[Please post all off-topic comments in the most recent open thread. They will not be posted here]
Recently Sam Harris interviewed Charles Murray on his podcast:
As a result, Harris endured severe criticism from Ezra Klein’s influential platform The Vox. The resulting controversy culminated in the two men debating. Sadly, they just ended up talking past each other without reaching common ground.
Overall I though Harris was more reasonable, but I doubt he’s as scientifically objective as he claims to be, especially if HBD ever threatened his group. He lets Charles Murray talk about blacks but I doubt he’d ever let Kevin MacDonald come on his show and talk about Jews, even though Harris does entertain trivial Jewish stereotypes like a “gene” for materialism.
Pumpkin Person 
Sam Harris doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Both he and Murray are biased. Kevin Macdonald’s Jewish group strategy hypothesis is a just-so story. Look up Nathan Cofnas’s replies to Macdonald. He doesn’t get that his “theory” explains what it’s designed to explain and makes no predictions therefore its a just-so story. I don’t know what these psychologists think this thing called “Science” is but it’s embarrassing.
Also relevant: Kevin Mitchell makes the same argument that natural selection lowers genetic variance.
Because most random mutations that affect intelligence will reduce it, evolution will tend to select against them. Inevitably, new mutations will always arise in the population, but ones with a large effect on intelligence – that cause frank intellectual disability, for example – will be swiftly removed by natural selection. Mutations with moderate effects may persist for a few generations, and ones with small effects may last even longer. But because many thousands of genes are involved in brain development, natural selection can’t keep them all free of mutations all the time. It’s like trying to play multiple games of Whack-a-mole at once, with only one hammer.
The result is that any population at any time will carry a varied bunch of mutations that affect intelligence. These will differ between populations, clans, families, and individuals. This constant churn of genetic variation works against any long-term rise or fall in intelligence.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-genetic-iq-differences-between-races-are-unlikely
Also see Dalton Conley on The Bell Curve:
The Bell Curve Revisited: Testing Controversial Hypotheses with Molecular Genetic Data
In 1994, the publication of Herrnstein’s and Murray’s The Bell Curve resulted in a social science maelstrom of responses. In the present study, we argue that Herrnstein’s and Murray’s assertions were made prematurely, on their own terms, given the lack of data available to test the role of genotype in the dynamics of achievement and attainment in U.S. society. Today, however, the scientific community has access to at least one dataset that is nationally representative and has genome-wide molecular markers. We deploy those data from the Health and Retirement Study in order to test the core series of propositions offered by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994. First, we ask whether the effect of genotype is increasing in predictive power across birth cohorts in the middle twentieth century. Second, we ask whether assortative mating on relevant genotypes is increasing across the same time period. Finally, we ask whether educational genotypes are increasingly predictive of fertility (number ever born [NEB]) in tandem with the rising (negative) association of educational outcomes and NEB. The answers to these questions are mostly no; while molecular genetic markers can predict educational attainment, we find little evidence for the proposition that we are becoming increasingly genetically stratified.
https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-v3-23-520/
And genetic markers can’t predict educational attainment, either.
Yes. you keep believing the brilliant geneticists Race. They aren’t scared out of their minds for the careers to tell the truth. You keep going Race.
Not an argument.
P1) Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival.
P2) Intelligence is important for survival.
C) Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans.
One would have to either deny that natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival or deny that intelligence isn’t important for survival to rebut the argument. No one would deny either of the two premises so they’d have to take on the conclusion—that intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans. However, the two premises are true so the conclusion follows from the premises and is therefore a sound and valid argument. One needs to provide a sound and valid counter argument to rebut the argument.
Intelligence WAS important for survival. If its importance declined in recent time, your argument crumbles.
P1) Race should go back to school
P2) Race is so credulous he would believe a dog could talk if it was in an academic paper.
P3) Get off my lawn.
Race you never replied to me comment – is HBD only about peoples hair colour, eye colour, colour of socks etc?
The argument for low genetic variance in human intelligence is an evolutionary argument to show how and why intelligence has—should have—low to nonexistent variance in humans. That it’s not important for survival in the modern day is irrelevant.
Depends on the time scale. If selection relaxes for long enough, genetic variation will return.
PP still believing that intelligence is a different and or isolated phenomenon to life’s behavior.
Adaptation IS knowledge.
is an evolutionary argument
what does it predict?
btw, popper’s notion of science is way too narrow. it applies to physics and not much else.
i know most about chemistry. there are a few “theoretical” chemists, but 99% of chemistry is just “this is what we did. this is what we accomplished in the lab.” and every “law” of chemistry has exceptions.
so science is also just the collection and arrangement of facts about natural phenomena. that arrangement does not always lend itself to mathematicization.
this is seen in academic economics. for ideological reasons it attempts to emulate theoretical physics, and for this reason it is 100% useless, and thus “safe”.
almost all natural science is “stamp collecting”.
because all but the phenomena which theoretical physicists concern themselves with are simply too complex to be modeled. they have to be empirical.
but in another sense popper was right.
that is, if the journal article is “this is what we did.” then it is falsifiable. that is, someone else can follow the recipe and accomplish the same thing. and there is no theory involved.
so popper was right that all propositions of natsci must be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable.
psychology has the problem that this criterion may hold only within a given culture/society if at all.
wheras the laws of chemnistry and physics are presumed to be the same everywhere.
What do you think of Lakatos?
‘long enough’ being 10k years, I guess….even though the trait likely went to fixation already, so we would be relying on new genetic mutations for the variance, which would be slow going….
so, even granting the ‘selection stalled’ argument doesn’t do much to explain the (according to HBDers) huge amount of genetic variance in “intelligence.”
we can all stipulate that intelligence in humans was highly and is still highly selected for.
if we agree on that it follows that it’s not likely that IQ != “genetic” intelligence, because of the yuge ‘genetic’ variance in IQ.
IQ is the ability to abstract and perform algebra with language, and most people don’t need to hyper develop this ability.
But so many mutations have occurred in the last 10K years given the population increase, hence the book The 10,000 year explosion
But so many mutations have occurred in the last 10K years given the population increase, hence the book The 10,000 year explosion
what replicated beneficial genetic mutations have occurred for behavioral traits?
As far as I know, zero.
Gregory Cochran, Jason Harding, and Henry Harpending made a very persuasive case that Gaucher disease increases IQ. There results have yet to be replicated but they look reliable because it was based on data from every Gaucher patient in Israel and iirc, they were over seven times more likely to be engineers as the general Israeli Ashkenazi population. of course Cochran et al might just be data-mining.
But even if there’ve been no BENEFICIAL genetic mutations, IQ variation could be driven by those with bad mutations.
Isn’t that paper from the 70s? Either way, associations are meaningless unless molecular genetic pathways that lead to trait variation are identified and understood, re Gaucher’s disease and ‘IQ’.
Ashkenazi Jewish IQ ‘evolution’ has to be “HBD’s” greatest just-so story.
yes it looks like they churned out a correlation or two. good for them. couldn’t be because a disease that makes you physically weak would probably force you to allocate your time engaging in intellectual pursuits, or anything….
What is more innnnheritable about human intelligence is its avgs and not outliers. If 50% of native norwegian people score arounds 100 in IQ tests, generally speaking, so it’s may mean something [average IQ is more inhenheritable than higher IQ].
Remember that higher IQ//cognitive skills genes are rarer than average and even lower-average ones.
Higher IQ look like color eyes nature. More lighter is the color eyes, more recessive.
