perfect, but it doensnt have to be. Psychological testing does not require 1:1 repeatibility because no test will ever have the same preconditions (something Richardson doesn’t understand).”
No. Humans have culture. The items on the tests are cultural. Therefore culture-reduced tests are not possible; other variables also affect this.
“Please stop repeating statements after they have already been proven false. You’re starting to act like Pumpkin. In fact I’d appreciate it if you would actually address the 3 or 4 posts i made on these subjects, before continuing to parrot garbage I’ve already debunked.”
Psychological tools are symbolic artifacts, like signs, symbols, text, and when psychological tools are used, as I’ve already stated, it’s informed by the informational structure. Psychological tools are, too, also cultural tools; cultural tools are socially evolved; different classes have use/have access to differing cultural tools; IQ tests need psychological/cultural tools that are concentrated in higher classes; therefore this differential access to these tools explains test variance (along with the nexus as a whole). It is a logically sound argument. Read Lev Vygotsky.
“Anyway, Japanese students would not score higher if Cultural Bias were that deep, you need to address this, not ignore it.”
Citations? Which tests? Social class?
“hence why IQ is the most empirically powerful concept in Psychology.”
Yea, right. They’re ‘made’ to correlate high; grades low correlation (.05) with job performance; job performance low correlation with IQ; very powerful.
“Exactly social class was not a proxy, it was just the end result, which is to be expected and honestly it’s quite genius the way they excised items on the wechsler because it allows for objective normality in a very subjective field, hence why IQ is the most empirically powerful concept in Psychology.”
Removal of items is subjective. The WAIS is not a good test.
“Incorrect. Otherwise, you need to go ahead and take the Ravens and then post your score, if it’s not genius level your assertion is invalid. Why is your score so low if the questions were so easy? Did the British Americans pick on you? Did you go to school in the middle east? I thought you were a personal trainer, so you have to have good nutrition right? What’s your excuse. I’m very curious.”
Not ‘incorrect’. My arguments don’t hinge on what you’re stating. You can’t say ‘if you don’t do X and get Y then what you’re saying is wrong.’ I have better things to do with my time (and money) than take an ‘IQ’ test. My arguments on the Raven are literally irrelevant to what you’re saying.
“I’m saying that if the cultural differences between humans and animals are not enough to invalidate inter-species testing, why would the much smaller cultural differences within humans preclude intra-species testing? Merely asserting that IQ tests are steeped in culture doesn’t answer that question.”
Because of the sociocognitive-affective nexus; cognitive processing is knowledge-based, so in humans it is structured by engagement of specific cultural tools; so IQ tests screen for one’s ability to use to use peculiar tools to score well on the test. Therefore human cognition is, too, is steeped in culture since the abstraction. So cultural and psychological tools explain test variance. Your claims on animals are not valid; your analog is wrong. Humans are different from other animals; I assertedthat IQ tests are steeped in culture and have provided the logic for the argument; cultural tools are not distributed evenly across social class. Therefore, cultural tools are apart of human existence in any society.
“It’s true that when IQ tests were created, they had very little theoretical understanding of why they worked and were just selecting items pragmatically, but now with a hundred years of hindsight, they have a better theoretical understanding of why their tests worked and continue to work.”
It’s still the same today.
“Interesting research but very contrived interpretation. From what I gather from looking at it, it seems they found cross-cultural differences in ECTs (elementary cognitive tasks) were well explained by a combination of socioeconomic and digit span differences. And this invalidates digit span how? Both SES and Digit Span are proxies for g, so it’s hardly surprising that in combination they would predict another proxy for g (ECTs).”
It invalidates digit span cross-culturally because, again, people are differentially prepared. Is it any wonder that Zimbabweans showed larger performance gains at retest?
‘SES’ is not social class; social class is a compound of factors. Therefore it is confounded, and when they were taught some of the cultural skills they did better.
Regarding your last sentence, you seem confused. Genetic differences are irrelevant; ‘g’ variance is the sociocognitive-affective nexus.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.15252/embr.201744140
Because of the sociocognitive-affective nexus; cognitive processing is knowledge-based, so in humans it is structured by engagement of specific cultural tools; so IQ tests screen for one’s ability to use to use peculiar tools to score well on the test. Therefore human cognition is, too, is steeped in culture since the abstraction. So cultural and psychological tools explain test variance.
So cultural and psychological tools explain why humans do better on the water displacement test than crows? All the extra neurons in our cerebral cortex have nothing to do with it? Better email your hero Suzana Herculano-Houzel to explain that her theory is wrong. 🙂
Your claims on animals are not valid; your analog is wrong. Humans are different from other animals;
That’s my point, RR. If the cultural differences WITHIN humans are enough to invalidate cross-cultural human comparisons, then the difference between humans and animals should invalidate human-animal comparisons even more. And yet virtually no respected scientist denies human cognitive supremacy.
I assertedthat IQ tests are steeped in culture and have provided the logic for the argument; cultural tools are not distributed evenly across social class.
And they’re distributed even less evenly between humans and non-humans. You said it yourself: Humans are different from other animals So we have a huge advantage when it comes to cultural tools, which means all the laboratory research showing humans are smarter than animals must be dismissed as culturally biased according to your logic.
It’s still the same today.
The difference is today we now know the real reason the Wechsler is a good measure of intelligence. Because any set of diverse cognitive tasks will produce a composite score that loads high on g, and it’s g that gives the test most of its predictive power.
It invalidates digit span cross-culturally because, again, people are differentially prepared. Is it any wonder that Zimbabweans showed larger performance gains at retest?
Unless you’re referring specifically to gains on digit span, the retest gains are of little relevance to this discussion
Regarding your last sentence, you seem confused. Genetic differences are irrelevant; ‘g’ variance is the sociocognitive-affective nexus.
You’re now claiming g has no genetic component at all? Seriously?
By the way, this is relevant here.
(1) Mental events cause physical events. (2) All causal relationships are backed by natural laws. (3) No natural laws exist connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist. If psychophysical laws don’t exist, then the mind cannot possibly have been naturally selected—genes also cannot logically cause psychological traits because there are no psychophysical laws.
So mental phenomena are irreducible to physical phenomena, and the mind and body are discrete substances.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/anom-mon/
There is this definition of “biological intelligence” that I think we can agree on, I have not read the thread so maybe someone has covered it already.
In biology, ‘intelligence’, in the broadest sense of the term, refers to the ability of an organism to adapt to its environment through learning and through shaping the environment, the organism employing its cognitive abilities to do so. ‘Intelligence’, in that sense, translates as the ability of an organism to exhibit such adaptive plastic behavior (Stanovich 2009). […] In humans, ourselves, we recognize that such intelligent behavior, such adaptative ability, includes rational decision-making and creative thinking, and wisdom—suggesting that otherwise the risk of non-adaptive, or mal-adaptive, behavior might increase significantly. Intelligent behavior also includes the skill of shaping the environment when it otherwise requires one to adapt to it or suffer suboptimal consequences, and knowing when and how to escape from the environment requiring adaptation (Matthews et al. 2004).
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligence_(biology)
IQ tests surely aren’t designed to measure this type of intelligence. However, I think it can be estimated in some goal-directed tasks. Sports probably offer the best examples of real-time goal-directed behavioral adaptation demands.
I like the definition. I’ve said many times I think intelligence is best defined as the cognitive ability to adapt situations to your advantage: goal directed behavioral plasticity. But I think sports is much too dependent on speed and physical skill to be a good proxy for intelligence, though it obviously correlates with intelligence to some degree.
It’s always possible and easy to adjust for practice and physical advantages when comparing sports performance. But more intelligence should allow one to coordinate more parts of their body and require more spatial awareness than video games and puzzles.
But more intelligence should allow one to coordinate more parts of their body
We should expect some correlation between intelligence & physical coordination, but not a high one, otherwise physically coordinated animals would be intelligent and Mike Tyson & Serena Williams would be smarter than Einstein & Shakespeare.
otherwise physically coordinated animals would be intelligent
All animals are physically coordinated and humans are probably the best coordinated. The human hand must be the most sophisticated non-cerebral organ in nature. I’m personally convinced that many animals would reveal a complex intelligence with a human voice and human hands.
Mike Tyson & Serena Williams would be smarter than Einstein & Shakespeare.
They probably are when it comes to adapting to the challenges of our ancestral environments. Whereas physics and literature are quite futile for survival.
Even without hands dogs are coordinated enough to play basketball:
Tyson & Williams have more muscle & physical speed, but in terms if raw smarts, Einstein & shakespeare might have been better at inventing new tools & using language, which was useful in ancestral times
Even without hands dogs are coordinated enough to play basketball:
This dog isn’t playing baskteball, it’s shooting balls. Playing basketball means catching balls, countering and opponent’s attempts to take them, then eventually shooting.
Tyson & William have more muscle & physical speed, but in terms if raw smarts, Einstein & shakespeare might have been better at inventing new tools & using language, which was useful in ancestral times
There is no way to tell, human technology has remained almost static for most of human history and only exploded recently along with the dramatic increase in global population.
So, it doesn’t appear like the capacity to innovate was an immediate survival necessity. Literature is even less vital.
This dog isn’t playing baskteball, it’s shooting balls. Playing basketball means catching balls, countering and opponent’s attempts to take them, then eventually shooting.
But the point is dogs have great physical coordination and can behave adaptively in rapid physical exchanges. We should look for traits that are uniquely human when measuring intelligence.
There is no way to tell, human technology has remained almost static for most of human history and only exploded recently along with the dramatic increase in global population.
