We’ve been told since the 1980s that IQ scores are incredibly sensitive to the environment, as proven by the fact that scores have been increasing at a rate of 3 points per decade since the earliest days of testing, and the tests must constantly be renormed to keep the average at 100.
However I’ve always suspected that the Flynn effect was an exaggeration and have been quietly collecting evidence to prove it. Most recently, I found a 1961 paper by Betsy Worth Estes et al., in which 82 kids (grades one through eight) who had taken the 1937 Stanford Binet were tested on the 1960 version. Given the Flynn effect is supposedly 3 points a decade, you’d expect them to score 6.9 points higher on the older test, than on the newer one, but instead the gap was only 2 points (IQ 125 on the 1937 S-B, IQ 123 on the 1960 S-B),
Pumpkin Person 
From Richardson, (2002: 301) What IQ Tests Test:
“Most other tests have followed the Stanford–Binet in this regard (and, indeed are usually ‘validated’ by their level of agreement with it; Anastasi, 1990).”
Haha
Even i agree with you about Flynn exageration, i thought 82 kids a very little sample. How representative these kids are*
So they did the old test first? Training effect is probably worth a few points.
Yes, but they took the first test in some cases several years ago, so practice effects on the new test would be minimal
Pumpkin, why is the negative Flynn effect only appearing in European countries, Andy not in Canada or America? Or, could it just be regression to the mean?
Also, how socially inept are the commenters?
Does regression to the mean apply here? Since the correlation between the 1937 and 1960 IQ tests isn’t perfect, and most—if not all—of the individuals in the group of students who took the 1937 test scored above the general population mean, wouldn’t you expect the scores of most of the students to decline on the 1960 test? As a result, wouldn’t the average score of the students on the 1960 test be expected to be lower?
And if they performed worse, wouldn’t it take a large Flynn effect to allow them to score above their previous average?
I’m super hungover, so if I’m missing something obvious or doing something stupid, I apologize.
Regression only applies if they were selected for extreme scores on the previous test. The kids in this study were selected only for ANY score on the previous test. On average scores were high because it was a high SES school, but there was no selection for high scores
Alright, thanks. I need to brush up on my stats.
I’ll be taking the wais soon. Any advice before taking and it and also can you give me career advice based of my results?
No you’re not supposed to get advice when you take the WAIS, you take it cold.
I can give career advice if you tell me your scores but there’s a lot more to choosing a career than just cognitive abilities. What you’re passionate about matters a lot too.
i guarantee the founder of #metoo was never sexually harassed.
”i guarantee the founder of #metoo was never sexually harassed.”
As you.
Yeah dj quik
answer my question:(
Does anyone have an explanation for why white nationalism exists, especially in America? Isn’t the entirety of the hypothesis that outbreeding causes people who are less clannish and less likely to have ethnic genetic interests?
One particular thing I’ve noticed about breeding patterns nowadays is that inbreeding is becoming the norm. People want to select for people who are genetically similar to them rather than genetically diverse, thus reducing hybrid vigor except maybe in extreme cases where some traits are being diversified away (an analogy to risk diversification in the stock market, not literal diversity). Assortative mating is the new norm. So it comes into question why this is happening and how is it harming our society.
Also, clannishness does not equate to nationalism whatsoever. Clannish people are actually the least nationalist groups on the planet. Only people with diverse ethnic backgrounds are nationalist…so it begs the question, what is the cause of nationalism?
I think that a lot of white nationalism (at least in modern day) stems from a lot of insecurity about their place in society. Many a White nationalist feel as if they are being oppressed, literally in the same way poor white farmers feel they are being oppressed in South Africa. However, any sane person would understand that people aren’t exactly oppressed in America- in SA too. The attempted distribution of land in SA is kind of like AA, it’s not oppressive, but it could be argued as unfair.
It might also be that this outbreeding is causing white nationalists to feel that “hey, this is our country, and we want White blood”.
Well first of all inbreeding is only a problem if you breed with your first cousin with whom you share about 12.5% of your DNA. Once we reach the level of 3rd cousin you only share 0.78% of your DNA which is statistically insignificant when it comes to the negative effects of inbreeding. Even with your second cousin you only share 3.13% which would only produce minimal problems(ie generally frowned upon but not the end of the world). So generally speaking breeding with your 3rd cousin is not considered problematic at all.
