As I’ve mentioned before, one of the reasons I find IQ so fascinating is that the woman who tested me as a child (a South Asian woman clad in traditional Indian garb) looked like a fortune teller.
Because teachers were not qualified to administer the Wechsler intelligence scales, the Indian woman would drive for hours in the fierce winter blizzards, wearing sandals in the snow, to schools in the middle of old country roads leading to nowhere, just to test a single child., who she would escort to in my case a brick room in the back of the resource room with a circular table, where out of her orange fluorescent folder poured a never ending series of jig-saw puzzles, colorful blocks, and cartoon stories about black kids on tarot like cards, all as her stop clock would tick loudly.
And then she would vanish, and test scores would be locked in the filing cabinet of the school’s dark basement, collecting dust for decades.
Unlike the SAT which is actively shapes a person’s destiny, official IQ tests like the WISC-R simply predicted it.
One such child whose destiny was predicted by an IQ test, was Kenny Countie.
County was an incredibly gifted athlete, and a popular outgoing young man with many friends. But he had a very low IQ, and sadly, IQ is often destiny.
Like me he joined the army reserves as a young man, but after being honorably discharged, he began dating an older wealthy woman who asked him to live with her on her gorgeous and luxurious farm.
At the time people thought “just goes to show IQ is NOT destiny. Despite his low IQ, Kenny has won the game!”
But his mother knew better. Who was this mysterious woman who was taking over her son’s life? Kenny had depended on his mother for everything, and now they had completely lost contact as he lived in the remote country.
A few months later he was spotted at Walmart in a wheelchair, badly bruised, being pushed around by the mysterious older woman.
Finally his mother had enough. She went to the farm, confronted the older woman and demanded to know where her son was.
“He’s over there” said the older woman, pointing to a garbage bag full of flesh and bones.
It was a moment his mother would never recover from. Her innocent loving trusting son naively thought he had won the good life when he was invited to the farm to live with his new girlfriend, but instead was sacrificed to fulfill her sadistic desire to dominate vulnerable men.
It’s one thing for some childhood IQ test to have told her that her son would grow up to be disposable, but quite another to have him literally end up in a garbage bag and at the age of only 24.
Generally speaking, IQ is destiny.
Pumpkin Person 
I’m sure it applies to athletes, too. For NFL players, I’ll bet Wonderlic scores correlate strongly with the likelihood of going broke.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/JJWooten/clips/espn-30-for-30-broke-clip-2/view
I know your kind don’t like receipts, its okay pay me later wear those gators, cliche then say fuck your haters.
Your articles are like a very bizarre form of comedy.
So who are your favorite comedians?
What was his IQ and how did it predict his fate?
it’s dumb because although athletes aren’t always clever, usually aren’t, the special olympics records aren’t records for a reason.
the only genuinely slow athletic great i know of is joe louis, and of course schmeling used this against him successfully, but only once. joe wised up after that.
People with lower than average IQs are less intelligent. less intelligent people are more likely to be taken advantage of. Like mugabe or Philo. It’s pretty simple logic.
What was his IQ and <strong<how did it predict his fate? I see no reason to conflate “IQ scores” with “intelligence.”
I don’t know.
I don’t see any reason not to, as your only criticism of IQ has been: “tHe CaUSe Is ENviROnMeNtAL”. If the brain is experience dependent then all functions are dependent on environmental input. What do you think intelligence actually is? Having low “social class knowledge” implies that you can taken advantage of people with high “social class knowledge”. This may not be an absolute rule, but it is true ceteris paribus.
Can be taken advantage of by people****
I don’t know and I don’t think PP does either as he didn’t give a value. (Seems like another empty claim from PP, like his “genetic superior” lesbian Asian on a Netflix program.)
The critique of IQ is that since no IQ test is construct valid that IQ tests can’t test intelligence and, as Richardson (2002) notes, they test middle class knowledge and skills.
in documentaries he’s described as mentally slow with the mind of a 12-year-old. This implies he took an IQ test & was assigned a mental age.
“described as” so rigorous.
filipinos have low IQs. whites who marry filipinos have very low IQs. people who like rap have low IQs.
melo doesn’t know he’s stupid, because he’s stupid.
Aww, look how hard he tries.
Did you also know that people who don’t understand how averages work have low IQs? So do climate change denialists, racists, and alcoholics.
So everybody who does that remind you of?
“like his “genetic superior” lesbian Asian on a Netflix ”
I think that’s just him trolling people like you.
I understand what the” critique” is, now I’d appreciate it if you answered the question. How do you define intelligence?
yeah. to take IQ seriously you have to have a low IQ or be autistic. and IQ is the best psychology has. sad!
yes psychologists are autistic. What next? Mathematicians are innumerate? Writers are illiterate?