Well adaptive behavior may have remained almost static too. And adaptive behavior is about more than the rapid give and take of sports, and when scientist cite examples of human adaptability, I never hear them talking about rapid physical competitions, but rather acts of thoughtful creativity, such as when humans first discovered that ostrich eggshells could be used to carry water long distances or when they discovered that dipping the blade of a spear in poison could make their weapons more lethal.
But the point is dogs have great physical coordination and can behave adaptively in rapid physical exchanges. We should look for traits that are uniquely human when measuring intelligence.
No they don’t, the dog couldn’t shoot balls on it own without having the woman passing it close enough to the basket. Also, when she hides the ball, the dog just turns around itself and doesn’t looks for the ball. It clearly isn’t clever.
Well adaptive behavior may have remained almost static too. And adaptive behavior is about more than the rapid give and take of sports, and when scientist cite examples of human adaptability, I never hear them talking about rapid physical competitions, but rather acts of thoughtful creativity, such as when humans first discovered that ostrich eggshells could be used to carry water long distances or when they discovered that dipping the blade of a spear in poison could make their weapons more lethal.
Because they can only stick to what the archaeological record provides as evidence for evolution in cultural practices. And there is probably very little about human behavior that isn’t cultural to a substantial amount, so if we’re in search of measure of raw mental quickness, reactivity and strategy in sports probably is the best candidate.
This study right here finds associations between motor development and cognitive and adaptive skills.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/06/24/peds.2015-4372
That’s a whole paragraph of garbage to explain an otherwise simple concept and the guy still gets it wrong.
1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
“So cultural and psychological tools explain why humans do better on the water displacement test than crows? All the extra neurons in our cerebral cortex have nothing to do with it? Better email your hero Suzana Herculano-Houzel to explain that her theory is wrong”
Look up Lev Vygotsky, read about them and get back to me. You’re analog is incorrect. Either way, how would one test prove one race/individual is more ‘intelligent’? Culture reduced tests do not live. All IQ tests are bound by culture, your attempt here doesn’t work.
“That’s my point, RR. If the cultural differences WITHIN humans are enough to invalidate cross-cultural human comparisons, then the difference between humans and animals should invalidate human-animal comparisons even more. And yet virtually no respected scientist denies human cognitive supremacy.”
Animals don’t have the same type of culture that affects their groups. Your analog is nonsensical. Simple tasks for animals are nothing like the tests we make for ourselves. We use cultural tools to manipulate the items and find the informational structure. Clearly class differences produce cognitive differences and it’s not genetic it’s due to differential access to these tools.
“So we have a huge advantage when it comes to cultural tools, which means all the laboratory research showing humans are smarter than animals must be dismissed as culturally biased according to your logic.”
No. Which tests of ‘intelligence’ are you imagining? My argument is simple. All human actions take place through culture and the use cultural tools. All tests are steeped in culture and class, therefore people not from them are psychologically differentially prepared which then causes score variation, that’s what ‘g’ is, the sociocognitive-affective nexus. Your example is not good, no matter how much you assert it. It’s just a dry attempt at forcing me to concede that IQ tests have no culture bias because the bias between humans and other animals is larger. Richardson’s argument won’t be taken down by your analog.
“The difference is today we now know the real reason the Wechsler is a good measure of intelligence. Because any set of diverse cognitive tasks will produce a composite score that loads high on g, and it’s g that gives the test most of its predictive power.”
The Wechsler is garbage. It too tests learned knowledge and skills. Predictive power is built into the test through construction.
“Unless you’re referring specifically to gains on digit span, the retest gains are of little relevance to this discussion”
Yes. Therefore cross-cultural comparisons aren’t good either.
“You’re now claiming g has no genetic component at all? Seriously?”
Errrr where have you been? I’ve been denying this for close to a year now. Classes are genetically stratified due to migratory patterns. Social and genetic stratification causes differences in test scores. As does the sociocognitive-affective nexus. G isn’t “genetic”. What is general is not cognitive. Culture reduced tests are impossible because all human cognition takes place using cultural tools. That paper explains the logic of social and genetic stratification being functionally irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment. Genetic differences between classes exist of course. They just don’t matter to differences in cognitive ability and educational attainment.
Look up Lev Vygotsky, read about them and get back to me. You’re analog is incorrect. Either way, how would one test prove one race/individual is more ‘intelligent’?
The same way they prove humans are smarter than chimps. Administer a culture reduced test.
Culture reduced tests do not live. All IQ tests are bound by culture, your attempt here doesn’t work.
MOST intelligence tests are bound by culture, I agree, but culture reduced tests are considered valid when it comes to comparing middle class toddlers to chimps. For you to argue that these same tests are somehow biased against lower class toddlers puts you in the ridiculous position of arguing that the lower class is more culturally deprived than chimps are, since you claim the tests are biased against the former. Thus I think you’re being to extreme.
Animals don’t have the same type of culture that affects their groups.
I agree, but whatever cultural advantage humans have over animals is not considered great enough to prevent scientists from comparing humans to animals on tests
Simple tasks for animals are nothing like the tests we make for ourselves.
I agree that the tasks we use to compare animals with humans are very different from the tests we use to compare humans with humans. My point is that if we took the animal tests and used them to compare humans, we’d have a culture reduced test.
The Wechsler is garbage. It too tests learned knowledge and skills. Predictive power is built into the test through construction.
I agree that items were selected so that people considered “stupid” would score low, but you can’t necessarily conclude that the WAIS owes its predictive validity to this bias. You would need to create an alternative WAIS where items were selected neutrally, and only if predictive power was lost on the neutral test would your point be proven.
Yes. Therefore cross-cultural comparisons aren’t good either.
Your study claims the Africans struggled with digit span because it was not in their native tongue and that normally memory tests are not culturally sensitive. I specifically said in my article that digit span may need to be translated, thus anticipating this point.
Errrr where have you been? I’ve been denying this for close to a year now.
I know you’re skeptical about genetics but didn’t know you deny it this completely
Classes are genetically stratified due to migratory patterns. Social and genetic stratification causes differences in test scores. As does the sociocognitive-affective nexus. G isn’t “genetic”. What is general is not cognitive.
This criticism is valid for Genome-wide complex trait analysis but can not explain the high heritability found in studies of identical twins raised apart. I know you’ve offered other criticisms of the latter studies (adoption placement bias, children not being separated immediately) and I agree with your criticisms, however they don’t completely undermine the high heritability found.
Culture reduced tests are impossible because all human cognition takes place using cultural tools.
We need to be more specific by what we mean by “cultural tools”
That’s a whole paragraph of garbage to explain an otherwise simple concept and the guy still gets it wrong.
1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
No, it’s an incomplete definition that doesn’t include the ability to adapt to novel challenges in the absence of prior knowledge.
Now is far as humans are concerned, it’s hard to tell if there are knowledge-independent challenges that depend more on cognitive ability than just luck. Sports and video games come close enough though, since those activities always pose novel problems to solve in a short time.
given his background mike tyson actually is smart. he can laugh at himself. few can. werner herzog loves him.
“the ability to …” and “novel problems” are just a string of phones. they may not exist. but psychologists and professor shoe can’t tell the difference between words and things. because you can fashion a name does not mean there is a thing named by the name you have fashioned.
chimps don’t and neanderthals didn’t have IQs.
that china people think they did is an example of how china people’s low verbal IQ has held them back.
it is literally impossible to think in the chinese language (or french), and even when china people’s first language is engrish they speak it very badly.
[redacted by pp, march 5, 2018] doesn’t know that autism is present since birth and includes being bad at sports. autists are un-co-ordinated. the stereotype of the nerd and the jock confirm pill’s theory that autism is more than autism in the clinical sense.
the best is mens sana in corpore sano, but high IQ professional athletes are rarer than athletic math professors. they both exist. but the latter is much more common than the former.
and the guys who get rich on wall street can beat you at chess AND at squash.
the tech guys can only beat you at chess.
““the ability to …” and “novel problems” are just a string of phones. they may not exist.”
Novel problems do exist, everyone has to deal with things they have never encountered before. Then different abilities can help.
First and foremost, the ability to properly identify the problem.
Then imagining and testing specific solutions.
Judging from human history, religion and not reason was the dominant trait of human cognition until the 18th century. So most problems remained unsolved because they were not properly diagnosed.
So learning from trial and error must have been the main driver of innovation. It’s only after the principles of the scientific method were established that logic-based research could allow the fast development of science and technique.
There couldn’t have been a paleolithic nor even a medieval Einstein, because the intellectual culture of these eras wouldn’t allow for it.
i would be very surprised if zuckerberg could beat me at ping pong or badminton.
if i were climbing mt rainier with bill gates he’d say, “i don’t like this. it’s cold. i wanna go home and program.”
i agree with afro that controlling for looks men who demonstrate some kind of physical prowess or courage are much more attractive to women. i’m sure ugly reinhold messner had to fight off women.
“Even without hands dogs are coordinated enough to play basketball:”
Is the dog really ‘playing’ or is the woman tossing the ball just hard enough to make the ball go in after the dog hits it with its nose?
autists are un-co-ordinated.
When I saw the neuropsychologist he specifical tested for autistic traits. he found no Gross motor skill deficits but did not look for fine motor control.
Thing is the Phill say Zuckerburg is autistic but what I see is a black stair like a soulless zombie. Seem no problems in coordination just that stair like a dumbass.
The coordination thing is more obvious in bill gates how his movements just look unnatural like if he walked that way he could never play any sport at average playing skills.