Yes, if you’re not exposed to language and all available human knowledge and kinowledge [at scholar level], and became a illiterate in your mother tongue, your IQ will be lower than if you are earlier/normally exposed, but it’s still speculative, because we no have many studies or cases with later literacy acquirement and subsequent verified higher IQ, even because very very poor ”higher IQ” couples and families, seems, pretty rare. And even in this cases with very dysfunctional families but highly cognitively smart kid[s], when everything conspire against and in such situation a more-intelligent kid is born, it’s say something which hugely contradict extreme relevance of environment to raise a higher cognitive intelligence.
We don’t know if a illiterate high IQ children would be faster to acquire a language even at later age than a illiterate average and lower IQ children. It’s likely, but what would be its permanent deficit* It’s would happen*
Most people don’t say that IQ-intelligence type IS a human civilization-adaptation, still very convergent and universal but with a lot of illogical correlations [correlation between illiterate or zombie-like leftism and high IQ] because three fundamental reasons:
domestication [intelligence corrupted to serve social needs than itself needs, at priori]
specialization [ verbally intelligent [abstractization] people more socially domesticated than spatially intelligent ones, who are more laborally domesticated. mentalist versus mechanicist domestication typos].
“Ashkenazi Jewish IQ ‘evolution’ has to be “HBD’s” greatest just-so story.”
……
Jesus.
Even though Im not the biggest fan of the jewish community, its obvious to me what has happened over the last 1000 years. Tay-Sachs is also another hereditary defecit that only occurs with Jews.
I bet Huntington’s is also a jewish problem. But its just a hunch.
Others get Tay Sach’s other than Ashkenazi Jews.
Liberal huge bias against conservs and ”conserv golden age” [bias =/= reasonable analysis and criticism] also may be a point to be considered. Many if not most libs believe before ”liberal age” the western world was a intelectually desolate place with most people illiterate and ”retarded”. So they connected ”a past with bad nutrition, poverty, supposed literal/real Flynn Effect”…
Even seems most experts about this matter don’t know how technically problematic has been IQ tests actualizations and applications specially in the first half of XX century.
But, if you REALLY believe that british people had/scored an avg IQ ”70” so i think you understand little about IQ tests even if you’re working in this area.
”We don’t know if a illiterate high IQ children would be faster to acquire a language even at later age than a illiterate average and lower IQ children. It’s likely, but what would be its permanent deficit* It’s would happen*”
but HOW MUCH would be its permanent deficit* i mean.
”because three fundamental reasons:
domestication [intelligence corrupted to serve social needs than itself needs, at priori]
specialization [ verbally intelligent [abstractization] people more socially domesticated than spatially intelligent ones, who are more laborally domesticated. mentalist versus mechanicist domestication typos].”
three but too…
would be domestication, specialization and abstractization but the late is correlated with both two first ones.
[redacted by pp, may 3, 2018]
Race, answer my question – is HBD only true about phenotype?
IQ & personality are phenotypes. Physical phenotypes is what you mean.
How hormones influence IQ, aka, cognition*
“The argument for low genetic variance in human intelligence is an evolutionary argument to show how and why intelligence has—should have—low to nonexistent variance in humans. ”
Genetic variation is not an acceptable proxy for the how useful intelligence is to surviving.
you’re all just striving to be…
people who no one should want to be.
99% of the 99% still has a slave mentality.
What do you think of Lakatos?
i think scalia was a genius.
[photo redacted by pp at author’s request, May 3, 2018]
not because of jurisprudence…just my eccentric office habits
“Genetic variation is not an acceptable proxy for the how useful intelligence is to surviving.”
Why?
It’s true that natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival. It’s true that intelligence is important for survival. Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans. It’s a flawless argument.
Gregory Cochran, Jason Harding, and Henry Harpending made a very persuasive case that Gaucher disease increases IQ. There results have yet to be replicated but they look reliable because it was based on data from every Gaucher patient in Israel and iirc, they were over seven times more likely to be engineers as the general Israeli Ashkenazi population. of course Cochran et al might just be data-mining.
Not persuasive at all. Jewish disease are also prevalent in other heavily bottlenecked populations and are way too rare to make a difference and to be explained by positive selection. In comparison, all Africans have at least one maria-resistance genotype and the one pathological mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in Africa than any Jewish disease is among Jews.
It’s true that natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival. It’s true that intelligence is important for survival. Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans. It’s a flawless argument.
Exactly, and in fact, there is no Mendelian disease that causes mental retardation. Only chromosomal and X-related anomalies do. Because purifying selection on brain development has been strong and variation could only be caused by variants of small effect that selection can’t detect and purge against genetic drift. So if intelligence is under gentic influence, it can only be a fuction of individual mutational load. This is logically flawless.
Genetic variation is not an acceptable proxy for the how useful intelligence is to surviving.
LMAO! The argument that differences in the usefulness of intelligence between environments caused differential selection for “IQ” is the backbone of HBD. Now you’re saying that genetic variation can’t reflect the usefulness of intelligence. Logic is so imaginary.
But even if there’ve been no BENEFICIAL genetic mutations, IQ variation could be driven by those with bad mutations.
Yes, and non-Africans have more of them. So the most plausible genetic explanation for the genetic variation in intelligence between populations can’t favor Eurasians.
Not persuasive at all. Jewish disease are also prevalent in other heavily bottlenecked populations
Not to the same degree
and are way too rare to make a difference
Not when you add them all up
Yes, and non-Africans have more of them. So the most plausible genetic explanation for the genetic variation in intelligence between populations can’t favor Eurasians.
First of all, not everyone agrees that blacks have less genetic load; Cochran thinks they have more. But even if they have less, that tells us nothing about a specific polygenetic trait. By your bottleneck argument, Northwest Europeans likely have more genetic load than African pygmies, yet the former are much taller genetically.
Not to the same degree
Because they are less bottlenecked.
Not when you add them all up
They definitely the ones that cockring pretends increase intelligence are rare, the ones that everybody would claim are only harmful like Parkinson’s are much more common among Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews#Ashkenazi_diseases
More importantly, there is no common and non-pathological variant that could explain Jewish IQ, like there are common and non-pathological variants that provide malaria resistance.
First of all, not everyone agrees that blacks have less genetic load; Cochran thinks they have more.
But cockring is nobody, all the evidence shows that we have 1) less genetic load 2) more heterozygosity. And it perfectly meets the expectations from range expansion and bottlenecks. Again, these are non-controversial basic principles of population genetics.
Northwest Europeans likely have more genetic load than African pygmies, yet the former are much taller genetically.
The African pygmies have evolved to have no pubertal growth spurt, this is their phenotype, Pygmy children are not smaller than other children. Researchers disagree on what exact selection pressure that causes this.
And again, intelligence isn’t like height. It’s useful in all environments and whatever positive mutation would reach fixation, and deleterious mutations would be purged in the long run. Whereas height isn’t a fitness trait.
Another very important fact about the pygmy phenotype is that it doesn’t solely occurs in Humans. Rainforest elephants and hippos are pygmy too. The the leading hypotheses are that smaller size help navigate dense forest environments or that food scarcity in the rainforest selects for smaller size. Bergamn’s and Allen’s rule could also explain it, extreme heat and humidity would decrease body size to facilitate heat dissipation.
I think the food scarcity hypothesis makes sense because rainforest farmers are not short, but they tend not to be indigenous to the rainforest
The vegetal density hypothesis is plausible too, especially for hippos and elephants, less so for humans and it doesn’t explain why non-tropical forest peoples aren’t short.
Bergman’s and Allen’s rule look flawless in this case.