Secondly people have a poor understand of what is meant by hybrid vigor. It is hardly a rule nor is it that clear cut that excessive genetic diversity is advantageous particularly in the short run. Also there are as many benefits to inbreeding on a purely genetic level as there are negative effects. In the most simplistic terms what inbreeding does is it reinforces what already exists. This can be very beneficial if for example there are genes of high IQ, those get reinforced and have a much less chance for dilution than if one was to outbreed(things are much more left to chance in such cases). On the flip side the bad genes get reinforced as well which means a trait can turn into a full blown disease if two copies are merged. A good example of this is sickle cell anemia where one can live a perfectly normal life with just the trait but that person should avoid at all cost breeding with another person with the trait as this would give a 25% chance their child will have the full blown disease. As these things tend to run in families it is clear to see that what inbreeding fundamentally does is that it reinforces both the negative AND the positive.
Hybrid vigor can only ever be beneficial in the long run after many many generations and multiple births per generation(which is why it is most readily understood in the context of animal or plant breeding programs). Think of a litter of 6 puppies . The greater the genetic diversity among the parents the greater the chance that there will be that one puppy would exhibit optimal genetic make up for a particular environment and assuming that this genetic quality is preserved it can be passed on to the next generation and with enough mindfulness one can continue to experiment with genetic diversity to keep improving the genetic fitness of that bloodline. What a lot of people fail to understand about this however is that it only works in the very long run under controlled conditions and can be extremely devastating for all those failed iterations in the short run. With people this means hybrid vigor is only meaningful after hundreds of years under controlled circumstances(possibly with some kind of eugenics program).
So these things are not nearly as simple as some propagandist and politically motivated individuals want to present them to be. The idea is that most normal well adjusted individuals tend to know how to find matching partners in order to reinforce or preserve a good thing, eliminate the bad, and complement where one is lacking. Or at least that is the general idea behind this. I believe that we have a highly evolved instincts in this regard. The problem begins when there is a push for genetic egalitarianism and delusions of equality which can override our natural instincts and thus leading to bad coupling. Now I do not mean that racial mixing is bad just that when done blindly under false ideologies and pretenses it can be catastrophic. The old joke goes as follows: The dumb blonde approaches Einstein and proposes that it would be ideal if they mated, what with her looks and his brains the kids would be superbabies. Einstein then responds by saying “but what if they had your brains and my looks?”. So IMO this is a catch 22 situation, on the one hand if we have a complete free for all with racial mixing abound this could, nay WILL lead to regression(possibly of the catastrophic variety) to the mean. On the other hand the optimal way forward invariably involves some kind of eugenics program. Which is why IMO the ideal way is to leave it entirely up to the individual and prevent strong advocacy one way or the other. Let nature with all the infinite wisdom it has imbued in us, do it’s thing. People are generally very good at picking the right partners as long as we don’t interfere with that process.
Which finally brings me to nationalism. Nationalism is a protective mechanism not only of social and cultural gains but also of the genetic gains made by a particular set of people. In healthy doses I believe it to provide the optimal level of preservation of the ingroup best interest. Have too much of it then this can lead to stagnation and possibly totalitarianism(there needs to be some healthy level of in flow of ideas and genetics). Have too little nationalism this will surely lead to social and genetic erosion and possibly degradation. What I mean by this is that it may take thousands of years for hybrid vigor(if left to play out naturally) to do it’s thing and produce a black-white hybrid that is better than both it’s predecessors. In the meantime there will invariably be regression to the mean with all the adverse consequences. What nationalism does(if done right) is it acts as the breaks and a control mechanism for optimal levels of inflow. A well adjusted individual understands that we need both contact and interaction with outgroups but also a good way for preserving the best interest of the ingroups. Those that occupy the extremes of either of these ideologies IMO are applying a myopic partial and ill conceived view of the world and reality in general. We cannot allow for anecdotal examples of nationalism or in group advocacy gone wrong to taint what comes naturally to normal well adjusted people. After all it seems that the one lesson we took mostly from the 20th century is that extreme nationalism or conservatism can be catastrophic but all too often it’s exact opposite is ignored which arguably caused far more death and devastation in the 20th century.
So it’s not nationalism that is a problem but extreme nationalism or some problematic versions of nationalism, it is not socialism that is the problem but rather communism and extreme notions of egalitarianism(equality of outcome) multiculturalism or globalization. One of my favorite quotes recently is by John Kenneth Galbraith:
“Under capitalism man exploits man, under socialism it’s just the opposite”
So the real issue here is the human condition, our stupidity, our frailty, our tendency to get infatuated with poorly conceived and even less understood ideas, our inherent bias and selfish self interest that we often try to spin into some sort of virtue, our highly unsophisticated capacity to properly contextualize certain phenomena or ideas with all their intricacy and nuance which we then try to make up for with our superior pattern seeking abilities. We are not nearly as clever as some of us like to think we are and it takes humility and true intellectualism and wisdom to know this.