I guess if you see my videos I look uncoordinated but that me being unable to think straight and have fluid streams of thought. That is not some neurological muscle cerebellum problem. The cerebellum coordinates muscles if you must know. I do have a man idea but I go on tangents so I speak the way I do because I do not know how to best explain everything without going over the time limit Youtube places on me. If I do not worry about what I say I do not look stiff and confused and overall stuck.
Also when I am fluid and not stuck my motions are not like bill gates. (Robotic, twitchy, convulsive). I am more like an overly expressive teen girl with exaggerated gestures who is a social butterfly with too any idea. Some would say Ditzy. My sister rather, is a rebel. She does raves and hangs out with hardcore people. She has an attitude.
Being stuck is a big problem for me. It caused much of the emotional damage. That does not mean I can’t be fluid. If I do not feel relaxed all my anxiety comes back again. But in no way do people suspect I am Autist when I talk to them in person they just think I have normal social anxiety but I do get stuck and this is matters because it is not normal because cognitively this shuts down thinking. Not being able to think feels horrible and messes with social interaction. This is not convulsions from an improper working cerebellum though.
the human hand is an example of how the human body and mind may have evolved together. the mental ability to think of tools and the hand to use them. the human vocal apparatus may be similar.
autistic people have claimed than neanderthals and homo erection couldn’t speak (like humans) and therefore they didn’t speak. this is autism.
dan everett of no-recursion piraha fame is now claiming that homo erection did speak…just not very well. there are plenty of humans with speech disabilities and yet they are understandable for those with patience.
autistic people assume that the mental ability must precede the physical ability. this is not the case. the brain evolves from whatever its current state is. the body evolves with the brain and the brain with the body.
interesting is homo erection was already as slight as humans or slighter. that is, they were not 5x as strong as humans like chimps and gorillas are. they may have even been weaker.
although humans are on the right end of sexual dimorphism as mammals go, they are less sexually dimorphic than their closest relatives.
“MOST intelligence tests are bound by culture”
This implies that “SOME” ‘intelligence’ tests are NOT bound by culture; examples? (Obviously talking in a human context.)
“The same way they prove humans are smarter than chimps. Administer a culture reduced test.”
Examples of ‘culture reduced’ tests? How, then, would you make the leap to ‘this human is more intelligent than that human’?
“but culture reduced tests are considered valid when it comes to comparing middle class toddlers to chimps.”
Says who? Citation? Is hitting numbers that come up on a screen ‘culture reduced’?
“For you to argue that these same tests are somehow biased against lower class toddlers puts you in the ridiculous position of arguing that the lower class is more culturally deprived than chimps are, since you claim the tests are biased against the former. Thus I think you’re being to extreme.”
Let’s accept a ‘test’ of hitting numbers on a screen, like the chimps do. Is that ‘culture-reduced/fair’? Let’s accept that it is ‘culture fair’. That means A is more ‘intelligent’ than B? On what basis? The fact that ‘it shows ‘intelligence’ differences between humans and chimps’? That does not follow.
“but whatever cultural advantage humans have over animals is not considered great enough to prevent scientists from comparing humans to animals on tests”
You agree …. but …. That doesn’t make sense.
“My point is that if we took the animal tests and used them to compare humans, we’d have a culture reduced test.”
Examples? How then would you logically assert that A is more ‘intelligent’ than B based on this one ‘culture-reduced’ test?
“You would need to create an alternative WAIS where items were selected neutrally, and only if predictive power was lost on the neutral test would your point be proven.”
IQ test constructors don’t do this so this cannot be tested.
“Your study claims the Africans struggled with digit span because it was not in their native tongue and that normally memory tests are not culturally sensitive. I specifically said in my article that digit span may need to be translated, thus anticipating this point.”
Data for your claim? The authors conclude that “Speakers of languages with longer words for digits (such as Welsh) tend to have a shorter span than speakers of languages with shorter words for digits (cf. Shebani, Van de Vijver, & Poortinga, 2005, in press). However, words in English and Dutch, which are both Germanic languages, are of about the same length, which makes significant differences in span of native speakers of these languages unlikely. However, the Zimbabwean participants were not native speakers and could be assumed to have more problems with the quick internal processing of English-language numerals.” And:
At surface level, there are no differences for simple tests, and as tests become more complex, the Dutch increasingly outperform the Zimbabwean pupils (thereby confirming Spearman’s Hypothesis). However, if elementary cognitive skills are defined in terms of learning, the Zimbabwean pupils show a superior performance to the Dutch pupils, thereby disconfirming Spearman’s Hypothesis.
Weird…
“I know you’re skeptical about genetics but didn’t know you deny it this completely”
What are you implying here? Are you talking about my denial of ‘genes for’ ‘g’?
“however they don’t completely undermine the high heritability found.”
Why?
“We need to be more specific by what we mean by “cultural tools””
Cultural tools include historically evolved patterns of co-action; the informal and institutionalized rules and procedures governing them; the shared conceptual representations underlying them; styles of speech and other forms of communication; administrative, management and accounting tools; specific hardware and technological tools; as well as ideologies, belief systems, social values, and so on (Vygotsky, 1988). (pg 288)
This is also relevant: (pg 294):
In sum, ecological and sociohistorical theories view cognitive systems as having evolved for dealing with environmental change and unpredictability via developed knowledge representations, rather than as an all-purpose computational device.
Click to access 3398d781543cd0edcf51f181074f4c3ff35b.pdf
http://www.uvm.edu/~jfprue/TeamX/clt.htm
By the way, here is concrete evidence that the Raven is very culturally biased and is not just ‘shapes’ etc as people claim:
The Raven’s test performance of South Sudanese samples: A validation of criticisms of the utility of Raven’s among Sub-Saharan Africans
Three administrations of Raven’s to South Sudanese child samples are presented.
Compared to UK norms, the sample averages range from 57 to 30.
Serious problems with Raven’s in a South Sudanese context are highlighted.
It is argued that Raven’s in an unsuitable instrument for South Sudanese samples.
From these three studies, it can be concluded that Raven’s-type tests are unlikely to produce a fair measurement of the average intelligence of the South Sudanese. They are likely to substantially underestimate their intelligence. This is consistent with the evidence that – on the WAIS III – the average IQ of people ethnically similar to the South Sudanese has been found to be 64 (Bakhiet & Lynn, 2015). By extension, our research would appear to cautiously validate the conclusion of Wicherts et al. (2010) that Raven’s tests are problematic in Sub-Saharan Africa more broadly.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886918300849
Hmmm
“No. Humans have culture. The items on the tests are cultural. Therefore culture-reduced tests are not possible; other variables also affect this.”
No. Humans have niche construction, which still induces natural/sexual selection Culture is Biology. There is no real difference and no real way to make any between species comparison fair, in the context of equalizing environments. Hence, why we also have biological mechanisms we can use as empirical evidence of a particular species’ relative cognitive superiority. You can’t keep denying feedback loops.
“by a combination of the number of cortical neurons, neuron packing density, interneuronal distance and axonal conduction velocity—factors that determine general information processing capacity (IPC)”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4685590/
“It is a logically sound argument.”
But Empirically falsified by regression to the mean and synaptic pruning.
“Citations? Which tests? Social class?”
I already answered all of this. The social class is unknown but in 1990’s Japan was going through economic decline which is when these scores were derived:
“N= 24,834 Average IQ = 107 ages range from 6-16 after the early stage of synaptic pruning, so cultural discrimination is minimal, though not nonexistent. I discarded the Chinese sample because it included adults
Click to access Intelligence%20and%20the%20Wealth%20and%20Poverty%20of%20Nations.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-32417-001
Truthfully, some modern studies I’ve seen show near equal results between chinese and Whites, but this still runs counter to Sexual maturity and it’s connection with synaptic pruning.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-01722-006
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8889856
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/5/911?download=true”
“very powerful.”
Yes as in it has very powerful construct validity through biological mechanisms. I could care less how well it predicts something. Also how can something not predict what it supposedly is constructed to? That just makes your point redundant anyway.
“Removal of items is subjective.”
Not at all. Source please? IQ wouldn’t have such high empirical evidence if it’s construction were pure fabricated opinion.
“My arguments on the Raven are literally irrelevant to what you’re saying.”
Well guess what? It does rest upon what I’m stating because you don’t have any evidence to back that assertion it’s a just a feel good statement. I already have evidence that it’s not true: your non perfect IQ score. If it’s easier than everyday life, then every fully-functional adult should get a “perfect” score on it.
“(1) Mental events cause physical events. (2) All causal relationships are backed by natural laws. (3) No natural laws exist connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena. Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist. If psychophysical laws don’t exist, then the mind cannot possibly have been naturally selected—genes also cannot logically cause psychological traits because there are no psychophysical laws.”
3) there are natural laws connecting mental and physical phenomena they are called, mental Oscillations which are produced by the firing between Synapses. Your argument is therefore fallacious and subsequently invalid.
Just commenting on this at the moment. I’ll comment on the rest later
“3) there are natural laws connecting mental and physical phenomena they are called, mental Oscillations which are produced by the firing between Synapses. Your argument is therefore fallacious and subsequently invalid.”
How are “mental oscillations” (?) natural laws? There are no natural laws connecting mental and physical phenomena.
“How are “mental oscillations” (?) natural laws? There are no natural laws connecting mental and physical phenomena.”