What an idiot. Hahaha!
taleb is a treasure trove of making fun of peepee and prometheans and psychology. brilliant!
he’s not making fun of me. i’ve uniquely argued for years that people who score high on one type of IQ test regress precipitously to the mean on another:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/13/do-harvard-students-have-an-average-iq-of-122/
I don’t need to answer – the “critique” is on IQ tests and if they measure “intelligence” (whatever it is) or not.
You do if you want to understand why the “critique” is wrong, but that’s fine ignorance is bliss.
The “critique” is true because there is no theory of individual intelligence differences (Deary, 2001) so IQ tears can’t be construct valid. I don’t need a definition for anything; the “critique” stands.
In any case, still waiting on what his IQ was and how it predicted his fate. Just vague generalities don’t cut it, as PP’s claim was IQ can be destiny.
He was an adult with a mental age of 12 so his ratio IQ would have been about 75 (12/16 = 0.75)
They still do age ratios? Imagine if BP were like “IQ”. How useful would it be? Which documentary said this?
It was an episode of “inside the mind of a serial killer” which was on Netflix until recently
Mental age is no longer used to calculate IQ but it’s still used for descriptive purposes, kind of like describing a 5’4” guy as having the height of a 12-year-old
Where did the documentary say the claim was from?
Source that it’s still used for descriptive purposes? What are your thoughts on how BP would be a ridiculous variable if it were like IQ?
They didn’t say but I’ve never heard of someone being considered slow by his community without taking an IQ test, especially since a formal diagnosis is needed to get services
This death row inmate was described as having an IQ of 46 & the mind of s 6-year-old
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arridy
IQ was also destiny for him too
“The “critique” is true because there is no theory of individual intelligence differences”
This is blatantly false. Which you would know if you had any sort of education on the subject.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661317302218
Click to access 257865.full.pdf
Also PFIT.
“I don’t need a definition for anything; the “critique” stands.”
The “critique” has never stood. Only someone who completely ignores counter-evidence could come to the opposite conclusion, which you consistently do.
The reason I’m asking you for the definition was so that I could possibly elucidate to you why your “critique” has no conceptual rigidity. The fact that you will not answer it is very telling.
“In any case, still waiting on what his IQ was and how it predicted his fate. Just vague generalities don’t cut it, as PP’s claim was IQ can be destiny.”
In any case, I don’t agree with Pumpkin’s assertion, I realize he is embellishing claims to trigger IYIs such as yourself. It works. My original comment was simply pointing out how simple the logic actually was.
“This is blatantly false. Which you would know if you had any sort of education on the subject.”
No, it isn’t. Layout the “theory” of individual intelligence differences and of human intelligence.
William Uttal’s work (his meta-meta analysis on neuroimaging) puts fMRI studies to read in regard to cognition.
The “critique” is factual because for a construct to be valid there must be (1) a theory for it (in this case, a theory of individual intelligence differences of which there is none) and (2) a mechanistic relation between two variables (like blood pressure and the height of a mercury column). There is no (1), and no (2).
“g” is an artifact of test construction. Spearman’s ‘g’ has been falsified for a long, long time. Nevermind the fact that psycho-metricians confuse PC1 with Spearman’s ‘g’.Schonemann shows that ‘g’ doesn’t exist. eg:
Click to access 83.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bimj.4710290712
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02259513
“No, it isn’t. Layout the “theory” of individual intelligence differences and of human intelligence.”
It is. Refer to the first citation. There are multiple theories besides PFIT that contribute to the variance of individual differences in intelligence. You have a “sOpHMoriC” view of what a theory is. I know this because you erroneously agree with Fodor’s concept of a scientific theory.
“William Uttal’s work ”
I was hoping you’d bring this up. Uttal has an elementary view on how brain activity contributes to the aforementioned variance. The NS is a general purpose system Synaptic plasticity along with its glial modulators (non-synaptic plasticity) are the underlying mechanisms that govern localization of functions especially within the cerebral hemispheres. There are no concrete boundaries within these anatomic features and as such localization is never consistent. This is how Neuroplasticity is sustained via the tug and pull between the minimization of cost and the maximization of growth and adaptation. What this means is that the conditions laid out by Uttal 2014 are incoherent:
(1) Detectability: Changes in the cognitive process must be accompanied by
detectable changes in the organization of the supposed neural network.
(2) Mimicry: If the same neuronal network state observed during some cognitive
process can be reconstructed, then the same cognitive process should reoccur.
(3) Anterograde Alteration: Anything that prevents relevant neural activity also
should prevent the associated cognitive process.
(4) Retrograde Alteration: Any changes in a preexisting neuronal network state
should alter the cognitive experience.
So 2 and 4 are no longer tenable conditions of the scientific reliability of FMRI. We expect variability between individuals even through different times of the day. Instead we have to settle for averaging the enormous variation to create artificial levels of localization (Sporns, Tononi, and Kotter, 2005). You know like we do for race 😉
Have you read Selforginizology by WhenJun Zang? I’m not done yet but I’d suggest reading the book as it would probably help clear some of the obvious misconceptions you have on the field.
