Tags
IQ, Not Politically Correct, predictive validity, Race Reailist, social class, test construction, the BITCH test, the g factor
Commenter Race Realist (RR) wrote yet another article claiming that IQ tests are based on circular logic and just measure social class. He writes:
In sum, what these tests test is what the test constructors presume—mainly, class and racial bias—so they get what they want to see. If the test does not match their presuppositions, the test gets discarded or reconstructed to fit with their biases…At best, IQ test scores measure the degree of cultural acquisition of knowledge; they do not, nor can they, measure ‘intelligence’—which is a cultural concept which changes with the times. The tests are inherently biased against certain groups; looking at the history and construction of IQ testing will make that clear. The tests are middle-class knowledge tests; not tests of ‘intelligence.’
RR is right that IQ tests were originally designed to confirm existing prejudices of who was smart by deliberately selecting test items that so-called smart people did better on. This is ironic because the whole point of creating an IQ test was that teachers’ judgments were considered too biased to trust, so why did the first IQ testers rely on teachers to decide who was smart?
Psychometric tasks are great at being objective, but they’re not always great at measuring intelligence. By contrast teachers are great at judging intelligence, but they’re not always objective. Thus by selecting only those test items that most confirmed teacher judgement, they got the best of both worlds: An objective scale that was great at measuring intelligence.
Of course RR might argue that the teachers were just judging social class, not intelligence, and by extension so were the tests. Further he would argue that if the tests predicted socioeconomic success, it was not because smart people rise to the top, but rather because SES is all the tests were measuring in the first place.
However we now know that IQ tests predict life outcomes, not because they correlate with teacher’s judgments, but because they correlate with g; the general factor of IQ tests.
Thomas R. Coyle writes:
g is one of the best predictors of school and work performance (for a review, see [7], pp. 270–305; see also, [8,9]). Moreover, a test’s g loading (i.e., its correlation with g) is directly related to its predictive power. In general, tests with strong g loadings correlate strongly with school and work criteria, whereas tests with weak g loadings correlate weakly with such criteria. For example, Jensen ([7], p. 280) found that the g loadings of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) subtests were directly related to their predictive power for school criteria (e.g., school grades and class ranks). WAIS subtests with stronger g loadings generally predicted school criteria well, whereas subtests with weaker g loadings predicted such criteria poorly. Consistent with these findings, Thorndike [10] found that g explained most of the predictable variance in academic achievement (80–90%), whereas non-g factors (obtained after removing g from tests) explained a much smaller portion of variance (10–20%). Similar results have been found for job training and productivity, which are robustly related to g but negligibly related to non-g factors of tests (e.g., rnon-g < 0.10, [7], pp. 283–285; see also, [9,11]).
From Non-g Factors Predict Educational and Occupational Criteria: More than g
g is whatever variable(s) causing all cognitive abilities to positively inter-correlate. RR will tell you g is circular logic because any cognitive ability that doesn’t correlate with g is excluded, but this is false.
As Arthur Jensen (1998) noted, there are very clear rules on a) what is an ability, and b) what is a cognitive ability, and none of them require a correlation with other cognitive abilities.
A test measures ability if it a) measures voluntary behavior, b) has temporal stability, c) has a clear standard of proficiency, and d) some generality. There is another set of criteria that determines whether a particular ability is mental or physical.
IQ skeptics can cite tests that don’t correlate with g, but these tests don’t qualify as ability measures. One example are so-called creativity tests where you’re asked to name as many uses for a brick as you can think of in two minutes. Such tests often lack a clear standard of proficiency because silly answers (i.e. use it to comb your hair) get the same credit as good answers (use it to smash a window).
No one to my knowledge has come up with a mental test that actually qualifies as an ability test yet does not correlate with g with the possible exception of the BITCH test (ironic name for a test that’s supposed to fight anti-black bias) however the BITCH test is clearly culturally biased. None of the major IQ tests are culturally biased against any of the founding racial subgroups of the United States (at least as defined by psychometric criteria).
Pumpkin Person 
>Psychometric tasks are great at being objective, but they’re not always great at measuring intelligence. By contrast teachers are great at judging intelligence, but they’re not always objective. Thus by selecting only those test items that most confirmed teacher judgement, they got the best of both worlds: An objective scale that was great at measuring intelligence.