By natural laws I assume you mean Biological catalysts. Oscillations are simply the expressed patterns of firing neurons. There are many mechanisms that connect brain anatomy to a projected “mental map”. Unfortunately, there are many Non-scientific groups(philosophers, Creationists) that obfuscate by fabricating some erroneous duality out of two blatantly connected phenomena(mind/body). Our Consciousness is simply the the sensory data our brain collects and then reconstructs as we move about our world. There is no “hard problem”.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027700001232?via%3Dihub
https://books.google.com/books?id=CWw2AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT197#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
Mental oscillations are not physical laws. The argument is not invalid.
“No. Humans have niche construction, which still induces natural/sexual selection Culture is Biology. There is no real difference and no real way to make any between species comparison fair, in the context of equalizing environments. Hence, why we also have biological mechanisms we can use as empirical evidence of a particular species’ relative cognitive superiority. You can’t keep denying feedback loops.”
I accept bio mechanisms between species as empirical evidence of cognitive ‘superiority’ between species. And my argument you responded to was sound. All human tests are steeped in culture. Therefore culture free tests between humans are not possible.
“But Empirically falsified by regression to the mean and synaptic pruning.”
Is RTM proof of a biological process? What is the biological process by which people ‘regress to the mean’? How does synaptic pruning ’empirically falsify’ the notion of cultural and psychological tools being used to test-take?
“I already answered all of this. The social class is unknown but in 1990’s Japan was going through economic decline which is when these scores were derived:”
“Social class is unknown”
K. This is evidence for your synaptic pruning which is then evidence for synaptic pruning equalling higher IQ? Even though there is no cognitive theory for IQ (Pfit is not it because there are still problems it needs to address) you say that these tests ‘test intelligence’ because of life success or. Brain waves or whatnot? Doesn’t make logical sense.
“Not at all. Source please? IQ wouldn’t have such high empirical evidence if it’s construction were pure fabricated opinion.”
Sure. Source is Richardson’s 1998 book.
This is, of course, a clear admission of the subjectivity of such assumptions: while ‘preferring’ to see sex differences as undesirable artefacts of test composition, other differences between groups or individuals, such as different social classes or, at various times, different ‘races’, are seen as ones ‘truly’ existing in nature. Yet these, too, could be eliminated or exaggerated by exactly the same process of assumption and manipulation of test composition.
And further writes on page 121:
Suffice it to say that investigators have simply made certain assumptions about‘what to expect’ in the patterns of scores, and adjusted their analytical equations accordingly: not surprisingly, that pattern emerges!
It only has the ‘high empirical evidence’ because items that don’t fit what the constructors want are removed.
“Well guess what? It does rest upon what I’m stating because you don’t have any evidence to back that assertion it’s a just a feel good statement. I already have evidence that it’s not true: your non perfect IQ score. If it’s easier than everyday life, then every fully-functional adult should get a “perfect” score on it.”
No it does not at all. I’d honestly rather go to a psychic or palm reader or tarot card reader than waste time taking an ‘IQ test’. I also have better things to do with my time and money then take some stupid test that will tell me nothing about myself.
But I’ll entertain you. I’ll do it on one condition. Pay for the test I take (we’ll make it the Raven obviously), pay for my time missed from work (I charge 70 dollars an hour for my time), pay for the gas to get there. Do these three things and I’ll take you little challenge.
But the way Melo what do you do for a living? I seem to recall you saying a few years ago that your IQ is 103. Does your profession reflect your IQ?
“And my argument you responded to was sound. ”
Chimps are to the tropics as Humans are to the “concrete jungle” in New York.What I disagree with is your assertion that human and animal intelligence is non-comparable. If this is not your opinion, please correct me, it’s what I felt was implied by your objections to Pumpkin.
“Is RTM proof of a biological process? What is the biological process by which people ‘regress to the mean’?”
“any genetic material from earlier ancestors must have passed through the parents, but it may not have been expressed in them. The phenomenon is better understood if we assume that the inherited trait (e.g., height) is controlled by a large number of recessive genes. Exceptionally tall individuals must be homozygous for increased height mutations on a large proportion of these loci. But the loci which carry these mutations are not necessarily shared between two tall individuals, and if these individuals mate, their offspring will be on average homozygous for “tall” mutations on fewer loci than either of their parents. In addition, height is not entirely genetically determined, but also subject to environmental influences during development, which make offspring of exceptional parents even more likely to be closer to the average than their parents. This population genetic phenomenon of regression to the mean is best thought of as a combination of a binomially distributed process of inheritance plus normally distributed environmental influences.”
“How does synaptic pruning ’empirically falsify’ the notion of cultural and psychological tools being used to test-take?”
It means among adults that access to equalizing cultural tools will not mute intellectual discrepancies.
“This is evidence for your synaptic pruning which is then evidence for synaptic pruning equalling higher IQ?”
It was simply evidence that asians score higher than whites despite the fact that the latter are the least culturally challenged when it comes to taking IQ tests. Synaptic pruning does not equal higher IQ, later maturation does, because pruning is occurring later, meaning more useful connections were made.
“Even though there is no cognitive theory for IQ (Pfit is not it because there are still problems it needs to address)”
No, I addressed every “problem” you brought up. I’m still waiting on 3 or 4 different posts for you to respond to my sources and evidence.
“you say that these tests ‘test intelligence’ because of life success or. Brain waves or whatnot? Doesn’t make logical sense.”
….What a very crude way to summarize my thesis. If that pathetic attempt at a “sentence” is all you’ve been able to retain from the enormous amount of sources, experimentation, and logic I’ve bombarded you with, then you are not worth my time. It’s utterly insulting and pure insanity that you think you can just handwave what I’ve provided and continue to promulgate this illusion of “objectiveness”.You re not a scholar, and never will be.
“Sure. Source is Richardson’s 1998 book.”
That’s not evidence of subjectiveness, if anything it’s the exact opposite.
“Pay for the test I take”
No, you’ve already taken one. You scored 108 or 110( I don’t remember)
“But the way Melo what do you do for a living? I seem to recall you saying a few years ago that your IQ is 103. Does your profession reflect your IQ”
I more or less own a construction company. And no my IQ was 103 according to Pumpkin’s Bio-demographic formula, which if you think is more accurate than a real IQ test, you really are insane. Using Educational correlates from percentiles, I’m anywhere from 114-127. Though I did that math a long time ago. It seems construction foremans have IQ’s of 114 on average, though I don’t know how accurate that really is.
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation-estimated-from.html
Actually, I just took the test again and got 119, I think what changed from last time was my head circumference measurement(the first one was inaccurate),I quit smoking. and I thought I weighed more than I did, by a whole 10 pounds!
i concede melo. your just to smart for me. i cannot mach your intellectual aggressivity. i concede this whole debate; you debated me out of the blogosphere. deleting my blog too. thanks for showing me the light. you must have had a delayed puberty because your so much smarter than i could ever dream to be–and since it’s largely genetic then i cant dream it because itll never happen.
see ya on the flipside.
in all seriousness, i’ll respond in a few days. just a few things:
RTM: hows it work regarding ‘intelligence’?
‘Incorrect. Otherwise, you need to go ahead and take the Ravens and then post your score, if it’s not genius level your assertion is invalid.’
this is what you said to me re IQ test. So you’re telling me that i ‘need to go ahead and take the ravens and post my score’, well are you going to pay for it, my time and travel? If not, why bring it up? I’ll gladly take the test if you pay for it, pay for my transportation and time wasted taking the useless test (if it says IQ 60 then I should quit my job and become homeless right?).
And I already told you I’m integrating the p-fit stuff into my monster article on g. dont get your panties in a bunch.
‘….What a very crude way to summarize my thesis. If that pathetic attempt at a “sentence” is all you’ve been able to retain from the enormous amount of sources, experimentation, and logic I’ve bombarded you with, then you are not worth my time. It’s utterly insulting and pure insanity that you think you can just handwave what I’ve provided and continue to promulgate this illusion of “objectiveness”.You re not a scholar, and never will be.’
I never said I was a ‘scholar’ (you’re the one who claims to be a ‘scientist’ but you don’t even have a Bsc never mind a Masters or Doctorate). But you’re the ‘scientist’ so you would know better than I would, right, “scientist”? Forgive me for being lazy when I wrote that (it was in the morning) sue me melo.
Your thesis: IQ tests are ‘good enough’ proxies for ‘intelligence’. g is real (citing the macaques paper). Differences in puberty account for differences in synaptic pruning, since later maturation means more time for pruning (?) then more connections can be made which is then used for processing while taking the tests and so more can be done (held in rote memory). P-FIT is the ‘biological theory’ that ties it all together giving it concurrent ‘construct validity’.
If that was completely offbase, sorry I’m not going to read hundreds of comments we’ve had. If it was offbase, my low iq genes made me do it.
Either way, does your ‘IQ’ reflect your profession? What do you do at your job that’s so intellectually demanding?
‘then you are not worth my time’
so stop talking to me if i’m not worth your time. time is precious, if i’m not worth it then spend your time doing something else (such as working).
And:
“That’s not evidence of subjectiveness, if anything it’s the exact opposite.”
Yes it is evidence for the subjectiveness of ‘IQ’ tests and item analysis/selection.
and i am ‘objective’. What’s your story for when i believed the jensen/rushton/lynn garbage on ‘IQ’? Is it the same as it is now (you scored average therefore you’re out to disprove it because you’re dumb)? Or is it because I read enough convincing counters to change my view? That’s objectivity; being able to change your view when the evidence presents itself. But I’m so ‘biased’, I’ve been on both sides of the fence here. Would a ‘biased’ person have done that?