Bergman’s and Allen’s rule look flawless in this case
Huh? Allen’s rule predicts short limbs should be found in the arctic, not Africa
The pygmies don’t have short limbs, I’ve never heard that their body proportions differed from neighboring Africans. They’re smaller but I think they’re elongated too. Pygmy hippos and elephants are similarly just smaller versions of their savanna counterparts.
Eitherway, the case for HBD would be made if climate predicted intelligence in other animals just like the pygmy phenotype occurs in hippos and elephants.
The whole point is that we’re not animals, so we adapted to the cold more by changing behavior than by changing our bodies. Animals need fur to stay warm. We make fur coats.
We are animals. There is no evidence whatsoever that cold climates change behavior. We do have physiological adaptations for temperature. Clothing is needed in tropical climates to protect again rain, heat and mosquitoes, putting an other layer of clothes to protect against the climate is a no brainer.
One good test of the CWT would be to see how IQ correlates with physiologic temperature adaptations within each population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_and_heat_adaptations_in_humans
It likely doesn’t. And the fact that Australian aborigines score low on eyekew tests while being cold adapted needs explanation.
And the fact that Australian aborigines score low on eyekew tests while being cold adapted needs explanation.
I think you misread your citation
A field investigation was conducted to study cold acclimation in the Pitjandjara, a desert tribe of Australian aborigines. Oxygen consumption and rectal and skin temperatures were taken every half hour throughout the night a) while the natives were resting naked on the ground between their camp fires and b) while they rested naked without fires in a single-blanket sleeping bag, subjected to a moderate, but known, cold stress. The air temperature frequently dropped to 0°;C in the early morning. It was found that the camp fires on windless nights could readily supply enough heat to keep both the natives and whites in heat balance throughout the night and resting under basal conditions. In tests with the subjects in light sleeping bags without fires, the natives underwent a considerable peripheral skin cooling, with their foot temperatures dropping regularly to 12°–15°C. They slept soundly through the night with normal resting heat production. The white controls cooled almost as much, but unable to rest, they shivered and thrashed about all night, with a corresponding elevation of metabolism. The cooling adaptation of the Australian aborigines, which resembles the insulative cooling commonly found in mammals, differs from the metabolic compensation and greater peripheral heating developed in cold-acclimated white man.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.13.2.211
Different types of general cold adaptation have been described over the last 50 years. Metabolic adaptation (Alacaluf Indians, Arctic Indians Eskimos), insulative adaptation (coastal Aborigines of tropical northern Australia), hypothermic adaptation (bushmen of the Kalahari desert, Peruvian Indians) and insulative hypothermic adaptation (Central Australian Aborigines, nomadic Lapps, Korean and Japanese diving women). These different types of cold adaptation are related to the intensity of the cold stress and to individual factors such as diet, the level of physical fitness and body fat content. Thus, in natural environments, man develops a strategy of adaptation to cold, which takes into account environmental and individual factors. This strategy is susceptible to be modified when these conditions change. Caloric intake deficit could have been responsible for the hypothermic adaptation observed after J.-L. Etienne’s journey to the North Pole. Physiological responses were adapted to maintain an acceptable level of energetic reserves with a moderate hypothermia, which was not life threatening for the climatic conditions encountered by the polar explorer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1483765
there is just no way that temperature could have been a selection pressure for intelligence. Cold temperatures have been dealt with since homo erectus, eastern and southern Africa where humans evolved used to be colder, and still experience cold temperatures, especially at night.
Initially posted on wrong thread
More tough genetic facts:
Low intelligence has been associated with poor health and mortality, but underlying mechanisms remain obscure. We hypothesized that low intelligence is associated with accelerated biological ageing as reflected by telomere length; we suggested potential mediation of this association by unhealthy behaviors and low socioeconomic position. The study was performed in a longitudinal population-based cohort study of 895 participants (46.8% males). Intelligence was measured with the Generalized Aptitude-Test Battery at mean age 52.8 years (33–79 years, SD = 11.3). Leukocyte telomere length was measured by PCR. Lifestyle and socioeconomic factors were assessed using written self-report measures. Linear regression analyses, adjusted for age, sex, and telomere length measured at the first assessment wave (T1), showed that low intelligence was associated with shorter leukocyte telomere length at approximately 2 years follow-up (beta = .081, t = 2.160, p = .031). Nearly 40% of this association was explained by an unhealthy lifestyle, while low socioeconomic position did not add any significant mediation. Low intelligence may be a risk factor for accelerated biological ageing, thereby providing an explanation for its association with poor health and mortality.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049356
Leukocyte telomere length (LTL), which reflects telomere length in other somatic tissues, is a complex genetic trait. Eleven SNPs have been shown in genome-wide association studies to be associated with LTL at a genome-wide level of significance within cohorts of European ancestry. It has been observed that LTL is longer in African Americans than in Europeans. The underlying reason for this difference is unknown. Here we show that LTL is significantly longer in sub-Saharan Africans than in both Europeans and African Americans. Based on the 11 LTL-associated alleles and genetic data in phase 3 of the 1000 Genomes Project, we show that the shifts in allele frequency within Europe and between Europe and Africa do not fit the pattern expected by neutral genetic drift. Our findings suggest that differences in LTL within Europeans and between Europeans and Africans is influenced by polygenic adaptation and that differences in LTL between Europeans and Africans might explain, in part, ethnic differences in risks for human diseases that have been linked to LTL.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936823
African advantage again.
i didn’t ask you to redact it. i asked you to delete the post along with the one about kenney.
Did a search for kenney couldn’t find the name? Was it a photo?
I look when i get home late tonight
Deleting comments sometimes ruins threads so i prefer redacting
PP, if we’re not animals then what are we?
why haven’t you deleted the comment peepee?
I redacted the content. What’s the difference?
RR,
“Why? t’s a flawless argument.”
Hahaha, Phenotype is what’s selected for not Genotype. Genetic variation is used as a proxy because it’s what determines phenotypic variation. If the correlation between genotype and phenotype is low, as is the case for intelligence(because of experience dependency) then Genetic variation cannot be a useful proxy.
Afro,
“The argument that differences in the usefulness of intelligence between environments caused differential selection for “IQ” is the backbone of HBD. Now you’re saying that genetic variation can’t reflect the usefulness of intelligence. ”
No, HBD is a concept of multiple disciplines with no attachment to one theory. Lynn and Rushton helped pave the way but their thesis’ are outdated. Don’t conflate Pumpkin and I, It just makes you sound cringeworthy. Genetic variation doesn’t reflect the usefulness of intelligence. My argument is’ logically flawless’.
he’s talking about the [redacted by pp, may 3, 2018] comment i think
you didn’t redact anything in the comment: https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/02/interesting-hbd-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-88851
A Futile and Pointless Gesture is a biography of doug kenney.
it’s redacted now. Next time be more careful please.
Wikipedia says:
Hereditarianism is the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality. Hereditarians believe in the power of genetics to explain human character traits and solve human social and political problems. Hereditarians adopt the view that an understanding of human evolution can extend the understanding of human nature. They have avowedly rejected the standard social science model.
Genetic variation doesn’t reflect the usefulness of intelligence. My argument is’ logically flawless’.
No, it’s stupid, it’s a basic principle of evolutionary biology that fitness traits reach fixation and have a low heritability. But I guess evolutionary biology is imaginary too.
tell me what swank said.
He repeated a name you mentioned in your comment, to help me find which comment you meant.
“Wikipedia says:”
I don’t care what wikipedia says, try to think for yourself sometime.