Lmao, I want to cry. Someone could write a dissertation picking apart these four sentences.
Let’s go in order:
>Psychometric tasks are great at being objective, but they’re not always great at measuring intelligence
You got the fact that psychometric tests are not good at measuring intelligence quite right, but a big “nope” on the claim that they are objective. See RR’s articles, for which your rebuttal is hopefully forthcoming??
>By contrast teachers are great at judging intelligence, but they’re not always objective
Teachers are not great at “judging intelligence”, since you have failed to provide a definition of intelligence and then shown that teachers are great at judging it.
>Thus by selecting only those test items that most confirmed teacher judgement, they got the best of both worlds: An objective scale that was great at measuring intelligence.
On the contrary, peepee, you get the worst of both worlds: an incredibly biased set of tests that don’t measure anything resembling intelligence.
you know that your thing is just bourgeois decadence, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Pritzker
—he spit into the spitoon—-
the bolshies would’ve sent you to kolyma.
>However we now know that IQ tests predict life outcomes, not because they correlate with teacher’s judgments, but because they correlate with g; the general factor of IQ tests.
No, IQ tests don’t “predict” life outcomes and to the extent that they do, prediction is irrelevant. The number of shits you took last week can predict all sorts of things.
>g is one of the best predictors of school and work performance (for a review, see [7], pp. 270–305; see also, [8,9]). Moreover, a test’s g loading (i.e., its correlation with g) is directly related to its predictive power. In general, tests with strong g loadings correlate strongly with school and work criteria, whereas tests with weak g loadings correlate weakly with such criteria. For example, Jensen ([7], p. 280) found that the g loadings of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) subtests were directly related to their predictive power for school criteria (e.g., school grades and class ranks). WAIS subtests with stronger g loadings generally predicted school criteria well, whereas subtests with weaker g loadings predicted such criteria poorly. Consistent with these findings, Thorndike [10] found that g explained most of the predictable variance in academic achievement (80–90%), whereas non-g factors (obtained after removing g from tests) explained a much smaller portion of variance (10–20%). Similar results have been found for job training and productivity, which are robustly related to g but negligibly related to non-g factors of tests (e.g., rnon-g g is whatever variable(s) causing all cognitive abilities to positively inter-correlate. RR will tell you g is circular logic because any cognitive ability that doesn’t correlate with g is excluded, but this is false.
>As Arthur Jensen (1998) noted, there are very clear rules on a) what is an ability, and b) what is a cognitive ability, and none of them require a correlation with other cognitive abilities.
>A test measures ability if it a) measures voluntary behavior, b) has temporal stability, c) has a clear standard of proficiency, and d) some generality. There is another set of criteria that determines whether a particular ability is mental or physical.
No, the basic logic of tests ensure that they correlate, not any fact about the structure of cognitive abilities. One can make as many tests as you like, but it’s profoundly difficult to construct one with the right summation rules to make it not correlate. I don’t care about any exclusion/inclusion criterion, it’s a simple fact that “g” is meaningless.
>IQ skeptics can cite tests that don’t correlate with g, but these tests don’t qualify as ability measures. One example are so-called creativity tests where you’re asked to name as many uses for a brick as you can think of in two minutes. Such tests often lack a clear standard of proficiency because silly answers (i.e. use it to comb your hair) get the same credit as good answers (use it to smash a window).
You see, that’s the question-begging part. The insistence that there is only one right answer to a question is exactly why IQ tests are such utter bullshit.
No, IQ tests don’t “predict” life outcomes
Don’t be stupid, of course they do.
I don’t care about any exclusion/inclusion criterion, it’s a simple fact that “g” is meaningless.
If g is meaningless, why are more g loaded tests more heritable, more depressed by inbreeding, more predictive of school and job performance, and more predictive of head size?
You see, that’s the question-begging part. The insistence that there is only one right answer to a question is exactly why IQ tests are such utter bullshit.
Everyone can agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Not everyone can agree that a brick can be used to comb your hair. Thus the first test is objective while the second isn’t. Objectivity is essential to science.