“i concede melo. your just to smart for me. i cannot mach your intellectual aggressivity. i concede this whole debate; you debated me out of the blogosphere. deleting my blog too. thanks for showing me the light. you must have had a delayed puberty because your so much smarter than i could ever dream to be–and since it’s largely genetic then i cant dream it because itll never happen.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“HAHAHAHAHAHAHA”
Glad I could make you laugh. =^)
” hows it work regarding ‘intelligence’?”
Height was just an example, the same logic applies to intelligence.
“So you’re telling me that i ‘need to go ahead and take the ravens and post my score’, well are you going to pay for it, my time and travel?”
Which test did you originally take? Did it not have any questions similar to the raven on it?
” the useless test (if it says IQ 60 then I should quit my job and become homeless right?).”
Why do you think it would be 60?
“And I already told you I’m integrating the p-fit stuff into my monster article on g. ”
Your “monster” article will be nothing more then ad nauseam and strawmen. I seriously doubt you could have any new points to display that I haven’t already debunked.
“I never said I was a ‘scholar’”
Then stop trying to be one.
“Your thesis: IQ tests are ‘good enough’ proxies for ‘intelligence’. g is real (citing the macaques paper).”
IQ tests correlate highly with certain physiological and biological mechanisms/constructs in the brain like: cerebral bloodflow, dopamine regulation, Neural efficiency, functional connectivity, brain size, axonal conduction velocity, synaptic plasticity, etc ad infinium. The brain uses a winner takes all system, meaning intelligence uses all of the brain, this validates the existence of a GMA. This type of wiring is present in all primate brains. so g is at least real for primates, incuding humans.
“Differences in puberty account for differences in synaptic pruning, since later maturation means more time for pruning (?)”
Pruning occurs at sexual maturation and it essentially destroys all useless synaptic connections, subsequently, if you had a longer maturation period you had more time to absorb useful knowledge because you had a longer period of retained plasticity.
“P-FIT is the ‘biological theory’ that ties it all together giving it concurrent ‘construct validity’.”
At least for functional connectivity and neural efficiency.
“Either way, does your ‘IQ’ reflect your profession? What do you do at your job that’s so intellectually demanding?”
I guess, a lot of planning ahead and arithmetic.
“Yes it is evidence for the subjectiveness of ‘IQ’ tests and item analysis/selection.”
Item selection isn’t subjective, its necessary.
“and i am ‘objective’. If that was completely offbase, sorry I’m not going to read hundreds of comments we’ve had. If it was offbase,That’s objectivity; being able to change your view when the evidence presents itself. But I’m so ‘biased’, I’ve been on both sides of the fence here. Would a ‘biased’ person have done that?”
You have admitted that you enjoy the intellectual discussions you have with Pumpkin and I, and you respect that we mentally challenge you in ways others cannot. If you can’t even pay attention or take any sources or logic I wrote into consideration, then you are not objective. I didn’t make anything up, I wasn’t just saying what sounded good, I provided evidence and citations for my claims, which you just conveniently ignored. If you had been objective to begin with you would have never bought Rushton and Jensen’s garbage, this is evidence that you don’t even know how to read through sources and new information. Switching sides is not objective, sifting through the bullshit on both sides is. I started as an egalitarian, and to this day I still am mostly Egalitarian, I just realized how dumb it was to think the people wouldn’t differ in intelligence, and low and behold, the literature supports this.
‘my low iq genes made me do it.”
Stop being a baby, I am not a genetic deterministic, more strawmen as usual. You are the laughingstock of the HBD-o-sphere.
“i concede melo. your just to smart for me. i cannot mach your intellectual aggressivit”
Jeez, no wonder you have low creativity 😉 Do you even know what we disagree on? Not in the slightest, because you just attack strawmen all day.
1)Racial differences are products of biological feedback loops.
2)IQ tests have construct validity
3)Genes are units of heredity.
All 3 points are correct, all 3 points cannot be falsified(not the same as saying they’re unfalsifiable)
“Height was just an example, the same logic applies to intelligence.”
How?
“Which test did you originally take? Did it not have any questions similar to the raven on it?”
I don’t remember. I need to go through my things to see if I still have it.
“Why do you think it would be 60?”
My SAT score.
“Your “monster” article will be nothing more then ad nauseam and strawmen. I seriously doubt you could have any new points to display that I haven’t already debunked.”
Good points. I won’t even waste my time writing it and I’ll just not publish what I have written already.
“Then stop trying to be one.”
I never claimed it.
“IQ tests correlate highly with certain physiological and biological mechanisms/constructs in the brain like: cerebral bloodflow, dopamine regulation, Neural efficiency, functional connectivity, brain size, axonal conduction velocity, synaptic plasticity, etc ad infinium. The brain uses a winner takes all system, meaning intelligence uses all of the brain, this validates the existence of a GMA. This type of wiring is present in all primate brains. so g is at least real for primates, incuding humans.”
How high do they correlate? Just because they correlate does it mean the relation is causal? Other explanations exist for these relations; what do you think *causes* these relations?
How, then, can this be used to formulate a theory of individual intelligence differences?
“Pruning occurs at sexual maturation and it essentially destroys all useless synaptic connections, subsequently, if you had a longer maturation period you had more time to absorb useful knowledge because you had a longer period of retained plasticity.”
Doesn’t this still persist into adulthood?
“At least for functional connectivity and neural efficiency.”
Even after the most recent connectome study?
“I guess, a lot of planning ahead and arithmetic.”
You ‘guess’?
“Item selection isn’t subjective, its necessary.”
Choosing which items to remove just because it doesn’t fit what you want is subjective. The quote above still holds.
“If you had been objective to begin with you would have never bought Rushton and Jensen’s garbage, this is evidence that you don’t even know how to read through sources and new information.”
I don’t think it’s fair to bring this up. I didn’t know anything about science back then (well, regarding ‘BG’ ‘science’ I knew nutrition, obviously) and I was very extremely biased back five years ago.
“I just realized how dumb it was to think the people wouldn’t differ in intelligence, and low and behold, the literature supports this.”
meaning…? scores on IQ tests? fMRI data etc? life outcomes?
“Stop being a baby, I am not a genetic deterministic, more strawmen as usual. You are the laughingstock of the HBD-o-sphere.”
I didn’t say you said it. I said it. My genes made me do it. I don’t care if I’m ‘the laughingstock [sic] of the HBD-o-sphere’; genetic reductionism is wrong.
“1)Racial differences are products of biological feedback loops.”
Such as?
“2)IQ tests have construct validity”
They do not. P-FIT is not ‘concurrent construct validity and theory of intelligence differences’ as you’ve claimed in the past.
“3)Genes are units of heredity.”
Not the only.
“all 3 points cannot be falsified”
The construct validity claim most definitely can be falsified because it is *not* evidence for construct validity.
“How?”
Im assuming the same way I just outlined, but that’s also assuming intelligence is a polygenic trait.
“My SAT score.”
LMAO, you might be that dumb then.
“I won’t even waste my time writing it and I’ll just not publish what I have written already.”
That’s a good idea, assuming you don’t want me to embarrass you.
“Other explanations exist for these relations”
There are not, that is a blatant lie. We know for fact what physiological and biological mechanisms govern the expression of behavioral plasticity, experience dependency makes the association become a feedback loop. Since humans all 7 billion humans are not genetically identical it’s a given that discrepancies will fall into line with geographic ancestry. Maybe not classical racial taxonomy, but the high plasticity of the brain ensures that even IQ’s within the normal range will exhibit neural differences between individuals.
“Doesn’t this still persist into adulthood?”
What? Plasticity? No. Pruning? possibly, I’d have look into it more. it is a fascinating subject.
“Even after the most recent connectome study?”
Well my main issue with that study is that it only addressed one particular experiment, and on top of that they only used individuals with above average IQ’s. As it’s known neural efficiency does not apply in higher percentiles. Either way though it still didn’t address functional connectivity.
“Choosing which items to remove just because it doesn’t fit what you want is subjective”
What they “want” is not subjective. It’s a highly educated decision based off of years of experience. The normal distribution is created for good purpose. Don’t be autistic, It’s pretty obvious that Intelligence would not be perfectly distributed in a bell curve, it just makes synthesizing complementary data exponentially easier.
“I didn’t know anything about science back then”
Neither do you now.
“I don’t care if I’m ‘the laughingstock [sic] of the HBD-o-sphere’”
Oh you don’t? Is that why you bring up how little HBDers know in every other post? Well I’m an HBDer and I understand all of the concepts quite well, so why dont you actually challenge my views instead of forming strawmen? Oh, you can’t because you can’t cogently respond to me, so instead you move goal posts.
“Such as?”
….Are you prepared to say that an Impoverished African american women does not accumulate epigenetic change, that is later passed down to her child?
“Not the only.”
I don’t care, that’s not my point.
“They do not”
They do, Address my criticism, address my links and stop pretending as if there isn’t an alternative hypothesis.
“Im assuming the same way I just outlined, but that’s also assuming intelligence is a polygenic trait.”
Why? The mental is underdetermined by the physical therefore no psychophysical laws exist. This is a conceptual argument, no amount of empirical data will “show” this to be true.
It’s not logically possible for psych traits to be inherited.
“LMAO, you might be that dumb then.
That’s a good idea, assuming you don’t want me to embarrass you.”
If I’m “that dumb” then why do you waste your time talking to me? Go spend your time doing more constructive things then.
“There are not, that is a blatant lie. We know for fact what physiological and biological mechanisms govern the expression of behavioral plasticity, experience dependency makes the association become a feedback loop. Since humans all 7 billion humans are not genetically identical it’s a given that discrepancies will fall into line with geographic ancestry. Maybe not classical racial taxonomy, but the high plasticity of the brain ensures that even IQ’s within the normal range will exhibit neural differences between individuals.”