“No, it’s stupid, it’s a basic principle of evolutionary biology that fitness traits reach fixation and have a low heritability.”
The correlation between genotypic intelligence and phenotypic intelligence is low(experience dependency), so genetic variation isn’t a good proxy for survival advantages. The only reason genetic variation is used, is because of it’s usually high correlation to phenotypic expression.
If you have no errors to point out besides your appeal to authority, i’d suggest just taking this L like a good boy.
“There is no evidence whatsoever that cold climates change behavior. ”
Large size, hypermorphosis, K strategies, all are associated with Cold weather and all are known to be propagators of encephalization and subsequently increase intelligence. The only one that’s specific to the cold is bergman and allen’s rule.
I’ve debunked CWT multiple times but it’s easy to see where the logic comes from, Thermoregulation woudl select for larger neurons, larger heads sizes,which leads to more neurons in general etc.
Pumpkin, this reminded me of your Autism theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinted_brain_theory
“However, an extreme genomic imprinting in favor of maternal genes is argued to cause psychosis such as in schizophrenia spectrum disorders while an extreme genomic imprinting in favor of paternal genes is argued to cause autism spectrum disorders. Thus, people with schizophrenia empathize and read too much into situations and see hidden intentions everywhere, causing delusions and paranoia, while people with autism seem to be blind to the intentions of others”
“Genetic variation is used as a proxy because it’s what determines phenotypic variation. If the correlation between genotype and phenotype is low, as is the case for intelligence(because of experience dependency) then Genetic variation cannot be a useful proxy.”
If the correlation between genotype and phenotype is low then heritability is low. Those with deleterious mutations are selected against; the selection against mutations lowers the genetic variation in a species.
The argument is sound, valid, flawless. This is why ‘intelligence’ should have a low to nonexistent variation in humans. You can’t deny either premise and so the conclusion follows from both premises. Natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival. P1 is true. Intelligence is important for survival. P2 is true. Therefore intelligence should have a low to nonexistent genetic variation (heritability). The conclusion is true.
Further, since stress can be epigenetically passed from mother to child, this can then affect IQ test performance as well, another part of experience-dependency, but experience-dependency doesn’t help any argument you’ve made, neither does epigenetics. Since moderate to severe stress which is then related to social class and test performance, can be inherited epigenetically, this affects growth in the hippocampus and PFC.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491815/
Another way that social class, indirectly, is a cause for lower IQ scores.
I meant to post the stress stuff in another thread but I just woke up so forgive me. Anyway, let me continue with the experience-dependency argument. Here’s the argument Melo:
P1) IQ tests are experience-dependent.
P2) IQ tests are experience-dependent because some classes are more exposed to the knowledge and structure on the test by way of their being born into a certain social class.
P3) If IQ tests are experience-dependent because some social classes are more exposed to the knowledge and the structure of the test along with whatever else comes with membership of that social class then these tests test distance from the middle class and it’s knowledge structure.
P4) How one scores on a test has to do with what information they are exposed to along with what they are exposed to in their everyday lives that affects test performance.
C) Therefore IQ tests test learned skills and knowledge more prevalent in the middle class than lower classes; IQ test scores are largely “middle class” scores, your knowledge of the middle class.
Melo do you accept the first two premises of the argument for low genetic variance in ‘intelligence’?
“Genetic variation doesn’t reflect the usefulness of intelligence. My argument is’ logically flawless’.”
You really should learn the difference between and “argument” and a “statement”.
“If the correlation between genotype and phenotype is low then heritability is low. Those with deleterious mutations are selected against; the selection against mutations lowers the genetic variation in a species.”
Heritability is a proportion of variance. The heritability of IQ is low and the increases in adulthood, this isn’t because genetic variation magically increased, it’s because the proportion that environment is associated with IQ’s variance became lower. This is vindicated by synaptic pruning and the halting of neurogenesis.
By your logic genetic variation should be low on traits important for survival. My argument is that genotype is not a useful proxy for inferring this, instead we should be looking at phenotypic variation. I’m surprised you don’t agree, do you not remember the couple months you were ranting about dawkin’s “selfish gene” metaphor? Nobles main point was that Phenotype, not genotype,is selected.
“You can’t deny either premise and so the conclusion follows from both premises”
Well, I just did. Your logic is faulty. Deal with it.
“Melo do you accept the first two premises of the argument for low genetic variance in ‘intelligence’?”
No, they have been empirically falsified.
“You really should learn the difference between and “argument” and a “statement”.”
I do numb-nuts. I’ve been making an argument this entire time, stop being a robot and learn to argue without syllogisms, like normal intellectuals do.
“The heritability of IQ is low and the increases in adulthood”
Test construction. Confounding in the womb.
“Nobles main point was that Phenotype, not genotype,is selected.”
I’m aware. My argument is still valid. If you don’t want to accept that that’s on you.
“Well, I just did. Your logic is faulty. Deal with it.”
No it’s not.
“No, they have been empirically falsified.”
Source?
“I’ve been making an argument this entire time”
Writing words and saying “respond to the papers I’ve cited” are not arguments.
“Test construction. Confounding in the womb.”
Haha, How does test construction and prenatal environment cause IQ to have a low heritability that slowly increases until adulthood?
“I’m aware. My argument is still valid.”
If that were true then you’d also be aware that your argument is invalid, because it rests on a faulty premise. It’s a conceptual problem.
To expand further on my argument, IQ has a moderate-high level of phenotypic variance. Considering this, it’s reasonable to assume that intelligence is not an important survival trait, but by definition intelligence is cognitive flexibility, therefore the malleability of intelligence is the core of it’s adaptive advantage. Variation is expected and a side effect of this adaptation.
“Source?”
Dennis noble.
“Writing words and saying “respond to the papers I’ve cited” are not arguments.”
I’m not providing you a syllogism. The argument is present, stop being lazy and you’ll find it.
“test construction”
Can build anything into and out of the test.
“prenatal environment”
Twins share a prenatal environment; age-effect cohorts explain heritability increase.
http://www.academia.edu/5853864/No_genes_for_intelligence_in_the_fluid_genome
“Variation is expected and a side effect of this adaptation.”
Natural selection excises deleterious gene variants,hence, it lowers genetic variation. especially in survival traits.
“Dennis noble.”
Which premise does this address?
Writing words and saying “address these links” is not an argument.
“Can build anything into and out of the test.”
What exactly did they excise to create this pattern? if you can’t elaborate, it’s just a baseless assertion. Also how would one construct an IQ test to match heritability estimates, if the latter were made after the former? So all of these Correlations were just magically generated by chance? Or are you advocating some kind of conspiracy? Sounds unfalsifiable.
“Twins share a prenatal environment; age-effect cohorts explain heritability increase.”
Where in that study did it discuss how prenatal environment increases heritability with age? I cant seem to find it. Not that i disagree, because if anything this further verifies the Synaptic pruning hypothesis.
“it lowers genetic variation. especially in survival traits. Which premise does this address?”
P3, as already stated. Phenotype not genotype is what gets selected. My hypothesis predicts two phenomena:
1) Phenotypic variation in Intelligence is wide.
2) A low correlation of phenotype to genotype
Both statements are true. Dennis noble and Statement 2 both justify the use of Phenotype over genotype in predicting the sruvival advantage of a trait. Though this is not absolute, Because not all traits are as malleable as intelligence.
“Writing words and saying “address these links” is not an argument.”
Ad nauseam. Empirical experiments validate the statements I have made, which form the basis of my argument’s premises. In fact an Argument is very much a collection of words substantiated by citations.
“What exactly did they excise to create this pattern?”