Why are you so hostile to IQ testing? What’s wrong with trying to measure the mind; it’s a fascinating topic, even if you disagree with some of the methods.
Looks like length is more strongly influential than width in plenty of categories. Doesn’t sound like good news for plagiocephals and those affected by craniosyntosis-based brachycephaly.
PP
One would think these things would be exceptionally easy to grasp and accept yet it seems there are plenty that not only question them feverishly but also go out of their way to dismiss them entirely. I’m by no means an IQ absolutist but certainly see their value and the fact that they have a degree of accuracy that is very workable. At this point I am convinced that a great majority(if not all) of the people that do this are people that scored low on IQ tests or didn’t get the score they thought they deserved(there are a lot of wonnabe geniuses out there). So they attack the very thing they are not good at or that casts them in a bad light. In any case, I admire the patience and rigor with which you engage with this sort of thing on a regular basis. Keep up it!
Flaminhotcheetos
“Looks like length is more strongly influential than width in plenty of categories.”
Actually, that is not true at all. At the end of the day overall size is what matters most, the shape probably doesn’t matter all that much though I am open to the possibility that it may matter somewhat. In any case the fact remains that a unit increase in width is more valuable than a unit increase in length. Which basically means that if a genie were to be able to grant an inch increase in width or an inch increase in length the smart choice would ALWAYS be to go for the increase in width. That is, for the average person whose head width is less than his head length. If you don’t believe me do the math and you will see. In addition rounder heads tend to pack in more volume for a given surface area or head circumference. Once again do the math if you don’t believe me. So stop worrying about your head, it’s probably nothing a clever hair cut can’t fix. My CI is close to 85 which makes me a borderline hyper brachy yet I style my hair in a certain way which makes me look a lot less brachy than I actually am. Not that it matters to be honest but there you go. It only matters in as much as the modern ideal for a good looking man is very often depicted as your typical doli with robust symmetrical facial features, but that is just the mean. There are plenty of brachycephalic good looking men, Brad Pitt is one of them, Leonardo Di Caprio is another. Not saying this is your concern, just saying that the shape really does not matter that much at all, and if anything having a wider head may in fact be slightly more beneficial overall.
“At this point I am convinced that a great majority(if not all) of the people that do this are people that scored low on IQ tests or didn’t get the score they thought they deserved(there are a lot of wonnabe geniuses out there). So they attack the very thing they are not good at or that casts them in a bad light. In any case, I admire the patience and rigor with which you engage with this sort of thing on a regular basis. Keep up it!”
“Anyone who disagrees with X only disagrees with them because Y.”
Haha. “Anyone against IQ-ism scored low on the test.” You serious? Can I say “You’re pro-IQ” because you scored high? Where does that lead us?
>Don’t be stupid, of course they do.
Please, stop this ridiculousness. That “article” of yours has less valid info in it than the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass.
>If g is meaningless, why are more g loaded tests more heritable, more depressed by inbreeding, more predictive of school and job performance, and more predictive of head size?
G-loading doesn’t correlate with heritability, inbreeding is poorly estimated, I don’t know what you mean by the last two.
>Everyone can agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Not everyone can agree that a brick can be used to comb your hair. Thus the first test is objective while the second isn’t. Objectivity is essential to science.
Great. I’m glad you’ll dismiss every IQ test ever administered.
>Why are you so hostile to IQ testing? What’s wrong with trying to measure the mind; it’s a fascinating topic, even if you disagree with some of the methods.
IQ testing doesn’t measure the mind, it’s reduces the mind to a facsimile of it.
> At this point I am convinced that a great majority(if not all) of the people that do this are people that scored low on IQ tests or didn’t get the score they thought they deserved(there are a lot of wonnabe geniuses out there). So they attack the very thing they are not good at or that casts them in a bad light.
Tell that to my 129 in kindergarten ass.
RR
“Haha. “Anyone against IQ-ism scored low on the test.””
Hmmm you might have got me there(stress the might) were it not for the fact that THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. LOL What is it that causes you to blunder so tragically? Is it your low IQ…I mean, it can’t be that low, can it?
Alright, I suppose comprehension 101 is in order at this point.
I wrote;
“One would think these things would be exceptionally easy to grasp and accept yet it seems there are plenty that not only question them feverishly but also go out of their way to dismiss them entirely.”