Allow me to better elaborate my previous sentence:
“On the other hand the optimal way forward invariably involves some kind of eugenics program.”
That is, a eugenics program of optimized ingroup breeding where opportune surgical introduction of ideal outgroup genes is done to achieve optimal genetics.
Of course this(or any kind of eugenics program) is abhorred by most people and for good reason, we value life, ALL life, meaning we don’t get to discard or marginalize “failed” attempts, while from a practical point of view we are limited by a long gestation period of a single offspiring at a time. Which is why i hold that leaving things up to the individual is the best way forward. We will never get people to agree which genes are the best nor are we remotely capable of correctly figuring this out 100%(outside of maybe eliminating disease).
As such IMO the idea of hybrid vigor is for the most part nonsense, meaningless and impractical when it comes to human beings(perhaps even regressive and problematic in the short run when done on a mass scale), as are notions of racial purity or absolute racial superiority.
Note: I am not saying that individual cases of racial mixing is bad or problematic nor that i am against this but rather that this may present to be a problem on a mass scale.
Also I am strongly opposed to any kind of strong advocacy or forced or coerced racial mixing/integration and similarly opposed to forced racial segregation. I believe that these things should be left to happen organically. This is an incredibly complex issue and there is no better wisdom on the matter than millions of people figuring out the ins and outs over a long long period of time(hundreds of years). Any mixing of populations took many hundreds of years to occur throughout history and even then they never fully integrated. As such I think it is best left to the individuals to work this out among themselves. I am always highly skeptical and fearful of government or big advocacy group intervention in this regard. Once again i am not saying that those that are bi-racial are at all problematic in any way shape or form and i strongly believe that they should not be treated any differently and should be protected at all costs. Most people alive today have at least 20% out group DNA anyway, if not significantly more than that.
Pill, and anyone who needs to hear this, if there were only whites left, you’d see a lot of clannish behavior and opposition/tension with people who are of different clans.
That’s actually what you saw before the advent of globalization in recent history.
And RR, you need to do a complete U-turn on your belief that the selfish gene doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, but for whatever reason, it doesn’t affect all genes the same way, specifically personality traits. It does exist for physical and cultural traits…any trait that has observed cultural emphasis on it will lead to a selfish gene selection.
Pumpkin can you give me career advice based of my WAIS IV scores during my 5th grade year?
I assume you mean the WISC not the WAIS if you were tested as a child. WAIS is for adults
Ok here are my results. They are pretty low 😦
FSIQ=89
Verbal Comprehension=83
Perceptual Reasoning=106
Do you have the individual subtest scores?
Working memory=91
Processing Speed=85
I was in 5th grade when I took it.
I’m currently 15 and I’m going to take it again in 20 days.
Unfortunately I’ve recently taken many online matrix reasoning tests from Mensa They all out me in the 120-129 range.
When I asked my psychologists if this was bad, she simply said no because I’ll me more familiarized and perform to the best of my ability.
I also have Aspergers and I’m a neurotic
People on the autism spectrum tend to have a dissociation between real achievements and IQ scores. And also based on huge discrepancies between subtests results. Calm down.
The better question about you is
What are your interests*
For some odd reason, there isn’t subtest scores.
so whaat career?
Well based just on your scores I’d go into something visuo-spatial like drawing, mechanics, architecture, plumbing, photography, etc
Can you boil it down to one career and consider the other scores.
And would I excel in video games due to my slightly above average perceptual iq?
Go for something you like to do. Don’t base your career choice on “IQ” test scores.
I agree with Race realist. People should try to go for what they like; though after considering carefully all available possibilities (research, phone calls, visits).
The bad thing is that information is extra-ordinary hard do find. The good news is that most people end up finding an interest, and even liking, what they do. And for the rare ones who are always disatisfied, by definition the research is futile.
I agree with RR here, as long as one does take their strengths and weaknesses in advisement and does not go for something that is completely outside the scope of their capabilities. It is vitally important to be fully interested and engaged with your profession as this allows one to unlock their full potential and find themselves exhibiting abilities they never thought they had.
http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent
It’s not a set of ”novel” traits BUT UNIVERSALISM [atheism, leftism] and EXISTENTIALISM which explain highly intelligent behavior tendencies.