“(1) a theory for it (in this case, a theory of individual intelligence differences of which there is none) and (2) a mechanistic relation between two variables (like blood pressure and the height of a mercury column).”
(1) Refer to my first Citation, also PFIT. (2) There actually many of those like axonal conduction velocity, absolute neuron number, metabolic efficiency, etc. But, it’s still an over-simplistic view on how intelligence would be captured by biological mechanisms. Intelligence is an extremely broad concept. Because of this the proper rendition would be more like variable X,Y, and Z having a negative or positive correlation with variable A,B, and C with modulation from variable Q,R and S. Your “critique” is nothing but pure laziness. S now I’d appreciate it if you’d answer the original question so I can tie all of this together and put the nail in the coffin.
““g” is an artifact of test construction.”
Right, you do realize that the positive manifold could be complete bullshit and it still wouldn’t affect the concept of general intelligence. If intelligence is simply the mental potential to adapt then the vassal of intelligence (the NS) is a general purpose mechanism, which is supported by all of the evidence we know about said system. Intelligence is the actualization of resting state consciousness. This is what I mean about educating yourself.
“It is. Refer to the first citation. There are multiple theories besides PFIT that contribute to the variance of individual differences in intelligence. You have a “sOpHMoriC” view of what a theory is. I know this because you erroneously agree with Fodor’s concept of a scientific theory.”
What’s the theory and how does it fit re IQ tests? Which test is construct valid? If any are, citation?
“So 2 and 4 are no longer tenable conditions of the scientific reliability of FMRI. We expect variability between individuals even through different times of the day. Instead we have to settle for averaging the enormous variation to create artificial levels of localization (Sporns, Tononi, and Kotter, 2005). You know like we do for race 😉”
If individual brain scans are different day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute, how high is the chance that we will answer the question “Where” in the brain cognition is?
(1) Spearman’s theory is falsified; Jensen’s was refuted by Schonemann. Uttal’s meta-meta analysis refutes Jung and Haier’s P-FIT without referring to it once.
(2)
The FLynn effect buttresses the claim that IQ test scores are an indication of specific background learning and not a measure of a single strength variable (“g”).
If you agree with my claim that “”g” is an artifact of test construction”, then I don’t see what else there is to discuss. Nevermind the fact that the concept has been refuted to hell and back.
So, in sum, IQ tests are “validated” with specific measures of academic/job performance but they fail; there is no theory of individual intelligence differences so they cannot be valid. IQ test scores measure one’s social class and what is related to that social class (Richardson, 2002).
Do you ever get tired believing bullshit?
The Wikipedia g article doesn’t mention anything about g being falsified
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
“The bottom line is that Spearman’s g does not exist, that this has been known and acknowledged by leading scholars (Guttman, 1992; Thurstone, 1947) of factor analysis for decades so that the task of objectively defining human intelligence remains unfinished.” (Heene, 2008)
Why does PP not know that Spearman’s “g” is long-dead? Jensen’s has also been refuted by Schonemann.
Thurstone never debunked g. His 7 mental abilities are all positively correlated. Read Jensen 1998
Schonemann debunked Jensen’s “g” and Spearman’s “g” has been falsified for decades. Positive correlations can arise without a “general factor and there are many equally valid ways to interpret the same pattern of relationships. Spearman didn’t “discover ‘g'”, he chose one interpretation in which it is “biologically based.” Spearman reified mathematical abstractions.
Are factors things or causes or are they just mathematical abstractions?
Spearman & Jensen’s interpretation of g can be challenged, but g’s existence can not
Why not?
Because g is just whatever’s causing all cognitive abilities to positively correlate.
So g is test construction?
No test construction has nothing to do with tests correlating
That’s a red herring
How so? Read Richardson (2002), What IQ Tests Test.
I’m aware of his arguments and he’s mistaken. Tests don’t positively correlate because they were constructed to do so, they positively correlate because all human cognitive abilities are interdependent. Take a bunch of mental games like chess, checkers, trivial pursuit, scrabble, scategories, rubik’s cube, pictionary, etc, and teach them to a representative sample of Americans who’ve seldom played them before, and you’ll find that people who are good at any one of those games will on average be good at any other, even though these games were not created using the test construction rules richardson invokes. g is real, it’s not an artifact of test construction.
Yes, that’s exactly why tests correlate positively. “g” doesn’t exist; it’s a reified mathematical abstraction.
Even Gould admitted all tests positively correlate, but argued it was because all tests are influenced by social class. He wasn’t foolish enough to blame test construction.
That’s, in part, Richardson’s argument as well.
You can even read Richardson (2002: 300-301) to see why different tests intercorrelate.