Items that didn’t conform to their presuppositions. I provided a quote a few weeks back talking about whether or not they should allow the discrepancies between men and women to continue, which implies that through test construction they can equalize outcomes on ‘IQ’ tests.
“Also how would one construct an IQ test to match heritability estimates”
Totally possible with item selection.
“Where in that study did it discuss how prenatal environment increases heritability with age?”
Section 3.1.
“P3, as already stated.”
There are only two premises.
How is (1) true? Molecular genetic evidence?
“Ad nauseum”
My point stands.
“Items that didn’t conform to their presuppositions.”
The heritability of IQ could not be made prior to the invention of IQ tests. How could you model a test to mimic a measurement that was unknown. What evidence do you have of such a conspiracy?
“Totally possible with item selection.”
How? Specifically.
“Section 3.1.”
The cited paper in that section is from 1997, I have produced many more up to date studies that produce contradictory results.
“There are only two premises.”
What does P3 and P4 stand for?
“My point stands.”
No you committed a fallacy. Your point is invalid.
“The heritability of IQ could not be made prior to the invention of IQ tests. How could you model a test to mimic a measurement that was unknown. What evidence do you have of such a conspiracy?”
What are you talking about?
“How? Specifically.”
Removing items that don’t conform to presuppositions. Adding harder, advanced questions.
“The cited paper in that section is from 1997”
Doesn’t matter.
“What does P3 and P4 stand for?”
Shit sorry. I was talking about another argument.
P3 wasn’t rebutted by that. The point on middle class knowledge stands.
“No you committed a fallacy. Your point is invalid”
Which fallacy? Says the guy who defends the use of circular argumenta. Assuming the conclusion in the premise is fine!!—Melo 2018
“What are you talking about?”
How are you confused? How does test construction affect heritability, exactly what would they excise and why? You’re being vague, because you know you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.
“Doesn’t matter.”
Yeah it does, the methodology is no where near as rigorous or robust.
“Which fallacy?”
Ad nauseam, hand waving, strawman, etc.
“Says the guy who defends the use of circular argumenta.”
What circular argument?
“How are you confused? How does test construction affect heritability, exactly what would they excise and why? You’re being vague, because you know you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.”
Since it’s based on presuppositions of the constructors, they can build anything they want into and out of the test by way of item analysis and selection. If they excise certain items they can change heritability.
Nevermind that heritability is a useless concept and says nothing about causation.
“Yeah it does, the methodology is no where near as rigorous or robust.”
What’s wrong with the methodology?
“Ad nauseam, hand waving, strawman, etc.”
Examples?
“What circular argument?”
Argument A.
What’s the argument that test construction isn’t arbitrary and based on social class?
“If they excise certain items they can change heritability.”
How, specifically? I’d appreciate an answer, I don’t waste time with baseless assertions.
“What’s wrong with the methodology?”
Nothing really, we just have better methodology now.
“Examples?”
Oh, right here’s one: “Argument A.”
Barnes argument is not circular and this is the nth time you have repeated this false statement, that’s 3 fallacies in one.
“What’s the argument that test construction isn’t arbitrary and based on social class?”
hahahaha, that’s not how it works. It is not possible to ‘prove something wrong’ nice try though.
“How, specifically?”
by de-selecting items that don’t’ conform to their presuppositions. That’s not baseless; it’s true.
“Nothing really, we just have better methodology now.”
Whats the methodology in the paper and why is it bad?
“Oh, right here’s one: “Argument A.””
I assume this is “ad naseum”. Argument A is circular; keep trying to defend illogical arguments.
“hahahaha, that’s not how it works. It is not possible to ‘prove something wrong’ nice try though.”
What’s the argument?
Further construction engineering compounds this artificial convergence to a general factor. For example, items are almost universally devised in the first place by people from a very narrow cultural background on the basis of ‘face validity’, with more or less intuitive reference to common criteria, such as school-type knowledge. This also applies to non-verbal items, such as the Raven’s matrices, as mentioned above. Cole (1999), indeed, describes the leap of psychological decentring that would be required on the part of test constructors to overcome this cultural bias. Then items are further selected/deselected to ensure test properties further consistent with a simple quantitative (biometric) trait, including: a normal distribution of population scores; a linear age-wise increase in scores; no sex differences; and so on. Out of this vast technology, it is, perhaps, not surprising that a common factor emerges, though it may be one in test designers’ presuppositions rather than one in nature.
Click to access 3398d781543cd0edcf51f181074f4c3ff35b.pdf
“That’s not baseless”
It’s absolutely basless. Item excision could not possibly affect the phenotype-genotype variance of said scores. Until you explain specifically how this happens, it’s false.
“Whats the methodology in the paper and why is it bad?”
Well it’s a metanalysis for starters, but even then it’s already been debunked by newer studies showing that heirtability does infact increase with age: Bouchard 2013
Barnes did not use argument a. Nice try though.
“What’s the argument?”
All biological measurements are constructed to measure what they claim to. Your ‘argument’ is fallacious.
“It’s absolutely basless. Item excision could not possibly affect the phenotype-genotype variance of said scores. Until you explain specifically how this happens, it’s false.”
If they use different items, then the relationship will change. Item selection/analysis is arbitrary and not based off any cognitive theory.
“Well it’s a metanalysis for starters, but even then it’s already been debunked by newer studies showing that heirtability does infact increase with age: Bouchard 2013”
That doesn’t answer my question.
“Barnes did not use argument a. Nice try though.”
You defended Argument A on my blog. Nice try though.
“All biological measurements are constructed to measure what they claim to. Your ‘argument’ is fallacious.”
That’s not an argument, it’s a claim.
“If they use different items, then the relationship will change. ”
Which items? Answer the question: How does item excision affect genotype-phenotype variance of the score?
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
It does lol.
“You defended Argument A on my blog. Nice try though.”
No I didn’t. That was a completely different concept i was arguing.
“That’s not an argument, it’s a claim.”
It’s a claim that falsifies your argument. A argument is comprised of premises and conclusions. My claim was a premise of the conclusion: IQ tests have construct validity.
“How does item excision affect genotype-phenotype variance of the score?”
If the excision of one item leads to different score outcomes for different groups it would affect it. It’s a conceptual objection.
“It does lol.”
No it doesn’t because it’s extremely broad and vague and may as well not be a response to the question since nothing was addressed lol.
“It’s a claim that falsifies your argument. A argument is comprised of premises and conclusions. My claim was a premise of the conclusion: IQ tests have construct validity.”
IQ tests have no construct validity. It’s mechanisticallly relating differences in one variable to differences in another. The “claim” does not affect my argument.
“It’s a conceptual objection.”
So no examples, no specification? Exactly as I thought, Item excision has no effect on heritability of IQ.
“IQ tests have no construct validity. It’s mechanisticallly relating differences in one variable to differences in another.”
Yawn* repeating an assertion that has been already debunked is not an argument, try again.
Do you know what a conceptual objection is? Item excision does; change the test, change heritability. But melo needs everything in black and white, peer-reviewed to be able to make assessments. Can’t use logic since its imaginary.
Nothing was debunked. Telling you what construct validity is and what needs to be done to show it for IQ tests (which ones?).
“Can’t use logic since its imaginary.”
Ha, I’m simply asking you to be specific. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just an answer you pulled out of your ass. I can imagine how Item excision affects gender differences, but I fail to see how it can magically raise heritability? They’re two different measures with completely different parameters.
“But melo needs everything in black and white,”
That’s simply false. Your’e a known absolutist. It’s why you can’t understand complex concepts. You’re simply not creative.