Nonsense, it’s a fad a trend, atheism came into the social conscience(particularly in the last 200 years) as an answer to the fundamentalism and perhaps anti rationalism of religiocity. As such it attracted the brightest minds. Now that atheism is slowly entering the realm of fundamentalism itself(becoming more and more of a religon and ideology in and of itself) it will invariably experience a brain drain of sorts. I believe the same will be seen with conservatism vs liberalism(in their broadest conceptualizations). Liberals are generally considered to be smarter but I seriously doubt that this is true and it will become less and less true with time(especially with the mob now firmly planted in the left). IMO and according to Jonathan Haidt’s research the smartest individuals tend to be libertarians and occupy the more centrist position of classical liberalism. Always have and always will thought there was a time that classical liberals were the extreme left of the spectrum this is now no longer the case.
What is nonsense, buddy*
Your comment seems barrely challenge my points here… You just wrote nonsense word and rewrite what i said with another and more longer sentences. Remember i used the word TENDENCIES.
If the smartest, based on iq, of people are libertarians, so i don’t what intelligence really is. In Brazil, at least, libertarians are very similar to ”liberals” or ”leftists”.
Libertarians/ayndrandians [another jewish plantations] want a society without state, if i understood this, but… it’s simply impossible, they don’t understand what state is, sad.
The problem is not the state itself, but how it can be or who is managing it. This is so simple to understand.
Their core thought is
If a bridge [state] is not at good shape, we need throw it away.
”Nonsense, it’s a fad a trend, atheism came into the social conscience(particularly in the last 200 years) as an answer to the fundamentalism and perhaps anti rationalism of religiocity. As such it attracted the brightest minds. Now that atheism is slowly entering the realm of fundamentalism itself(becoming more and more of a religon and ideology in and of itself) it will invariably experience a brain drain of sorts”
People who start atheist and become ”religious” [mythologues], even they are among the brightest minds, will be severely stupid with this attitude. It’s mean what define intelligence is not just pre-fixed or determined comparison among individuals but attitudes, actions, decisions OR judgments.
Pumpkin, if you extremely varied subtest scores, with one subtest being the clear outlier, would your intelligence be underestimated?
the volume is bad so you’ll have to use headphones.
the occam’s razor explanation is that christianity was another jewish money making scheme. paul is always asking for money from the gentile churches for jerusalem.
In 57, upon completion of his third missionary journey, Paul arrived in Jerusalem for his fifth and final visit with a collection of money for the local community.
christianity may have just been a jewish scientology but slightly less ridiculous.
as one roman said:
they worship a dead jew and claim to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
but zizek is now an old man. and old men are “set in their ways”…with good reason.
and peterson is walking down from the peak he never summited. that is, peterson is [redacted by pp, Easter Sunday, 2019]
of course zizek’s native language is not english.
the most interesting thing, maybe, was when zizek said he was no longer a marxist but an hegelian. and the audience cheared.
but the anglo-american philosophasters think hegel was a charlatan.
the hilarious thing is hegel was a charlatan as not a charlatan at the same time.
this is the dialectic!
…and not a charlatan at the same time.
Pumpkin, if you have a 5 scaled score point difference between picture concepts and matrix reasoning, what explains it?
Also, if you are better at algebra than geometry, are you more likely to get a higher score on figure weights than on matrix reasoning?
no difference
it’s painfully obvious to all non-autists that oprah was never raped or sexually assaulted in any way.
oprah is LYING.
she wishes she was raped.
I hope she is lying. It would support my theory of her freakishly huge head making her brilliant and successful, because only an evil genius could so skillfully & convincingly build such a huge empire around such a lie. However based on her brilliant and early opposition to the Iraq war, I suspect Oprah is not only much more intelligent than other elites, but more moral too:
Also, she looks quite attractive in the above clip, making it likely she was molested, though it could be a case of money buying looks.
Pumpkin Person,
I stand to be corrected. I think Flynn Effect says that should those 82 kids scoring an average of 125 in 1937 have been retested in 1960 with same S-B that they had taken previously, they would have averaged 131.9 because they had gotten 6.9 points smarter. However, since the test had been “renormed” and made harder (assuming “6.9 points” harder) in 1960, they should not have averaged as high (i.e, 131.9), but rather should have fallen about “6.9 points” lower to about 125. And this figure appears to be statistically equivalent to 123, which is what they averaged on the renormed 1960 S-B. Am I making sense?
However, this by itself is not proof that Flynn Effect is true, because we do not have “proof” that “renorming” makes S-B harder.
Pumpkin, is the figure weights subtest timed for the sake of quicker administration pace, or was it timed because anyone could get the right answer with unlimited time?
Apparently, tests like picture completion and arithmetic showed almost no gains when unlimited time was given- only block design showed significant gain.