It seems at least as plausible to argue that the ‘common factor’ being measured in IQ tests is actually the nexus of sociocognitive and affective preparedness factors described above. So when g is statistically abstracted from test performances, it is simply purifying this nexus (partialling out extraneous sources of variance). This is why correlates of g with other subjectively assumed criteria of ‘intelligence’ tend to be higher than those of raw IQ scores. (Richardson, 2002: 301)
Richardson (2002: 287) writes “that the basic source of variation in IQ test scores is not entirely (or even mainly) cognitive, and what is cognitive is not general or unitary. It arises from a nexus of sociocognitive-affective factors determining individuals’ relative preparedness for the demands of the IQ test.”
That is what accounts for score variation and since tears are constructed on the basis of social class, is why “g” arises.
Factor indeteterminancy for “intelligence” was never solved which is why PC1 was renamed Spearman’s “g” since it was heavily disproved.
Factor analysis can predict Easter Sunday.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bimj.4710290712
If g is just social class, how do you explain the huge differences in g among people sharing the same social class; indeed siblings of the same family?
Other factors which Richardson discusses. It’s not solely on social class, but it is indirect.
“What’s the theory and how does it fit re IQ tests? Which test is construct valid? If any are, citation?”
Refer to the first citation.
Delete the first comment.
“What’s the theory and how does it fit re IQ tests? Which test is construct valid? If any are, citation?”
Refer to the first citation.
““Where” in the brain cognition is?”
I have a blog post coming out that’ll explain this.
“The FLynn effect buttresses the claim that IQ test scores are an indication of specific background learning and not a measure of a single strength variable (“g”).:
Until you can coherently rebut the criticism I’ve laid out, then I have no reason to address your “critique”.
So you can’t answer this question? I’m waiting…
What’s the theory and how does it fits re IQ tests?; where in the brain is it?; what I wrote about FLynn is true; I don’t need to answer I only need to critique the concept of “IQ” and “g”
that is…
1. behavior genetics is totally believable…for ants.
2. humans aren’t ants.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
1. human behavior is uniquely plastic.
2. an ant hill in baffinland is an ant hill in kinshasha.
but eskimos != [redacted by pp, aug 5, 2019].
3. if a southern italian decided to put the same effort into making himself smart as he took to make himself buff…
he would make himself smart.
oh believe me.
You’re making another category mistake.
You’re confusing the plasticity of behaviour with the plasticity of the phenotype for behaviour plasticity
This subtle distinction requires high g
rr: i think billy cute.
melo: billy isn’t cute. bobby is cute.
peepee: oprah is cute.
I apologize for the late response. I’d like a retry at my previous response because I was very intoxicated when I sent that and I feel it’s too vague.
“What’s the theory and how does it fit re IQ tests?”
Refer to my first Citation. I’ve stated PFIT about 3 times now and the citation also reveals multiple other theories as the foundation IQ. Again though this is a sophomoric concept for what makes a test construct valid.
“Which test is construct valid?”
I assume most are as long as they attempt to be somewhat culture-neutral but I haven’t look into the items on the most recent ones.
“how high is the chance that we will answer the question “Where” in the brain cognition is?”
The entire system is responsible for cognition. At least the NS is.
“Uttal’s meta-meta analysis refutes Jung and Haier’s P-FIT without referring to it once.”
It does nothing of the sort, as my previous rebuttal successfully demonstrates. His critique is purely sourced from a conceptual misunderstanding on the nature of our Neural systems. Read all 4 of the citations I provided you and it’ll help clear your misunderstanding on functional localization. You may not be aware of this, but simply reasserting a statement after it’s been refuted does not move the debate forward.
“If you agree with my claim that “”g” is an artifact of test construction”
G could be an artifact of test construction and that still wouldn’t refute the notion that all tests that require thinking are a product of general intelligence.
“I don’t need to answer ”
You do if you want to understand why you’re wrong. You seem to think Intelligence is separate measurable entity from its environmental catalysts.
Hope you’re drinking something good, at least.
“Refer to my first Citation. I’ve stated PFIT about 3 times now and the citation also reveals multiple other theories as the foundation IQ.”
Can you please describe the theory, how it fits in regard to IQ, and what novel predictions the theory makes?
P-FIT doesn’t cut it as a theory. Richardson’s (2017: chapter 6) critiques on neuroimaging, too, are apt (remember when you said thsy people who get emotional in the enclosed space of an fMRI machine were “pussies”?). (I’ll just address the Uttal point here.) “g” theories are shown as bunk by Schonemann.
“I assume”
Which IQ tests are construct valid?
“The entire system is responsible for cognition. At least the NS is.”
Why attempt to localize it in neuroimages, then?
“G could be an artifact of test construction and that still wouldn’t refute the notion that all tests that require thinking are a product of general intelligence.”
If “g” is an artifact of test construction then what makes tests intercorrelate are the test constructors and this is how “g” arises. See the Richardson quotes.
I don’t think “intelligence” (whatever that is) is measurable, especially not in a numeric way (no matter how “crude” IQ-ists claim it to be).
“Hope you’re drinking something good, at least.”
I usually do.