No genes have been “found” for IQs in the normal range. This is what the debate rests on. IQ does not equal “intelligence”; even “a bit”.
“Well my main issue with that study is that it only addressed one particular experiment, and on top of that they only used individuals with above average IQ’s. As it’s known neural efficiency does not apply in higher percentiles. Either way though it still didn’t address functional connectivity.”
I believe they did but the crux of the matter is the conclusion: that the studies have low power and that there is pub bias in this field.
“What they “want” is not subjective. It’s a highly educated decision based off of years of experience. The normal distribution is created for good purpose. Don’t be autistic, It’s pretty obvious that Intelligence would not be perfectly distributed in a bell curve, it just makes synthesizing complementary data exponentially easier.”
Yes it “is” subjective. If it doesn’t fit their presuppositions, it gets removed. Then amazingly they “find” what they want.
“Neither do you now.”
Yet you continue to discuss things with me. If I’m so dumb and know nothing about science, why talk to me?
“Oh you don’t? Is that why you bring up how little HBDers know in every other post? Well I’m an HBDer and I understand all of the concepts quite well, so why dont you actually challenge my views instead of forming strawmen? Oh, you can’t because you can’t cogently respond to me, so instead you move goal posts.”
I have. But eveything is wrong if it doesn’t agree with you. You’re just too smart for me melo. your iq is in the stratosphere.
“….Are you prepared to say that an Impoverished African american women does not accumulate epigenetic change, that is later passed down to her child?”
…because I ask for examples means…X?
“I don’t care, that’s not my point.”
It matters.
“They do, Address my criticism, address my links and stop pretending as if there isn’t an alternative hypothesis.”
This guy. “Address my criticism, address my links”, yet have never produced a syllogism in his life in any discussion we’ve had. Argumentation is more than about “addressing links and criticism”, it’s about structuring logical arguments. Surely Melo with your high IQ and construction job can give me a syllogism?
Take the last word. I’ve no time to waste on inanities.
“The mental is underdetermined by the physical”
That’s not true, I already addressed that further down the post. The hard problem and anomalous monism are completely fabricated opinions, not only did I display Empirical studies that invalidated this I provided logical argumentation.
” Go spend your time doing more constructive things then.”
Our arguments used to be somewhat constructive RR.
“No genes have been “found” for IQs in the normal range. ”
Genes for Intelligence have been found, IQ is the best measure of intelligence. In this sense I have the empirical edge over your thesis. Even then, I don’t expect there to be. Humans are highly homogeneous and epigenetic changes don’t always alter DNA sequences, but ultimately the cause is genetic.
“IQ does not equal “intelligence”; even “a bit”.”
It does, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your end will change that.
“I believe they did ”
Where?
“that the studies have low power and that there is pub bias in this field.”
No, most modern studies on the connectome have high predictive power, because of more efficient mathematical methods and larger sample sizes, the study cherry picked a near decade old experiment. It’s almost like criticizing the automotive industry because the first cars were shittier than modern ones.
“why talk to me?”
Because believe it or not I do not hate you, and I used to enjoy our conversations.
“But eveything is wrong if it doesn’t agree with you. ”
Stop being a child. This has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. I don’t want you to “concede all our conversations” I want you to properly read my replies, and the links that I send you, before you decide to just repeat yourself. I want a real intellectual discussion, that isn’t filled with strawmen and ad nauseam. Is that too much to ask from you?
“If it doesn’t fit their presuppositions”
What is wrong with their presuppositions? Nothing, it’s based off of objective normalization, not on an opinion. You think it’s bias but it’s not, this is because you’re misconstruing them deciding the amount of difficult Items to excise with them trying to subjectively define intelligence. They’re not them same.
“…because I ask for examples means…X”
You asked a very broad question which I could’ve responded to in various ways, but I decided it was better to just go ahead and hit the nail on the head. You’ve been making this claim for a few months now, so why are you asking me for examples? Are you too lazy to do your own research? You should already know.
“This guy.” “Address my criticism, address my links”, yet have never produced a syllogism in his life in any discussion we’ve had.”
LMAO who are you talking to?
“Argumentation is more than about “addressing links and criticism”, it’s about structuring logical arguments. Surely Melo with your high IQ and construction job can give me a syllogism?”
I don’t need a syllogism to demonstrate the invalidity of your logical arguments, in fact a lot of syllogisms you’ve produced have had ridiculous premises and Axioms.
‘I provided logical argumentation.’
where? you can provide all the links and studies and articles you want, the third AM premise is conceptual, not empirical.
‘Genes for Intelligence have been found’
where?
‘It does, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your end will change that.’
how?
‘the study cherry picked a near decade old experiment’
‘cherry picked’? the study was larger than the small n it had and came to this conclusion: “Notably, the strongest (non-significant) effects were observed in voxel-level networks. We discuss the possibility that the low power of previous studies and publication bias may have led to false positive results fostering the widely accepted notion of general intelligence being associated to functional global network efficiency.”
‘What is wrong with their presuppositions?’
what is right with their presuppositions? is there a basis for the constructors’ presuppositions? if something doesn’t go with presupposition X, then the item gets removed until the curve that is wanted is gotten by said constructors. Jensen said in his 1980 book that the constructor can make “any distribution he pleases”, and this comes down to item removal—what doesn’t fit said presuppositions.
‘LMAO who are you talking to?’
point me to a syllogism you’ve made in any of our convos. i briefly recall one but i may be in error.
‘I don’t need a syllogism to demonstrate the invalidity of your logical arguments, in fact a lot of syllogisms you’ve produced have had ridiculous premises and Axioms.’
examples please.
“where?”
“I already addressed that further down the post.”
Reading comprehension.
“where?”
Look. Literally typing in “genes for intelligence” brings up many up to date studies that all claim to have found a certain variance of intelligence that is associated with genes. The simple fact that you are asking me is proof of your intellectual laziness
Here is one that particularly interests me as it has found that brain plasticity and intelligence are influenced by the same genes:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/16/5519
“‘cherry picked’”
Yes cherry picked. There are many studies with much larger N’s that show a similar if not the same pattern. I’ve posted them in a lot of our old discussions I suggest you do some digging.
“is there a basis for the constructors’ presuppositions?”
Yes. Item selection only affects distribution not what intelligence actually is. People took the tests, the researches quickly realized what questions people had more difficulty with and based their distribution on that. It’s not biased like what you think it is, and it’s kind of sad that you’ve interpreted it as such. It’s further proof that you don’t understand the literature.
“point me to a syllogism you’ve made in any of our convos. i briefly recall one but i may be in error.”
1) Logically inclined individuals always research counterarguments and avoid fallacies when debating
2) RR does not research counter arguments and frequently engages in fallacies when debating
3) RR is not logically inclined.
How about that syllogism? 😉
“examples please.”
Syllogisms in general are stupid. Logic is imaginary, show me empirical studies or fuck off.
“Here is one that particularly interests me as it has found that brain plasticity and intelligence are influenced by the same genes:”
The EEA is false. Therefore no genetic interpretations can be drawn.
“Yes cherry picked. There are many studies with much larger N’s that show a similar if not the same pattern. I’ve posted them in a lot of our old discussions I suggest you do some digging.”
Still doesn’t show causation; the new paper throws a wrench into older papers.
“Yes. Item selection only affects distribution not what intelligence actually is. People took the tests, the researches quickly realized what questions people had more difficulty with and based their distribution on that. It’s not biased like what you think it is, and it’s kind of sad that you’ve interpreted it as such. It’s further proof that you don’t understand the literature.”
I do understand it. People took the tests; the researchers realized that it isn’t forming a bell-curve or whatnot, items are ‘adjusted’ (selected) and ‘analyzed’ (on the basis of social class) which then causes the score distributions. Yes, test construction is biased and Richardson shows that.
“Syllogisms in general are stupid. Logic is imaginary”
hahaha. i think we’re done here.
my last word in this convo then I’m done:
they’re not ‘stupid’. you can cite every paper in the literature and say ‘lolz, rebut muh citations’ but what use is it if you cannot structure arguments?i This is you: ‘x, y and z (citation), lolz, rebut it’. That’s not an argument; arguments have premises and conclusions.
Im done here since ‘syllogisms in general are stupid’ and ‘logic is imaginary’. hahaha. man, i laughed pretty damn hard. thank you
Pedro is actually very smart. Watch video till the end to see the conclusion.
An IQ of 85
Pedro is retarded. Looks and acts like future school shooter.
The person who made the video is a retarded with very good intentions. This person probably thinks that IQ and academic work are correlated, but that they are not fit to measure the intelligecen of a good person confronted to real life problems like Pedro. I don’t think that’s true. In France, from the 1920 to the 1950, many poor farm boys who went at primary school in small villages, were discovered being bright, because they were only one class for 6 to 11 yo boys, and some of them could master in 1 or 2 years the 5 years program. And they were practical boys doing a lot of farm work. One of my father best friend was living in a farm in Normandy with 13 brothers and sisters placed into landlords farm, and they had to sleep with the animals in the farm. And they were all extremely gifted and did very well. They benefited from scholarship to go into high school. Now, this kind of people can’t be identified any more here because they won’t have the opportunity to go on fast track.
‘IQ and academic work are correlated’
As Thorndike and Hagen (1969) explained, ‘From the very way in which the tests were assembled it could hardly be otherwise’ (p. 325).