Pay attention to the part where I am in essence drawing a connection to WHO might be suffering from a “sour grapes” mentality and therefore trying to undermine that which they are not good at. Specifically those that not only “feverishly” question IQ tests(implying that they are heavily invested in this position) but also “go out of their way to dismiss them entirely”(implying a ridiculous level of distaste pointing towards an inherent bias). Hmmmm remind you of anyone? These people are a set apart from those that simply question some of their flaws. In fact you can readily put me in that category, like I have said before countless times and once more in my above post “I’m by no means an IQ absolutist”, meaning i do not take them entirely at face value but on the whole I believe that they are the best we have at the moment and perhaps good enough for most cases(particularly for population wide inferences).
Now the question remains, what do you mean by IQ-ism? If I am to go by what you have written before and your general stance on the issue, IQ-ism for you applies to anyone who so much as remotely accepts that there is a link between IQ and intelligence. Well that is an extreme position to hold given the mounting evidence in support of the idea that IQ tests at the very least correlate fairly highly with intelligence, life success and countless other measures which we associate with intelligence. So no I am not saying that anyone against IQ-ism scores low on IQ tests. If I were to go by my definition of IQ-ism(IQ absolutists that take it as gospel and as good as a tape measure is for measuring height) then I would hardly equate people that are against that sort of IQ-ism with people with a low IQ. In fact I might say that those people very likely have an advanced grasp of nuance and a high IQ. No, once again I am saying people that reject IQ tests entirely are probably people with low IQ’s(in other words you) and most likely motivated to undermine that which they are not good at. Comprende my low IQ friend?
“You serious? Can I say “You’re pro-IQ” because you scored high? Where does that lead us?”
I have addressed this argument before, even the slightest grasp of game theory would put your argument at quite the disadvantage vs my argument. Throw in the fact that you are an unapologetic contra-IQ-ist(despite all the science backing IQ test validity) basically makes it all but a certainty that your position is one borne out of a sour grapes mentality and an attempt to discredit that which you are simply not good at, as evidenced from your logically poor albeit articulate(possible your only intellectual saving grace) argumentation. No one in their right mind or with at least two brain cells to rub together would ever completely reject IQ tests.
It is becoming ever more evident to me that you have a very low resolution understanding of this topic(among other things) and possibly suffer from absolutist rigid and black/white thinking, which is so typical of low IQ individuals.
PS: Next time try not to put words in my mouth, it is the tactic of a weak mind…and if you are going to try to summarize my position try to properly understand what I have written first.
sillyyolyou
“Tell that to my 129 in kindergarten ass.”
Well I take it that you take the same position as RR…? That is, you completely reject the validity of IQ tests…? If so then I have this to say;
1. Your kindergarten IQ score is meaningless. Childhood IQ tests(particularly at that age) are notorious for producing outlandish scores that very often fail to predict adult IQ. Marylin Vos Savant’s 225 score at that age is a perfect example. She at best has an adult IQ in the 170s, still very very impressive but not stupidly so. By this metric if you suffered the same kind of IQ reduction as Marilyn since kindergarten your adult IQ should be around the 99 mark.
2. You took a shoddy IQ test.
3. You’re talking out of your ass. <====== THIS
Either way the fact that you seem to be defending RR and likely sharing his view means that even if you really do have an IQ that high it may well be one of those cases where IQ tests/testers got it wrong(yes I do believe they get it wrong sometimes) since only an idiot would hold such a position.
If however like myself you simply question some aspects of IQ tests then I might be inclined to believe that you really do have a 129 IQ but I would urge you to refrain from defending RR(it really doesn't bode well for you), he is too much of a fool even among mediocrity.
Buddy, you know I used to be an IQ-ist, right?
“Buddy, you know I used to be an IQ-ist, right?”
Which basically confirms my suspicion about you. Going from one extreme to another(from IQ-ist to contra-IQ-ist), typical example of black/white thinking.
Just out of curiosity, what is your background/ethnicity and when did you take your IQ test? Not that it matters to me personally, I am not in the slightest bit racist(my friends and life experiences prove it), if you could accuse me of any kind of ism I guess you could say I’m a meritocratist, though even there I can make an exception if it causes no harm and can in the long run lead to something good(for example letting someone other than the obvious candidate take the lead if only to examine their potential or help them gain confidence provided the stakes aren’t high and it causes no real harm).