“Can you please describe the theory, how it fits in regard to IQ,”
Network Neuroscience Theory adopts a new perspective, proposing that g originates from individual differences in the system-wide topology and dynamics of the human brain. According to this approach, the small-world topology of brain networks enables the rapid reconfiguration of their modular community structure, creating globally coordinated mental representations of a desired goal-state and the sequence of operations required to achieve it (cf 104, 105). The capacity to flexibly transition between network states therefore provides the foundation for individual differences in g, engaging (i) easy-to-reach network states to construct mental representations for crystallized intelligence based on prior knowledge and experience, and accessing (ii) difficult-to-reach network states to construct mental representations for fluid intelligence based on cognitive control functions that guide adaptive reasoning and problem-solving (see Figure 3B in main text). Thus, network flexibility and dynamics provide the foundation for general intelligence – enabling rapid information exchange across networks and capturing individual differences in information processing at a global level.
PFIT, MD, Lateral PFC, Network control, Process Overlap, and Sampling Theory are all subsidiary to NNT
“what novel predictions the theory makes?”
This framework also motivates new predictions about the role of network dynamics in learning, suggesting that the early stages of learning depend on adaptive behavior and the engagement of difficult-to-reach network states, followed by the transfer of skills to easily reachable network states as knowledge and experience are acquired to guide problem-solving. Indeed, recent findings suggest that the development of fluid abilities from childhood to young adulthood is associated with individual differences in the flexible reconfiguration of brain networks for fluid intelligence.
Now I’d suggest actually reading the study and stop being lazy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661317302218
“Why attempt to localize it in neuroimages, then?”
Because there is in fact localizaton of function, but because of the tug and pull between minimization of cost and maximization of growth and adaptation the system is inherently a dynamic one as to retain a certain level of plasticity. This is why Uttal’s thesis does not cut it as criticism. The crux of his critique is “VaRiABilITy bAd!” when in reality it’d be more effective to criticize the methodological limitations of the technology itself. Richardsons is better because of this but I still question the actual severity of the emotional stress it has on a patient in a FMRI machine and the degree to which it actually affects results of the experiments.
“If “g” is an artifact of test construction then what makes tests intercorrelate are the test constructors and this is how “g” arises.”
No shit, that’s irrelevant to what I was saying. It’s also incoherent as a statement. Jensen already addressed schonemann’s bullshit on factor indeterminacy
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/s0140525x00016125
What were you drinking?
The “g” discussed in that paper is the “g” extracted from IQ test results, no?
So (i) discusses experience-dependency: which is just like Richardson’s and Norgate’s (2007) response to Jung and Haier. What is a “difficult-to-reach network state”?
“Indeed, recent findings suggest that the development of fluid abilities from childhood to young adulthood is associated with individual differences in the flexible reconfiguration of brain networks for fluid intelligence.”
Can you elaborate on this and how it reflects on IQ test-taking?
“This is why Uttal’s thesis does not cut it as criticism. The crux of his critique is “VaRiABilITy bad!””
Uttal’s thesis is much more than “VaRiABilITy bad!”, he discusses conceptual, logical, and empirical problems with fMRI. Though day-to-day variability is a big point in the middle of the book.
“Richardsons is better because of this but I still question the actual severity of the emotional stress it has on a patient in a FMRI machine and the degree to which it actually affects results of the experiments.”
Why?
Which Jensen paper is that? The link doesn’t work.
“What were you drinking?”
Cab sav, hamms, and a couple twisted teas.
“no?”
Yes but it isn’t dependent on the existence of a positive manifold.
“So (i) discusses experience-dependency: which is just like Richardson’s and Norgate’s (2007) response to Jung and Haier.”
? All of it (not just (i)) discusses experience dependency. How much of neuroscience do you actually understand? This is what I mean. You clearly are not educated on this subject. I feel as though most of your criticism is simply an attempt to hand-wave neuroscientific data.
“What is a “difficult-to-reach network state”?”
These competing constraints are captured by formal models of network topology [25] (Figure 2). Local efficiency is embodied by a regular network or lattice in which each node is connected to an equal number of its nearest neighbors, thus supporting direct local communication in the absence of long-range connections. By contrast, global efficiency is exemplified by a random network in which each node connects on average to any other node, including connections between physically distant regions.
Global efficiency and fluid intelligence is represented by “difficult-to-reach network states”. GE is in constant “battle” with local efficiency which is how plasticity is retained despite selforganizology of localization.
Read the section called Network Dynamics of Fluid Intelligence
Or better yet read the study you fucking jackass!
“Can you elaborate on this and how it reflects on IQ test-taking?”
See the section called Spearman’s Enigmatic g and figure 1
Also refer to:
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/NETN_a_00001
“Uttal’s thesis is much more than “VaRiABilITy bad!”
It really isn’t. My criticism of his contention is conceptual as I outlined in one of my previous comments:
(1) Detectability: Changes in the cognitive process must be accompanied by
detectable changes in the organization of the supposed neural network.