“peer-reviewed to be able to make assessments. ”
Well yes, I try to stick with the scientific method when discussing science. i get you you’re not very much into intellectual thought, but try to understand.
“Nothing was debunked. ”
Still waiting.
It can “magically raise heritability” because the constructors control the test. By ridding items that don’t fit their distribution, they can control it. The quote from Richardson is apt. You can “still wait”, I already told you what construct validity is. Meaning it’s not P-FIT. That’s the definition of construct validity.
“By ridding items that don’t fit their distribution, they can control it”
Thank you. All IQ tests are fitted to a normal distribution. So this wouldn’t affect the contrast between adult and child heritability estimates. Even then which type of items would they change to make children’s scores more variable than adults?
“Meaning it’s not P-FIT. That’s the definition of construct validity.”
PFIT is construct validity. I have refuted every criticism you produced.
Melo, so which variables have been mechanistically related to differences in one another?
“so which variables have been mechanistically related to differences in one another?”
You mean for functional connectivity(PFIT) specifically? Or the other ones?
So which variables?
“So which variables?”
Answer my question, and then I can answer yours.
I’ve explained it already.
No you didn’t. It’s a simple question.
“It’s mechanisticallly relating differences in one variable to differences in another.”
““It’s mechanisticallly relating differences in one variable to differences in another.””
Which biological mechanism do you want me to elaborate on? This is an important question.
The mechanism that leads to trait variation.
A lot of them do, which specific one?
Any one
I’ll start with an easier one:
So what is functional Connectivity? Simply put, it’s spatio-temporal communication between neurons of different brain regions, this can be measured by cerebral blood flow fluctuations. DFC usually has correlation of.5 to .75 to individual differences in iQ, which is outstanding considering the small possibility of testing error and false positives. This mimics the selection for increase brain flow(which had more selection than brain size) in our evolutionary history. IQ tests test skills such as Visuospatial, and linguistic. Neurons in sensory regions make connections between eachother when external stimuli is present, this is how we piece thoughts and model the world around us, these connections can get stronger or weaker as time passes depending on how it’s used. Therefore Functional connectivity should mimic our performance on tests of sensory manipulation. The latest research confirms this assertion.
When I said “mechanism” I meant “genes or set of genes” that lead to trait variation; that’s what “mechanism” means.
“Therefore Functional connectivity should mimic our performance on tests of sensory manipulation. The latest research confirms this assertion.”
How do you know causation isn’t reversed?
IQ tests test learned skills and knowledge. Fact. you can’t get around that.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/bf02259523
“IQ tests test learned skills and knowledge. Fact.”
Yes, though genetics limit knowledge that can be learned. Pattern spotting is also genetic. I learn at very fast rates and have quick reflexes not because of knowledge, but because of genetics. Reflexes aren’t affected by knowledge, though learning is (though learning as a ‘skill’ if it even be called that is innate).
Also reflexes slow down with age even as knowledge increases. It would be interesting to test learning speed and short-term memory with age.
Solid determinism.
“When I said “mechanism” I meant “genes or set of genes” that lead to trait variation; that’s what “mechanism” means.”
Only a small amount of variance is explainable by pure differences in genetic sequences. We are all the same species, and a very homogeneous one at that. The main mechanisms at which neurons differentiate non-stochastically is through gene expression and epigenetic inheritance, mostly during early development.
“How do you know causation isn’t reversed?”
In what way? Can you be more specific? Ill try to do the same.
“you can’t get around that.”
I don’t really have to. The feedback loop guarantees that the potential is dependent on the refined connections created after pruning to increase or decrease. Experience dependency is not a one way street.
“The main mechanisms”
Which are?
“In what way? Can you be more specific? Ill try to do the same.”
How do you know X doesn’t cause the connectivity?
“I don’t really have to”
If IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge (they are) and lower classes aren’t exposed to the knowledge and structure of the tests (they aren’t) then it logically follows that lower classes score lower because they’re not expose to the same things.
“Which are?”
Neuron behavior is regulated through gene expression.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108652/
“How do you know X doesn’t cause the connectivity?”
What is X supposed to be?
“then it logically follows that lower classes score lower because they’re not expose to the same things.”
Your point? How does that contradict any assertion I’ve made?
Where is the mechanistic relation between variable X and IQ?
Why do you keep asking me the same questions that I’ve already answered?
rr and swank and afro and all HBD-deniers should just post this:
g is IQ and g is language and spatial. Sam said.
I have high g but I have problems making things come out of my mind.
Like ideas or drawings or calculations or designs.
I don’t practice solving problems all the time.
So nothing comes out onto my paper.
I think my thinker is broken because,
I cannot sit still and think, my mind is empty.
So I do not see what good my 130 g is for?
its called creativity, internally a loop generates ideas.
puts things together with no external input.
g is not creativity, they do not necessarily go together.
g works fine with external input putting things together.
but I am not internally creative, this causes me problems.
Highly creative people may score low on IQ tests.
IQ tests do not measure nor consider creativity as intelligence.
”I have high g but I have problems making things come out of my mind.”
I don’t think it’s possible you have a higher g or higher general cognition and have that problems.
I am not creative I’m analytical.
It’s hard to be in secluded places for me.
There is nothing for my mind to work on.
So nothing comes out.
This happens often just in my home.
Creative people need nothing to work on.
Stuff just happens in their head automatically
My head does not do that, it needs something external
Creatives are internal to themselves.
But i think your analysis here is wrong because higher g mean ”higher general ‘intelligence’, aka, cognitive skills”, good at ”everything”… iq tests correlates or analyse.
higher g or general cognitive efficience [without a real world context, aka political/evolutive context].
So if you have a below average general cognitive efficience it’s may think you no have a higher g, and based on your results…
But IQ tests do not measure creativity only analytical calculation. So no it not measure all cognitive abilities like creation, but quant only, not quality. You know this Santo. Can you comprehend the internal loop that generates quality and not just the manipulation of quant variables that follow rules to calculate answers? Internal feedback divergence loop vs convergent IQ. IQ is only convergent. IQ test does not measure all cognitive ability it is only convergent.
Divergent minds only need the internal mind to create. It is self-sufficient loop need no external input mostly. Convergent cannot work without external stimuli.
I don’t think IQ measure literally analytical skills just at superficial and noncontextual levels. Many higher IQ individuals appear to be not very good analytical-critical thinkers. Just became fixed in IQland never was a good deal for psychology and intelligence understanding.
What i always say in hb”d”land: IQ is a tool to measure the capacity of worker, but not the capacity of a [human] being. Still a important thing but not at all. And most IQlogists seems don’t care about it, of course, because this truths are perceived as very inconvenient for them, even it’s not, it’s complementar. Most IQlogists, conscious or not so, don’t want accept the missing points of IQ, even because it’s mean be more socially critical, more philosophical, while they are more mathematicians than philosophers, more technical than thinkers.
logic
a = b
equivalency
rationality
2/3 ratio
proportionality
reason
if x then y
conditional
analysis
simplification
synthesis
recombination
analytical
breakdown problems into steps
intuitive
know a solution implicitly skipping steps
I like your thinking line here.
I wish I could be in my head and do stuff in there. That is all I want.
I am listening the audio wich is, as always with Murray, very slow paced, but still interesting. He is a very good teacher. At 58m, they agree “emphatically” that people shouldnt be judge by race because the average difference among race is lower than the average difference among people. I think that’s completely false if the data they presented are correct :
1) The first error is that even if the difference among race were smaller, as you can tell by the phenotype quite quickly the race of most people (lots of error, but you ‘re more right than wrong in general), even if the difference were very small – like among east asian and black – then I don’t see why one shouldn’t take this difference into account when you don’t know anything else. So the critera (wich is a Lewontin like criterai for DNA differences) is not sound.