@pumpkinhead
Pitt doesn’t exactly look brachycephalic, though Leo sure does. Still, while being more brachycephalic would be helpful to populations (and sub-populations) that are oriented to be arranged that way, it may not be the same for everyone. In that Jensen paper, most categories seem to ‘prefer’ length over width. There could be some bias in it since the tested population(s) might have heads that grow more so in the L direction with a larger brain, this would mean that the results wouldn’t be applicable to populations and even individuals with a different, breadth-oriented growth arrangement. Most American whites probably have a Nordid-Atlantid orientation as opposed to an Alpinid-Dinarid one so that would explain why width didn’t have that much of a raw correlation, simply because of under-representation.
Flaminhotcheetos
Well Pitt actually is probably a certifiable brachy(>81) but likely not a hyper brachy(>85) and Leo might just be hyper brachy but that is neither here nor there. I think you might be taking this head shape thing a little too seriously. Like I said there might be a little something to it(stress the little) but it is at best of the marginal academic interest rather than anything that would be perceptible or of interest to the layman let alone anything to put very much stock into. It is true that Europeans in general tend to be more doli but in terms of head shape blacks are the most doli then europeans then east asians. Guess what else follows the same trend..? IQ actually, with blacks at the lower end on average then Europeans then East Asians with the highest average IQ of the three main races. As for Jensen seemingly favoring doli’s Rushton on the other hand seems to accept that brachy’s might have the overall edge(more efficient head shape). Make what you want out of that information but just remember that all this does verge on phrenology, a very unscientific approach to psychology that took over in the early 19th century. Today it is considered pseudoscience and I would generally agree with that however IMO there might be some level of correlation of cognitive traits with head shape though this correlation is likely too low to be used as a serious predictive measure. Perhaps some day in the future there might be something to glean from it but my guess is that it won’t be much while the stigma that phrenology left is far from cleared meaning that it would take quite a while longer before anyone would be brave enough to study this aspect of human variance.
Just remember that there is no one ideal head shape, even if there was a strong correlation of head shape to cognitive traits(highly unlikely) each shape would have its strengths and weaknesses which means that overall there won’t be much to worry about. Like I said head size is what matters most to intelligence(among other things) and even that has a somewhat unimpressive correlation to IQ(on it’s own). Finally if anything I would be inclined to believe that when it comes to intelligence a unit increase in head width is far more valuable than a unit increase in head length. A rounder shape packs in more volume than an elongated one while it also provides for the shortest distance for neural signals to travel meaning that processing would be more efficient for brachys than for doli’s. I think you might be daunted by the fact that you sit outside the norm in terms of head shape but then again so did einstein and his IQ was stratospheric. This stuff really is nothing to concern yourself with other than for incidental amusement.
@pumpkinhead
It is interesting to look at the distribution of cephalic index across populations, east Asians/Mongoloids are the most brachycephalic, but the most cold adapted Mongoloids are Dolichocephalic (eastern Arctic people around Greenland) to borderline low Mesocephalic (western Arctic people around the Bering sea).
On the other hand, tropical Africans/Negroids tend to be dolichocephalic, which is especially true for the most heat/tropical adapted Nilotid type. However within the Nilotids there is a subtype which happens to be nearly brachycephalic.
Would have been interesting to see Jensen’s and Rushton’s explanations for these apparent contradictions.
PP, it was administered by a child psychology. It was not a “bad test”, it was I believe Raven’s matrices. Btw it’s blatantly false – IQ stabilizes after infancy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12887561).
“Which basically confirms my suspicion about you. Going from one extreme to another(from IQ-ist to contra-IQ-ist), typical example of black/white thinking.”
Buddy, it falsifies your claim about my beliefs on IQ and why I hold them.
“Just out of curiosity, what is your background/ethnicity and when did you take your IQ test?”
Was eight years old I believe. I’m South Italian. What’s your background? How old were you when you were tested? What does your test score say about the kid you were and the man you became?
“
RR
“Buddy, it falsifies your claim about my beliefs on IQ and why I hold them.”