Click to access 3398d781543cd0edcf51f181074f4c3ff35b.pdf
Horribly-made video, but it’s obvious: real-life application > scores on a test.
School fucking sucks, and i think many high schoolers are self conscious enough to know their strenghts/weaknesses. So it would be cool if one could specialice earlier.
You remembered the exact page number? Or you referenced it? Whats your memory like?
The book is available online as a pdf.
Jensen cited the quote with page number in his book. I merely copied from Jensen’s book
What about verbal intelligence culture reduced tests ?
Some consider digit span a verbal test & it’s pretty culture reduced especially if translated into one’s native language
Other culture reduced verbal tests measure knowledge that is universal to every culture
Intelligence is a person’s ability to derive new conclusions from knowledge presented to them. Testing their knowledge itself is a test of wisdom. Testing digit span is a test of memory.
I would say intelligence is ‘clear’ thinking. Ravens is a very good test in my opinion, one of the better ones I’ve seen but many of the questions are culture biased. Some questions however are very good.
The simple questions (like the one above) are very intelligence based. The harder questions are very culture biased.
The scaling question is ridiculously culture biased, requiring prior knowledge to understand the symbols given.
In general, all the scaling and mathematical questions in Ravens are very culture biased. The simpler questions are in my opinion a perfect example of zero culture questions.
one circle, square and triangle should have a black dot.
the circle and square already are present with the black dot.
a triangle should be in the blank space with a black dot.
all shapes have two dots inside them one dot outside them.
there is a triangle with one dot outside, so:
the black dot should be inside the triangle in the blank space.
B is the answer
This test is just asking us to put ourselves in the test designer’s mind. There is no objectively right answer, no practical application to this puzzle. Only guessing someone else’s logic. It’s like a Sudoku grid.
sudokus all have only one answer afro the fake norman aristocrat.
it does have an objectively right answer???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? it is culture biased but there is logically a correct answer and only one. you need like sub-human iq not to get this super simple question i mean shit illuminati cat got it right and hes like 113 you must be like 85 aka african american negroe
Calm down, I have the “right” answer you moron. But it’s not more indicative of intelligence than a Sudoku grid. But both have no concrete relevance and are very susceptible to practice effects.
“This test is just asking us to put ourselves in the test designer’s mind.”
So it’s testing theory of mind, which is of course an important aspect of intelligence.
So it’s testing theory of mind, which is of course an important aspect of intelligence.
No, it doesn’t test theory of mind to its full extent as in understanding emotions, motivations etc. It’s just asking how much one’s rationale is concordant with the test’s designer. That’s why we see huge practice effects and Flynn effect gains on the matrices: more exposure to this type of logical thinking causes more understanding it and less discomfort with the items.
It’s like how the SAT correlates 0.84 with the Welscher’s test. So they basically measure the same thing. It’d be foolish to claim there is anything innate in the SAT. Both measure familiarity with the test’s content and are subject to practice effects. The differences in test-score must be almost in totality due to how much effort one has put into their education, the academic standards of the schools they attended and how comfortable they are with tests. It’s very clear.
As for racial differences, here is my theory. HBDers love to show this chart that shows low income whites outscoring high income blacks on the SAT. In fact, that’s a very shortsighted way of thinking about income.
I found two relevant facts:
“poor whites” are actually five times richer than poor blacks, middle income whites four times.
Black households on average need to make nearly $70k to live in economically similar neighborhoods to whites making zero(!).
and then you have this:
It was in 1995, probably hasn’t changed much. But I see the pattern. Income is a very inaccurate measure of social class, it it just means what amount of money people make on a given time. It doesn’t mean how long they’ve been making this money nor how much they’ll be making in the future, what is their actual level of financial security.
But more importantly, it doesn’t tell what is their environment, where they live, what types of schools they attend, what type of people they share their lives with. So my opinion is the following blacks live in anti-academic environments, the academic standards of the schools they attend are poor, so is school motivation. Asians are the exact opposite: work very hard in school, live in a high academic expectation culture, and always live in wealthier areas than any other group once adjusting for household income, they probably even do it to make sure their kids attend the best schools.
I see a very neat pattern.
Iirc, Moore(1986) found blacks scored 15 points higher if they were adopted by whites than if they were adopted by blacks, even if both adoptive homes were considered middle class.
I’ll have to check the study for specifics
Of course this was in childhood
Well, more convincingly, there is this multiple times replicated finding that the black-white gap in education across US metropolitan areas is mainly a function of the level of racial segregation. Also, poverty concentration in schools is the single most powerful predictor of individual academic outcomes regardless of students’ own family background.
Click to access ConcentratedPovertyLitReviewFinalDraft-071015.pdf
“No, it doesn’t test theory of mind to its full extent as in understanding emotions, motivations etc.”
Emotions and motivation are heavily involved in decision making and IQ tests, they are fundamental to intelligence, try again.
RR:
(1) Mental events cause physical events. (2) All causal relationships are backed by natural laws. (3) No natural laws exist connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena.
Therefore psychophysical laws don’t exist. If psychophysical laws don’t exist, then the mind cannot possibly have been naturally selected—genes also cannot logically cause psychological traits because there are no psychophysical laws.
—>
– I would say 1,2 &3 entails that mental events are réductible to physical events .
– psychophysical laws would be a coherent description level for physical events (even if you can explain biology in terms of physics, it’s more convenient not to reduce descriptions to the smallest level ). Like you can describe some driving a car without explaining it at the physics level. And some laws and regularities would be analyzed only at a higher rank level
For the intelligence, I agree with Feenopy. Even if it were built through finalist means, it doesn’t mean it must be teleologically described. I would say it is the ability to make true inferences by perceiving pertinent facts and laws .
(3) goes against your assertion. Mental events cannot be explained or predicted on the basis scientific laws because no psychophysical laws exist. Therefore mental events are anomalous.
No , you’re point would be true if you said (4) that mental laws are not reductible to physical laws even if mental realm would be reductible to a physical one . That’s plausible and interesting but that’s not what you wrote. You said no mental laws exist connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena , but you don’t need a law if your a monist, saying mental phenomena are physical phenomena. Maybe you meant (4) and then your conclusion would be true . I wonder if it’s possible that a rule would be not reductible while the matter is. It’s seems strange intuitively but not illogic . Certainly some philosopher of science has déveloped such an idea and you could provide examples maybe ….I am very far from philo now but would love to be entertained by someone who knows about it .
Thx for the stimuli 🙂
“You said no mental laws exist connecting mental phenomena with physical phenomena , but you don’t need a law if your a monist, saying mental phenomena are physical phenomena. Maybe you meant (4) and then your conclusion would be true . I wonder if it’s possible that a rule would be not reductible while the matter is.”
Nothing was left out. There are three premises;
(i) The Principle of Mental Causation: At least some mental events interact causally (directly or otherwise) with physical events
(ii) The Principle of the Nomological Character of Causality: Where there’s causality, there must be strict laws
(iii) The principle of the Anomalism of the Mental: There are no strict laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted and explained.
Click to access Davidson-Mental-Events.pdf
1 and 2 imply that mental events can be described as physical events, but 3 denies this. AM resembles “materialism” in that all events are “physical” but rejects—what most think is imperative to “materialism”—that mental events are dependent on physical characteristics.Every mental event that is causally related to a physical event is a physical event. Mental events cannot be explained by physical laws, because no psychophysical laws exist.
We begin with the assumption that mental laws events cause and are caused by physical events.Premise three—the anomalism principle—says there are no strict laws that state that mental events can predict, explain, or be predicted or explained by other events.
Davidson allows for strict physical laws but denies, and argues against, the existence of strict psychological and psychophysical laws.
Now it is ok . 3 is different , you’re first 3 was about laws connecting mental and physical phenomena. Maybe in your mind it meant anomalism of any realm containing mental events, but it wasn’t what was written in your 3.
It is even a slightly stonger version – because there are neither pure psy laws – to the anomalism I proposed in 4 – because you (or Davidson) says there are no mental laws at all (then there can’t be obviously physio-psy laws) because of the anomalism of psy. I looked into Davidson one day to know exactly what he believes ( strong or weak form of anomalism) and why. I don’t see where this anomalism comes from ? Reeuctionism is much easier. There must be some interesting reason (besides we don’t have reductionism yet or psy laws obviously)
everyone has to deal with things they have never encountered before.
if by “everyone” you mean no one over the age of 11, then yes. this is how i know you are peepee afro my darling.
every problem on the SAT is a problem never seen before by the test taker.
but he has faced problems like it a jillion times.
problems the like of which one has never faced are increasingly rare as one gets on in years. past the age of 11 they simply cease to exist.
how many galaxies are there in the observable universe?
is the universe infinite?
is it shaped like a 3d torus?
is alan guth jewish?
I made an IQ test. What shape comes next and what color is the shape. OK now that you solved this test imagine a test with 100 objects maybe 15 different shapes and 12 colors. And the answer is just as obvious as my tests answer but only to a high-level IQ person. Saduko? No, you cannot abstract Saduko.
At the library today I thought, what am I doing when doing IQ tests? I am holding something in my head, realizing what it does, and manipulating it in my head to do what I want it to do. The map in my head simulates reality to change it. bigger maps, bigger simulations, bigger changes I can make.
Well yes, intelligence is basically predicting the future and we do so with simulations.
Lol you don’t even know what Oscillations are. Provide empirical citations for your claims, or address mine. Your argument is invalid, get over it and stop being a baby. XD
Oscillations are the repetitive variations of a measure between two states. The logical argument provided is evidence. I did provide evidence. Mental oscillations are literally nor ‘physical laws’.