2) The big mistake is that the difference among Afro-american and white (say 15 points) is the same as the average difference between people from the same race (15 points, 1 sd). And it would be 25 if you take Indian living in the USA and blacks. So it’s completely false to say that this average difference among race could never be as important or more important than differences between individuals. And its 30 versus 15 if you take people living in Africa versus whites. So the criteria they have set against racism prejudice, they both agree, doesn’t stand against the fact they are themselves presenting.
I would say it’s the existence of an overlap and a unique human species that should be the ground against racism, but not the criteria wich is always repeated.
“At 58m, they agree “emphatically” that people shouldnt be judge by race because the average difference among race is lower than the average difference among people.”
We should treat people on the basis of their race and not on an individual basis?
By the way, “should” questions and statements are moral, not scientific, questions and statements.
RR, it’s exactly what I’ve said at the end btw. It is a ‘should” question. But my point isn’t that. It’s identifyng a contradiction and a false rule presented as an evidebce by Murray and the anchor. My point is technical.
And I can reformulate it : They try to give a scientific base to the fact that race prejudice wouldn’t make any sense statistically – follonwing Lewontin argument on DNA – because of this criteria presented as a universal law :
average differences among individuals in a race will always be bigger than average differences among races
This proposition is false in regard to the data they use themselves. Because black/white average IQ differences are as big as average differences in IQ in each race (wich is the standard deviation).
Murray recognizes his spatial IQ is not high but I believe is numerical IQ isn’t very high neither despite his good SAT score, that’s why – with his guest – they can hold in their head – to employ a beloved terminology – two mutually inconsistant propositions. That is also a problem of Murray. He is far better than average professor in social sciences but to hold very controversial views, you must be far more intelligent than the average lot.
“then I don’t see why one shouldn’t take this difference into account when you don’t know anything else. So the critera (wich is a Lewontin like criterai for DNA differences) is not sound.”
I said this in response to fenoopy when he quoted chomsky saying this nonsense. It makes no sense. If you were hiring pro wrestlers for your wrestling show, would you send scouts to vietnam?
Its ridiculous. Its based on the implicit jewish notion of cultural marxism or, all races are the exact same so therefore treatment should be equal.
That might work on someone with the intellectual development of a possum, but it won’t work on reality. In REALITY, most people judge first on foremost on race among other things like height, looks etc which in fact are promulgations of your race anyway most of the time.
THEY ARE SAYING THIS BECAUSE THEY BOTH DONT WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING A RAY-CIST. They know the truth in their own hearts.
Philo, if they said that not to appear racist, it is even dumber because they set a criteria that, if not passed, makes racism ok. So even if they clearly puting a lot of emphasis to cover their back, they wouldn’t utter this rule if they believe it could be false. I think their parotting Lewontin argument – by analogy – without enough thinking .
Besides, I just realize it’s not easy to understand that the average difference of IQ among to people you don’t know anything about is equal to 1 sd. I have never seen it commented anywhere (I don’t know if they point it out in a stat book). So it’s quite possible they don’t understand this data they have. Without much stat knowledge, it requires higher IQ to be able to spot the difference use of one concept . It’s obvious only once your told .
Bruno i always suspected Hsu’s IQ 70 estimate for Neanderthals was based on the fact that modern humans differ by about 15 IQ points and 1 per thousand places on the genome, thus neanderthals who differ from us at few per thousand places might differ 30 IQ points:
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2014/03/the-neanderthal-problem.html?m=1
I could be wrong but where else did he get that IQ of 70 from unless he just pulled it out of the air.
I don’t know anything about this matter. What do you want me to do Pumpkin ? I can read what you want.
You can read the link I provided if you’re wondering what I’m talking about.
Pumpkin, I’ve read the link and you’re right. He seems to equal 1 per thousand variation to 15 sd and then for our SD with Neanderthal, it would be “a few” multiplied by 15sd.
An interesting aspect is thtat the problem with this reasoning is that you don’t know the Neanderthal sd. If they varies as much among themselves than with us, they would have a sd of 30, then 2% of them would be clever than actual humans. I believe it’s possible because they were less social. It would be interesting to know.
Another problem is that if the variation among races and inside races doesn’t correspond to the same amount of sd, then the inference is false (their average IQ wouldn’t be 70 necessarily). For example, average variation among american black and white should be equal to average variation among white (or among black) to allow to spill over the data from one race (or species in case of Neanderthal) to the other.
A major problem I see with this logic is would imply that chimps (who differ from us at 10 per 1000 places on the genome) would have an IQ of -50. My current best guess is chimps have an IQ of +14:
IQ is mostly about how good you are to
memorize information
apply information = ~ vocabulary + abstract thinking skills
”rationalize” your point of views = ~argumentation levels
but not about your moral levels
intellectual honesty
intellectual independence
intellectual humbleness
Based on this three criteria people as rr would ”score” exceptionally lower.
Intellectual honesty:
”i can be wrong”
Intellectual independence
”first of all i must be capable to think by myself”
Intellectual humbleness, similar but not exactly the same vibe as intellec-honesty:
” i know i don’t think everything”
Intellectual independence is connected with logic [///semantics/abstraction].
There is a REALITY, something we can’t change totally or completely. We usually translate it to TRUTH. Truth is our value derived, perfectly or very-imperfect from fact or partial facts [when we take convenient aspect of given real fact-systems to create a convenient personal point of view system].
Most of more-rational independent thinkers [comparatively speaking] use logic or pattern recognition to build their ”belief’ systems.
How do you verify the Neanderthal IQ guess? You can’t.
“I could be wrong but where else did he get that IQ of 70 from unless he just pulled it out of the air.”
This is the only explanation. He pulled it out of his ass.
Bruno thats an extremely autistic interpretation of their motives. Its best just to assume that they wouldn’t be caught dead in public urging people to judge people on their race as they would lose their careers, get threatened and have the (((media))) declare them part of the New Reich.
In the end, intellectuals of my time will have to grasp the nettle and say:
I AM RACIST.
SO WHAT?
JAIL ME?
Rather live 1 day as a lion. Then 100 years as a sheep.
Gailileo :
“And yet it moves”
Same thing. Different Master.
Speculate is not verify something cannot be literally verified.
Better
It’s not exactly
speculate
but
extrapolate
Yes this is the exact problem I spotted . Differences within species are probably not equal to differences between specie. But the basic idea is what you said .
“should” questions and statements are moral, not scientific
FALSE.
morality can be a natsci just as much as finitist mathematics.
mathematics is sometimes just word games, but other times it’s not.
whether FINITE mathematics is considered a natural science or not is just a matter of how one defines “nature”.
mathematics differs from all other natsci in that it is true irrespective of the universe the mathematician inhabits.
whereas “the laws of nature” may just be laws in one particular universe…the universe we live in may be one on many.
Then where do you draw the line on reaction norms? There could be some universes where chimp genomes cause more intelligent phenotypes than human genomes.
math differs form natsci in that it isn’t a science. it’s just pure language.
that’s a dumb question.
it’s just pure language.
this is a common misconception…even among some (pure) mathematicians.
it’s possible i’m mistaken. you’re more mathematically sophisticated than I.
but it seems like symbol manipulation proceeding from one set of irreducible kernels or another. so the fact that it is true in all universes to me sounds as impressive as a square being a polygon in all universes…
Godel showed we can’t know that its the same in all universes. Or at least its possible its not the same.