Possibly, but hmmm, not really. LOL Nice try!
You could very easily have naively entered the world of race/IQ consciousness and very quickly got disillusioned about the whole thing. Race realists can be quite heartless and well, distastefully racist at times and don’t get me started on some high IQ people(snobby and ruthless). Not that there is any form of actual racism that is tasteful but what some cognitively challenged leftists might call racism I would simply call patriotism, or in group preference. In any case, after coming to terms with such a daunting and hard to navigate world(if for example you were made to feel stupid) you decided to turn against it all. So your claim that it falsifies my claim simply holds no water. If anything it may actually validate it.
“I’m South Italian.”
Hmmm interesting, I take it you are ancestrally from south Italy but did you or do you currently live there? What I know of Italians is that the northerners are particularly racist towards the southerners. Did that play into your turn towards race realism and what about race are you realistic about?
“What’s your background?”
I’m Greek but lived in the US and UK in my 20s and 30s.
“How old were you when you were tested?”
18
“What does your test score say about the kid you were and the man you became?”
Well it depends what it is you are trying to glean from an IQ score. Hopefully not much beyond my intelligence level. You do realize that Intelligence has a poor corollary with character, personality or temperament. So to answer your question, it pretty much confirmed a lot of the things I had come to realize about myself prior to taking the test(very analytical thinker, an outlier, different etc). As for the man I became, well to be honest not much has changed since then, I’m still very much the same person in terms of personality, just a little older and wiser, though one could quite easily infer my IQ given some of my career choices, lifestyle, intellectual orientation(ie how my brain works and what I am capable of) and accomplishments.
Keep in mind that an IQ score is predictive of how well an individual will do on cognitive tasks, it really says nothing else about the person’s make up though it is clear that the better your hardware the more you can do with it and given enough time great things are possible which is why IQ is so predictive of life success. However, take a high IQ individual that is also a shitty person then well, he may succeed academically and financially but I doubt his social life would be that great. So i guess it depends how one measures success. I have seen some pretty dumb people have more popularity than they know what to do with. So it may have something to do with what matters to each person though i have to say try as you might there is something inherent about likability, either you got it or you don’t. Not that one can’t work on their sociability and become more likable but those that are truly popular/likable do it effortlessly, its like there is something in them that drives them to be that way which they have little conscious control over.
this is how you know…
1. a child of privilege who thinks marx is “icky” is dumb.
2. the biggest defenders of master will be the arrivistes.
the biggest defenders of master will be the arrivistes
Which makes sense since they’re its biggest benefitiaries. We like the games we win at.
Mug of pee & pill would fit in well in the black community.
Blacks love to reduce the most successful black people in society to slaves working for white master because if the winners are slaves too, they don’t have to feel like losers
Similarly Pill & mug see successful gentiles as slaves to Jewish masters
the system selects for obedience and ideological purity.
The system selects for heterosexuality which is why you’ll never be selected gay boy!
because sex isn’t about abstractions dude.
YOU’RE ABOUT ABSTRACTIONS!
“Hmmm you might have got me there(stress the might) were it not for the fact that THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. LOL What is it that causes you to blunder so tragically? Is it your low IQ…I mean, it can’t be that low, can it?”
Can you read? RR *specifically* quoted the person he was responding to, which was NOT you. https://i.imgur.com/nJQ8GBO.png
Actually I misread the context, ignore that.
LOL lay off the booze buddy
Clearly IQ tests are recognizably and scientifically sound because they achieve their purpose of measuring cognitive factors that correlate with one another. Now if the topics on an IQ test had little similarity in how the individual performed in each subtest then yes we could say that intelligence tests are not sensible ways of measuring whatever they’re meant to measure, which right now stands as intelligence.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assert the fact that most of these tests are measuring the same thing, so if one test is measuring intelligence, and the other ones correlate strongly with the particularity of this one, then the tests will give access to something similar to intelligence or correlates of intelligence that will validate the fact that even if it isn’t directly testing for intelligence, the correlates are powerful enough to make an impact.
now aramco is worth more than AAPL.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-aramco-ipo-aramco-jumps-in-ipo-making-it-more-valuable-than-apple/
great thunberg was portrayed by Monty Python.