“Mental oscillations are literally nor ‘physical laws’.”
Answer my question, If physical laws means biological mechanisms then you’re wrong. Oscillation is a term used in neuroscience to describe rhythmic neural fluctuations, words can have more than one meaning. And there obviously tide to physical mechanisms. Of course if you mean “physical laws” in the literal sense, it’s just another obfuscation, but I can still humor you anyway:
View at Medium.com
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/does-the-human-brain-operate-outside-of-the-laws-of-physics
“The logical argument provided is evidence. I did provide evidence.”
No, I falsified your 3rd point, so address my links.
“tide”
Tide pods?
Jokes aside, that’s not a physical law. The mental is undetermined by the physical. The argument in the anomalousness of the mental establishes there are no strict psychophysical laws. Which then shows the physical underdetermines the mental.
You said mental oscillations are physical laws. They’re not physical laws.
The mental is underdetermined by the physical. You didn’t ‘refute’ the principle of the anomalousness of the mental.
Neural Oscillations are the biological/physical mechanism that produces conscious functions. There is no anomaly, there is no hard problem, address my citations or admit you’re wrong. These are you’re only two options, if you’re willing to actually debate.
Right and neural oscillations aren’t strict psychophysical laws. Logical argumentation doesn’t work like ‘lolz address muh links or ur rong’, you didn’t address the anomalousness of the mental. You think you did but you didn’t.
physics obey rules called laws and oscillations happen in the brain from the physical medium the brain following the rules/laws. It is for this reason materialism is false because waves are not the same things as materials when it comes to consciousness. Simulations of brain waves look amazing and super fast but the results of the oscillations even though the medium is physically it is not material. That would be conflating content with containment. It is the motion of the electromagnetism back and forth in interference patterns that create an experience. Replacing all the atoms of sodium or chlorine or all the water does nothing to change my experience. What I am made of could change my experience but the current water in my head is not necessary for my experiences. Any water will do and that means materialism must be false for if it were true my experience would be specifically tired to specific materials like a specific cup of water molecules or sodium atoms. My conscious would only work with those specific atoms and must never leave my brain. But I never use the same water in my brain week to week that means materialism in waters case is false for my consciousness to work. Brain waves are just motions that are floating on top of a medium, the medium and the waves shape each other to create a new experience. But I am not required to keep the same water in my head for my whole life to experience consciousness. That is materialism. A falsehood. Everything is impermanent the Buddha said. My soul is not the calcium ions in my neurons, they change all the time, they are not permanent to me. My soul is not anything material in my body. My consciousness is not anything material in my body. The only thing permanent to me are the brain oscillations. Those are immaterial but do follow rules of a physical medium.
The requirement for materialism to be true would be for my brain to require a permanent material that never leaves my brain in order for me to regain consciousness. Science says them is no material that is permanent in the brain. Consciousness is not water it is not calcium nor potassium nor carbon nor any material in the brain. Materialism posits consciousness is some material like zinc or silicon. This cannot be true. Biology does not work this way. Consciousness is not a material substance, it is not gold, silver nor uranium or fluorine.
It should also be noted that neural correlates of consciousness are the “Easy Problem”, the “Hard Problem” is different. Have you ever actually read David Chalmers or what?
“Right and neural oscillations aren’t strict psychophysical laws”
Yes they are:
https://osf.io/6p8wx
“you didn’t address the anomalousness of the mental. You think you did but you didn’t. neural correlates of consciousness are the “Easy Problem”, the “Hard Problem” is different..”
The citations I provided addressed the mind/body problem. There is no distinction between the hard or easy problems, I already explained this. Reading comprehension.
The anomaly and hard problem derive from the perceived subjectivity in the prediction of mental events relative to their physical propagators. In reality, there is an easy solution that explains and is causal; experience dependency. Future experiences and reactions are determined by the prior ones, the only way it could not be so varied is if every person on the planet had the same exact monotonous routine each and every day. Even though your imagination is metaphysical, it can still only be catalyzed through physical means.
“Have you ever actually read David Chalmers or what?”
LOL, Chalmers is a hack, even Pigliucci thinks so:
Click to access PIGWHP.pdf
Click to access disolvinghardproblem.pdf
https://philpapers.org/rec/HACHC
https://books.google.com/books?id=sicVcPjfPxUC&pg=RA3-PA59#v=onepage&q&f=false
Those are psychophysical generalizations not laws. It also says nothing about neural oscillations being psychophysical laws.
How would psychological traits be inherited in a non-lawlike way?
I asked if you read Chalmers buddy. I’ll go through those later but I only asked if you read Chalmers, not your thoughts on Chalmers LOL.
“Those are psychophysical generalizations not laws.”
Enormous variability does not mean psycho-physical Laws are nonexistent. It just means deciphering the cascading complexity of the information is exponentially harder. Hence why we know so much more about Physics, than psychology, psychology is literally more difficult to make scientific revelations in than physics.
“How would psychological traits be inherited in a non-lawlike way?”
They couldn’t be, the psyche is a mere projection of the corresponding anatomy(the CNS) in the human body.
“I asked if you read Chalmers buddy. I’ll go through those later but I only asked if you read Chalmers, not your thoughts on Chalmers LOL.”
Please, your question stemmed from ignorance. If you had actually absorbed or at least read anything I wrote, you would realize I obviously knew what the hard problem was and therefore had read Chalmers, hence why I was discussing it. It is relevant when discussing the mind/body “problem”.
Afrosapiens, then why Whites have shorter reaction times than Blacks ?
What does it mean?
My english is not very good but you can deduce what I’m refering too if you have a brain.
to* not too
I mean what does it mean to have a shorter reaction time?
It means you take a shorter amount of time to react: faster reaction time
Which means…?
Higher axonal conduction velocity, which allows for quicker action potentials.
I was answering to Afrosapiens comments where he explains his definition of intelligence.
Blacks have slower reactions than Whites, actually, according to the limited information available. Reaction time is very variable depending on the individual and on training, so it’s probably impossible to reliable measure.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/11/racial-differences-in-reaction-time/
PP also wrote an article about it, though he uses Richard Lynn’s data. I really dislike Richard Lynn as he’s very dishonest with his research (in my opinion).
My Barbary pirate reaction times are superior to all.
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/
So reaction times mean nothing about intelligence, lol
I don’t think there is any reliable data about it, however we can clearly see blacks dominating whites in many sports requiring quick decision-making.
Body reaction times =/= mind reaction times.
Lol, that’s stupid, there isn’t a sigle body part that can be voluntarily activated without the brain. Motor function is a cognitive process.
Find more here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4879139/
There are difference of activation between a central and central-peripheral nervous system.
Yes, i don’t said ”there isn’t a sigle body part that can be voluntarily activated without the brain.”
This may explain why athletes tend not to have the faster reaction times but nerds.
There are difference of activation between a central and central-peripheral nervous system.
Elaborate please.
This may explain why athletes tend not to have the faster reaction times but nerds.
Lol! There is no such thing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-elite-athlete/
In reaction time studies they try to distinguish between reaction time & movement time.
Rushton claimed blacks had the slowest reaction time but fastest movement time & East Asians were the opposite, but longer studies with more comparable samples are needed
Rushton claimed…
Okay, lol, what about serious researchers?
”Elaborate please.”
Do you don’t know what is perypheral and central nervous system*
”https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-elite-athlete/”
Summarize this…
”elite athletes”…
Do you don’t know what is perypheral and central nervous system*
I know this, I ask you to elaborate on how they are separated. The peripheral nervous system is entirely subordinated to the central nervous system.
Summarize this…
”elite athletes”…
It’s clear enough, it doesn’t matter whether it’s about elite athletes or not, it shows that mental quickness is indispensable for athletic ability.
There is more to this:
Early motor skills are a strong predictor of later school success.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1037/a0020104
”I know this, I ask you to elaborate on how they are separated. The peripheral nervous system is entirely subordinated to the central nervous system.”
”It’s clear enough, it doesn’t matter whether it’s about elite athletes or not, it shows that mental quickness is indispensable for athletic ability.”
Yes i know.
By logic, a simple or not-so reaction time test will require fundamentally and purely central nervous system aka brain et all while a bodily-like reaction time will require both/obviously speaking, central and peripheral system.
Play soccer is different than to do a cognitive test, a reaction time.
Average athlete don’t appear to be smarter than a average academic teacher, indeed, athletes are often known to be not so brighter and pretty intelligent people are perceived nerdish [stereotypes].
Maybe professional athletes and even general population of athletes can score higher in IQ tests than a general population but we still are not comparing Top cognitive with top athletic.
Another stuff about this is that
someone can be faster on reaction times but not in real-world reasoning. And it’s perfectly but not surely that this person can be a athletic-like one.
What i mean. Faster eaction time truly can/may express intelectual agility or versatility and also can be a false-positive.
Zidane clearly has maximized body and mind reaction times and thus dominates football.
If he has anything like my reaction times (he is also Kabyle) he is a god.
”and thus dominates football.”
It wasn’t in 1998**
Baraka is sad!!1
lmao
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608941/
I commited a mistake suggesting that athletes necessarily no have a higher reaction times than ”nerds” [identified cognitively smarter group], on very avg. Even because i never was a believer about this correlation. It’s a complex subject, would be interesting analyse reaction times with the different cognitive branch of intelligence: verbal, spatial, mathematical, if there are discrepancies among them.
”branches”
Fenooky,
what do you think about RR intelligence*