(2) Mimicry: If the same neuronal network state observed during some cognitive
process can be reconstructed, then the same cognitive process should reoccur.
(3) Anterograde Alteration: Anything that prevents relevant neural activity also
should prevent the associated cognitive process.
(4) Retrograde Alteration: Any changes in a preexisting neuronal network state
should alter the cognitive experience.
“So 2 and 4 are no longer tenable conditions of the scientific reliability of FMRI. We expect variability between individuals even through different times of the day. Instead we have to settle for averaging the enormous variation to create artificial levels of localization (Sporns, Tononi, and Kotter, 2005). You know like we do for race 😉”
The empirical evidence he lays out afterwords is irrelevant because of this.
“Why?”
I just doubt that being in a FMRI machine is so “traumatizing” that it affects the experiment detrimentally or prevents the results form being corrected.
“Which Jensen paper is that? The link doesn’t work.”
It’s a commentary on Schönemann, P. H. (1983). Do IQ tests really measure intelligence? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(02), 311–313.
The link is working fine for me.
I’ve never had those drinks. I only drink Guinness.
“Yes but it isn’t dependent on the existence of a positive manifold”
What do you mean?
“All of it (not just (i)) discusses experience dependency. How much of neuroscience do you actually understand? This is what I mean. You clearly are not educated on this subject. I feel as though most of your criticism is simply an attempt to hand-wave neuroscientific data.”
I’m more into philosophy of neuroscience. I’m not” handwaving” anything; I’m bringing up perfectly valid logical, empirical, and conceptual problems with neuroimaging.
Spearman’s g was falsified. As was Jensen’s.
That “we expect variability” doesn’t refute Uttal’s contentions.
“I just doubt that being in a FMRI machine is so “traumatizing” that it affects the experiment detrimentally or prevents the results form being corrected.”
Why? I could see how some people can get scared or emotional in one of those machines. I’ve been in one once.
I’ll read that Jensen paper later. How did Jensen eve factor indeterminancy? The link doesn’t work for me and others tell me the same when I link sci-hub.tw.
Look: the main premise of the NNT article is that tests correlate and the correlation is due to the general factor. But Richardson along with Schonemann have refuted this notion. Tests intercorrelate due to the construction of the tests.
“I only drink Guinness.”
Tsk tsk tsk.
“What do you mean?”
There could be no positive manifold( there is) and the theory could still explain individual differences in intelligence that are measured by IQ tests. As the concept of general intelligence is not equivalent to but is instead supplemented by spearmen’s g.
“I’m more into philosophy of neuroscience.”
That’s a problem. You won’t learn anything substantial about the mind by sticking solely to that. Dualists mistake the map for the territory.
“I’m bringing up perfectly valid logical, empirical, and conceptual problems with neuroimaging.”
No you’re not. I’ve refuted them multiple times now. You don’t understand why because you’re not educated enough on this subject.
“That “we expect variability” doesn’t refute Uttal’s contentions.”
It does, I read the paper. The majority of “criticisms” Uttal brings up are from a lack of understanding on how brains actually function and how localization is realized. His critiques of Neuroreductionism all stem from this. This isn’t to say that all of his contentions are false. There are definitely limitations to neuroscience that will be resolved in the near future but his criticism of neuroimaging and localization(which are what is relevant to the discussion at hand) are simply erroneous for the reasons I’ve already brought forth.
” I could see how some people can get scared or emotional in one of those machines. I’ve been in one once.”
I’ve been in one too and I think it’s more of a matter on what kind of doctors you’re working with. I could maybe see it affecting people that have severe claustrophobia. I don’t think having slight discomfort is something we cannot account for when running these experiments.
“I’ll read that Jensen paper later. How did Jensen eve factor indeterminancy? The link doesn’t work for me and others tell me the same when I link sci-hub.tw.”
I’m not sure why it isn’t working for you. It’s working fine for me when I click the link. there are alternatives to sci hub though.
“Tests intercorrelate due to the construction of the test”
That doesn’t matter at all. Jensen’s criticism highlights this.
“Tsk tsk tsk.”
Do you not drink Guinness?
“There could be no positive manifold( there is) and the theory could still explain individual differences in intelligence that are measured by IQ tests. As the concept of general intelligence is not equivalent to but is instead supplemented by spearmen’s g.”
How? How is it” supplemented by spearman’s g” if his theory was refuted decades ago?
“That’s a problem. You won’t learn anything substantial about the mind by sticking solely to that. Dualists mistake the map for the territory.”
You know I think the mind can’t be naturalized.
“It does, I read the paper. The majority of “criticisms” Uttal brings up are from a lack of understanding on how brains actually function and how localization is realized. His critiques of Neuroreductionism all stem from this. This isn’t to say that all of his contentions are false. There are definitely limitations to neuroscience that will be resolved in the near future but his criticism of neuroimaging and localization(which are what is relevant to the discussion at hand) are simply erroneous for the reasons I’ve already brought forth.”