It should require a high ability in mental manipulation to get a high IQ score.
Mental manipulation takes place in the head so we should indirectly test for that.
Yes and no. I agree that a high ability in mental manipulation is a strong indicator of high intelligence but my sense is that this has a lot to do with working memory(among other things of course) and despite Europeans having a better working memory than East Asians, EA have a higher average IQ than E. Which is why I think IQ tests are somewhat lacking and do not test the full range of cognitive abilities.
White matter and grey matter represent at least 95% of intelligence I estimate. Reflecting signals between grey through the white is the process of creative perception and convergent-divergent solutions.
The back and forth process region to region is the total mechanism, perception, and manipulation.
I am trying to convey how I think it works.
Yes, that kind of makes sense.
It is likely the seamless cooperation between various brain regions through reliable networks(the default network). I feel that a speedy perception and dextrous processing in a positive state of mind is what allows creativity to flourish. I often think of it as opening the taps of creative thought with the right timing and filtering such that it doesn’t interfere with the more convergent methodical type of thinking.
There is a randomness and an uncertainty about creative thought that if left unchecked can really mess with your head. Which is why i think creativity is often linked to madness and that a strong robust mind is required to handle a high rate of creative thought. The stronger your mind is, the more brilliant you are at handling those creativity “taps” and the faster you discard nonsensical stuff(without getting thrown off by it) the more productive your mind can be. THIS ability IMO is strongly linked to working memory which is what allows creativity to flourish and in conjunction with a high IQ, create genius.
So what do you comb your hair with then?
Puppy uses a brick to be his friend.
Pill used a brick to lose his virginity
Puppy married his brick and had brick children.
Which explains why you’re dumb as a brick, son.
A brick would make a great
chi chi chia pet
Jeff rense looks like a very strange guy. Longtime fans of my comments will remember.ber I used to be a big fan of his in the early 2000s after 9-11.
Pumpkin, you know I have the highest Theory of Mind on this blog. There’s no such thing as not accounting for that when someone speaks to me. That’s why most people in day-to-day life get very scared when I open my mouth because I cause severe harm to others just by being honest.
i can tell you have the highest theory of mind, because you say you do.
Well….thanks.
Youre an idiot. Hes being sarcastic.
The mildly autistic is teaching the moderately autistic about sarcasm. This is why I like having autistics of all levels in one classroom
bricks make the best chia pets
I can haz cheeseburger now?
To say I have autism is inane. I’ll just put it simply and say that I may suffer from some autistic symptoms but I am clearly not anywhere near as autistic as the majority of the dements on this blog.
Besides, everyone knows autism is a white man and China-man disease.
peepee claims to have been administered an IQ test by a gypsy at age 12. she has not confirmed her scores with any other tests. doesn’t canada have achievement tests? in the US we had to take something every year called the California Achievement Test. the point was to measure the school’s performance not the student’s. but the school might have a record of it.
one of the purposes of IQ like tests is to indentify so-called under-achievers, students who don’t do very well because school is so boring for them, and when they are put in advanced classes they actually do much better. my schools didn’t understood how it was possible that a student could get Ds in average classes and As in the advanced classes. they assumed if you got Ds in the former, you’d get Fs in the latter. or when they did understand this they soon forgot it, and my parents were derelict and stupid, or they had no idea how stupid my teachers were as they’d attended much better schools.
In Canada, we don’t have those yearly IQ tests or whatever. In Ontario though, they do have “standardized” tests that judge your mathematical and language abilities but they only happen every three years(from 3rd grade ’til the 9th). They’re also not exactly IQ tests
i think of IQ tests as what are called “cumulative exams” or simply “cums” in the US.
that is, they’re tests of everything you’ve learned (or haven’t) over an extended period of time.
for example: a person with a very high IQ might not even be able to get As all the time however hard he tried, but if he were tested on the subject matter years later he’d get the highest score.
so the IQ ideology accompanies the bourgeois revolution, wherein people who can’t fence and have pimples take the commanding heights.
the old aristocracy might’ve defended itself by claiming:
1. civilization needs class and hereditary class in order to remain civilized.