”There could be some universes where chimp genomes cause more intelligent phenotypes than human genomes.”
In another universes humans and chimps don’t exist OR symmetry/physics is such powerfully relevant that all possible another universes may have the same natural laws. Natural = something which exist because it’s literally works.
Just to correct about Murray. My guess would be him to have a 135 verbal IQ but a 115 quant IQ (thats why its weird he did all the data treatment, maybe the co author was worse). With a 125 average IQ. Then a Jordan Peterson, would be 125 and 155 I believe, with an average or 140 IQ. That’s why Peterson is much better at fighting back while have more unconventional views. But I believe at the same time Murray is much more industrious and conscientious than Peterson. Peterson is more of, if not a fraud at least reckless, nonchalant and , in documenting his views. That’s why he is more fun.
What is the relevance of guessing the ‘IQs’ of people involved in this debate?
No relevance at all. It’s only because I said 1) Murray is interesting but slow paced theb 2) that he was asserting 2 inconsistant propositions without noticing. And during his debate, he was speaking about his good SAT and the fact he did all the math for his book.
So I felt I was implying Murray is dumb. And as I don’t believe that at all, I just thought I could clarified that and compare to someone who is in the same kind of spotlight, I discovered the other day thx to Pumpkin.
I am a beotian compared to you RR in those matters . I don’t read much about this subject except through this entertaining blog.
http://garthzietsman.blogspot.com/2012/03/chess-intelligence-and-winning.html?m=1
Interesting blog I saw years ago that showed how a debater of one IQ versus one of another has a certain probability of being correct in an argument.
In the end, the major debate of the 21st century will boil down to what I’ve been saying since the first day I commented here – is it morally wrong to be a ‘racist’? (i.e. white tribalist).
The answer is no. But the jews won’t give up easily and everyone intelligent in public speaking is scared out of their minds to say it.
How do you determine morality? i dont know about morality so go easy on me.
Morality is sui generis.
There is the morality or system of rules and needs which was created to deceived, tamed people to be exploited and there is the universal morality, when you understand what is really good, average and a bad thing to do. It’s mostly based on ”proportion pattern recognition”. For example, beat a helpless baby is completely wrong, at priori.
Seems pill still don’t understand this differences and believe there is just one type of morality, the morality of stronger but not the morality of reason, even when he all the time talk about jews, he is just being morally correct, 😉
to be a particular tribalist is wrong.
a better term would be an “homogeneitist”.
one may be agnostic as to the merits of his tribe relative to other tribes and still be an homogeneitist.
people will look back on this blog comment as the founding of homogeneitism.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Kleins IQ is too high not to know about HBD. That being said, there are cases of people to be believe in cultural marxisms aphorism – we are all equal in the eyes of god – so much that they are demented and won’t accept reality.
However if you poke them they will concede blacks are good athletes (but not criminals), or jews are very good with money, but the 1 thing they would rather set themselves on fire before saying is that someone should be judged on their race, which is in fact what most jews do, but pretend to the gentiles that they don’t.
SCAM.
Kleins IQ is too high not to know about HBD
FALSE.
Haha, I don’t like him either, but hes smart enough to see the difference between and orc and an elf.
Notice how Harris brings up the fact that they are both Jews a couple times and Klein never responds. He seems to avoid it. In fact, Klein states that they are bouth “white” guys at least 3 times in the show.
Could Klein’s attack on Murray actually have nothing to do with sincere SJW desire to protect blacks? Perhaps he’s afraid that discussion of intelligence will lead to discussion of Jewish intelligence and that is pandora’s box.
As for Harris, I’m not sure what his motivations are. He seems to be a sincere anti-tribalist but you could also make the case that he agrees with Klein’s goals and is merely debating tactics, i.e. should Jewish people continue to obfuscate differences between races despite of that position becoming increasingly ridiculous?
Could Klein’s attack on Murray actually have nothing to do with sincere SJW desire to protect blacks?
Could?
He seems to be a sincere anti-tribalist…
autism is sad.
“autism is sad.”
Please help an autist and give your explanation.
It’s plausible that Harris is only concerned with tactics, i.e. against the absurdity of obfuscating racial differences and identity politics as that could only lead to light being shined on the Jewish people.
But why then would he repeatedly publicly draw attention to both of them being Jewish? Also, Harris is only half-Jewish.
I think there are a lot of half-Jewish people who are making common ground with whites and this is one of the reasons for the apparent split amongst the Jewish elite.
Harris believes in HBD full bore. I was watching a video with him Hitchens, Dennet and Dawkins debating atheism, and Harris said liberals have their own dogma around race to which everyone fell silent except hitchens who said race is a social construction.
This proves that hitchens was a good goy.
I would be shocked if Dawkins wasn’t privately HBD aware.
militant atheists are boring and stupid.
anti-religion is fine.
but “there is no God”-ism is just another retarded religion.
And most atheists replace God with genes. They give genes all this power. See Dawkins, R. Selfish Gene.
how many christians were executed by the romans…
for “atheism”?
quite a few.
there is no such thing as an atheist.
people are fundamentally religious.
they are moved and possessed by ideas.
ideology is not exactly religion.
Almost official religions are mythologies. Ideology is behind any human [and maybe non-human] behavioral systems, can be or not mythological.
Absolute atheist is the suicidal person who will jump into the death ocean tomorrow.
Most atheists are partial types.
Instincts are, at priori, locally-adapted senses.
Humans invented the universality of thought in contrast of over-locality of nonhuman living being-way-to-survive.
Swank, What is religious?
Theres a difference between what you might call ought and should. A detective investigating a case ought to suspect blacks first in any armed robbery based on pure chance, but whether he should is a jewish question. I.e. can be a weak point of conditioning.
Even on the jewish question, if justice is what you demand from detectives, then he should profile suspects. And not presume innocence and be autistic.
However if believing in cultural marxism is what you demand from detectives, then he should go to the bus stop and ask old women about their whereabouts on June 15th at 1AM in Brixton.
what you should do is socially constructed then. whether it is just or not.
I ought to go with what is reality than what should be by the ideas in society of what reality is that might not be.
santo,
It does not matter that IQ test do not measure intellectual morality. An immoral intellectual person with high IQ can still be a supervillain and defeat more intellectual moral people by having a better plan. The better plan wins no matter the intellectual honesty or dishonesty. That’s how superhero movies work. The good guy can lose to a villains better plan even if the hero is intellectually moral, that is why morality is not part of intelligence. Intelligence is a battle of witts, not priorities. Generally characterized.
The genius supervillain can win without being intellectually moral but just more intelligent than the hero.
A detective investigating a case ought to suspect blacks first in any armed robbery based on pure chance, but whether he should is a jewish question.
based on ‘pure chance’ he should suspect a white person….because a white person is most likely to have actually done it. you’re confusing your givens…
given black v white vs. given event a….
Even on the jewish question, if justice is what you demand from detectives, then he should profile suspects. And not presume innocence and be autistic.
you’re confusing criminal profiling with racial profiling….criminal profiling is practiced by all law enforcement and can include a potential suspect’s race.
and unless you want the detective to mete out the punishment for the crime upon arrest, then yes you do believe in the ‘presumption of innocence..’
However if believing in cultural marxism is what you demand from detectives, then he should go to the bus stop and ask old women about their whereabouts on June 15th at 1AM in Brixton.
no one does this or believes this or argues that this should be common practice.
do you seriously have so little real life experience that you believe idk…Fox and Friends hyperbolic talking points as truth?