Are you reductionist on some things and holist on others? How do you marry those two views? Do you think that all limitations in every field (not only neuroscience) will be resolved eventually? What do you think science can’t explain?
“I’ve been in one too and I think it’s more of a matter on what kind of doctors you’re working with. I could maybe see it affecting people that have severe claustrophobia. I don’t think having slight discomfort is something we cannot account for when running these experiments.”
Why do you think the kind of doctor you’re working with matters? How can we account for the discomfort?
“I’m not sure why it isn’t working for you. It’s working fine for me when I click the link. there are alternatives to sci hub though.”
It happens to me too. I’ll link a sci-hub.tw link on Twitter and someone will tell me it doesn’t work for them but it does for me. Sci-hub.tw works when I input the paper name in the bar, though.
“That doesn’t matter at all. Jensen’s criticism highlights this.”
Why doesn’t it matter? What’s Jensen’s criticism? I’ve read all of his books (except his one on chronometry (spelling?)) and many of his papers over the last 5 or 6 years I’ve been interested in this stuff. Though his criticism escapes me.
If tests intercorrelate due to how they’re constructed, then we can construct tests that don’t intercorrelate. Then what kind of theory would an HBDer have? Sure, they’re “imperfect” as HBDers (some) claim. However, I think the “imperfectness” stems exactly from the bias in how they’re constructed.
I’ve been working 60-70 hour weeks the past 6 weeks and I’ve really had no time to read anything but there’s a lull in my schedule the next few days so I’ll dig into some neuroscience later this week. Gimme some cites. I’ll give you some later. (It’s worth noting that Uttal has two books on this matter we’re currently discussing. I’m also going to buy another book soon that critiques neuroscience.)
“Do you not drink Guinness?”
No I do not. Is that a craft beer?
” if his theory was refuted decades ago?”
Because it wasn’t refuted. Jensen expands on this in the link I provided.
“You know I think the mind can’t be naturalized.”
And that’s because you mistake the map for the territory.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KJ9MFBPwXGwNpadf2/skill-the-map-is-not-the-territory
“Are you reductionist on some things and holist on others? How do you marry those two views? Do you think that all limitations in every field (not only neuroscience) will be resolved eventually? What do you think science can’t explain?”
I am a reductionist in the sense that everything can be explained by physics at it’s base level. The issue is that if I tried to tell you how my day went I’m not going to start with the quarks and atoms interacting. Holism is simply realizing that If I try to reduce Biology to physics I’m not longer using Biological terms, I’m using physical ones. Conceptually holism is the answer to theory building but everything is still reducible to physics, like how certain species of gecko are able to stick to surfaces through covalent bonds. The reason we have these difficulties with reductionism is because of the organs that evolution gave us to decipher the world are inherently flawed.
I believe we will one day figure everything out, and that’s because we have science to help us. That doesn’t mean the models we use to provide a framework for the way our world works is anything but a model. We can only be less wrong. But this idea itself may be false, I don’t know what the future brings. I don’t know what kind of technology we will have. It could epistemically vacuous or we could fulfill all of our hopes and dreams.
”
Why do you think the kind of doctor you’re working with matters? ”
if you’re working with someone who has great interpersonal skills you may feel less anxiety getting into an fmri machine
“How can we account for the discomfort?”
Well if we can localize the neural patterns of emotional discomfort we can compartmentalize this when trying to carrying out studies.
“Sci-hub.tw works when I input the paper name in the bar, though.”
Well if it’s working then read the paper. You wont be disappointed.
“Why doesn’t it matter? What’s Jensen’s criticism? I’ve read all of his books (except his one on chronometry (spelling?)) and many of his papers over the last 5 or 6 years I’ve been interested in this stuff. Though his criticism escapes me.
If tests intercorrelate due to how they’re constructed, then we can construct tests that don’t intercorrelate. Then what kind of theory would an HBDer have? Sure, they’re “imperfect” as HBDers (some) claim. However, I think the “imperfectness” stems exactly from the bias in how they’re constructed.”
Well I’m not going to copy and paste Jensen’s crtique. He simply thinks factor indeterminacy is irrelevant because g to him is just a mathematical abstraction.
The concept of general intelligence is independent of spearmen’s g. It only possibly buttresses it. General intelligence is inevitable because of the mechanism of synaptic plasticity
“I’m also going to buy another book soon that critiques neuroscience.)”
That’s the issue. I think it’s highly important to know the limitations of neuroscience but if you don’t actually know what’s going on in the field itself you might actually not know when a critique is bullshit or not. You’re an open minded person so just read the studies I cited you and check out some of the new studies that appear in neuroscience journals. That’s what I did. The principles of neuroscience is a textbook that is necessary for any newbie to the subject.
I forgot to supply you with relevant readin material
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042#s3
http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html
Apparently she made simple guys believe they were paeodiphile and then use that to bend them to her will and torture and kill them.
It’s a bit what Raniere is accused of doing with girls at a higher cognitive level.
At an intermediate level, the white guilt leveraged by Jewish people is a similar scheme.
When I read that Ruth Ginsburg had 0 black clerk during her 13 tenure as a judge except around the year she was named to the Supreme Court and never had another one for 25 years (so that’s 1 out of 120 people) while being the biggest supporter of positive discrimination ….. it’s a bit like this lady.
And to the question of why she had had only 1 black (or 0, I don’t remember if it’s was the year before or after her hearings) she answered the senator that if they named her to the Supreme Court it would improve her brand among black people.
And that she never faced that kind of question again ever, despite this being her major topic, is also a formidable trick on the side of the Jews.
Somehow i never realized you were so anti-semitic.
Actually, nevermind. You definitely discussed Joos before.
louis is to boxing what schwarzenegger is to bodybuilding, the GOAT.
I wrote a blog post about creativity:
“My new definition of holding a thought includes generating ideas. Something has to be bouncing back and forth in the head creating something new. It’s not so much how much is bouncing around but how things get put together. “Basic creative ability”. Putting things together in your own head. Some may be able to do more but some people are more creative in how they do it. You can learn to be more creative not necessarily do more.”
Wider capacity vs quality.
If we select quality over capacity that is one thing. Normally this happens.
As explained in a previous post, creativity is a synergy of sensory experiences that changes the perception of you and those around you. A good example is coming up with a new noise. That requires you to use synergy between audio and another sense to come up with this unique, never-before-heard sound. It wouldn’t work if the only thing that changed was the status of your audio perception; it would need another anchoring sensory perception to make it stimulate the mind enough to form a new, unique sound.
See what I’m saying? If you do, it accurately describes the origins of creativity in the human mind.
I do not discount perception plays a role.
I am saying that putting together a whole lot of perceptions at once and continuously shapes the process internally or externally. (“bouncing things around in the head”)
People who have higher intelligence can’t usually see the world “objectively” than a less intelligent counterpart. This is probably their biggest setback in life.
An intelligent person will always think about more possibilities than required to get the same answer. Intelligent people are good at assessing the benefits and risk-factors involved in making a decision well, but they lack the ability to immediately get the correct answer in something because they weigh all factors involved. That’s why they’re bad liars and can’t make things up on the fly.
However, and this requires a deep psychological analysis of the individual, but basically, intelligent liars have a deeper emotional connection to the lies they make. They center their whole mind around these lies and thus their motives are clear from the very beginning to anyone who actually takes a minute to do their own risk-assessment of what the other person is saying. An intelligent liar is very rational to the point where their mind is consumed with, motivated by, and programmed to get what they desire the most. At least that’s a running framework that I have.
the mega test etc have exactly zero peer reviewed research articles. they’re a joke. and ron hoeflin is a purblind mathematically incompetent autistic imbecile, like all prometheans.
Hoeflin is more intelligent & creative than the authors of the SAT
note: not a single promethean was in the bgi study because low IQ. sad!
Which explains why the bgi study found no high IQ genes
Hahaha
trumpy is such a cuckold…”were gonna bring the jobs back but we need to brings lots more people in to fill them!” *dumb Ohio crowd proceeds to cheer*
what the hell is going on out here…
Did he really say that? Shit.
Apparently, Murray Rothbard once said that he’d never met a group of people as gullible as Middle Americans. If you’ve ever been there you know it’s true.
Americans in general are stupid. I’ve lived here my entire life and they have a lot of good intellectual/psychological traits and a lot of bad ones. Their main (dis)abilities are that they are skeptical of authority, trusting of institutions that fail to serve their best interests, have tons of grandiosity, are easily influenced by media, and are very insecure about where they stand in society. Oh, and a bonus one I feel makes Americans so vulnerable is that they never, ever take responsibility for their actions.
Americans are incredibly stupid. All you gotta do is read mugabe and philo’s comments and it gives you a good idea of the intellectual inferiority that permeates this country.
I want Trump to not win re-election so he can be tormented by his ego.
If you didn’t like Black Panther or into the spider verse you’re a cuck. Prove me wrong!
Captain marvel was good.
I await incels to attack me for this, simply to justify why they lack the ability to get pussy.
It would be interesting to know pumpkins view of Animekitty’s destiny from a 112 IQ and 127 general ability. I remember marsha once talked to pp about it.
—
Pumpkin, what would a destiny chart looks like if you did one of the commenters here.
I am sure you have the information to make comparisons.
the full-scale iq is destiny, not the gia
Pumpkin, would getting a lower score on similarities, not because of lower conceptual understanding, but because either you couldn’t express your thoughts, or you didn’t know a word, would that at the very least be an underestimate of your verbal reasoning ability, since most people know all the words, and can express what they’re thinking?