2. the lord isn’t better than you, but he plays a role in a well-functioning society for which he is educated, trained, fitted from birth.
so americans ridicule the royalties/royals…not understanding that brits agree the royalties are just like everyone else in most ways…
the point of a king or queen is NOT that the king or queen is the most intelligent, most virtuous, most beautiful, most whatever…
the point is that the idea of the state is embodied in a person.
rr doesn’t know what “inherently” means.
negroes outperform whites academically in britain.
http://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-lance-welton-why-do-blacks-outperform-whites-in-uk-schools/
look at detroit.
approximately 79.1% of those residing in the City of Detroit proper are African American… 115 of the 185 cities and townships in Metro Detroit were over 95% white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Metro_Detroit#Racial_and_ethnic_groups
that’s de facto segregation.
so as i’ve said so many times…whatever the INHERENT differences, they’re smaller than the ACTUAL differences.
does that mean i DON’T think black women are the ugliest women?
NO!
The Africans I work with are almost all smarter than the average white but they’re university educated & university is to Africa as Ivy League is to America. We’re getting their best & brightest
rr doesn’t know what “inherently” means.
negroes outperform whites academically in britain.
http://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-lance-welton-why-do-blacks-outperform-whites-in-uk-schools/
look at detroit.
approximately 79.1% of those residing in the City of Detroit proper are African American… 115 of the 185 cities and townships in Metro Detroit were over 95% white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Metro_Detroit#Racial_and_ethnic_groups
that’s de facto segregation.
so as i’ve said so many times…whatever the INHERENT differences, they’re smaller than the ACTUAL differences.
does that mean i DON’T think black women are the ugliest women?
NO!
and NO! peepee i do not find black men sexually attractive.
when (or if) i masturbate to gay porn it’s always with the fantasy of cloning myself to have sex with myself in a steam room.
BUT! from my straight white male perspective i can see how some black men might be attractive to white women…but 100% NOT able to see the same for black women…who are just gross…unless mixed race.
Blacks are more masculine so being black looks better on men than women, but only slightly better
From Burger King? Yeah, they’re not bad. TGI Friday’s and other chain restaurants are better, though.
the soviet union lost, so it’s judged “bad”.
in reality…
the United States of America AND the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had and have had a net positive effect on the world.
the USA for “freedom”.
the USSR for “equality”.
so to speak…
It is well documented how white supremacists use the web to bond, share advice and make plans. Using the web and social media, neo-Nazis promote wild conspiracy theories about Jews. One white power podcast, “Strike and Mike,” recently “exposed” the “Impossible Burger,” a meatless patty, as a Jewish plot to poison “goys” and, somehow, to “make it impossible for working people to be able to afford meat, make it impossible for working people to drive automobiles, make it impossible for average people to live in an industrial society.” It would be hilarious were it not that such fantasies are swallowed whole by intellect-challenged haters.
said this guy: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3494761900/d2bc5bb82a3f3740c18dfa4f06072603_400x400.jpeg
I just had an impossible burger on my way home from work.
i have too.
you get it? the rabbi’s take is either dishonest or autistic.
both strike and mike are jews but even a broken clock is right sometimes.
This is no conspiracy theory, it is documented in depth by Elaine Graham-Leigh in her 2015 book, A Diet of Austerity. Graham-Leigh…meticulously documents why billionaires and neo-liberal think-tanks they fund would much rather place the blame for environmental degradation on ordinary people who have to drive to work and enjoy the simple pleasure of a hamburger instead of big business…the world’s robber barons are pouring billions into climate change think-tanks with the long-term goal of extracting more wealth upwards by lowering our living standards even further. The green figleaf is their cover.
and i myself have adopted veganism for health reasons.
that is…
i’m a whole food vegan because it allows me to drink more without havinf shitti-er blood tests.
Wait, that impossible burger comment was meant to be addressed to this particular comment, not the other one. Obviously.
“RR is right that IQ tests were originally designed to confirm existing prejudices of who was smart by deliberately selecting test items that so-called smart people did better on. This is ironic because the whole point of creating an IQ test was that teachers’ judgments were considered too biased to trust, so why did the first IQ testers rely on teachers to decide who was smart?”
The first step to discarding false beliefs is to accept this.
Take this quote form Binet and Simon (1918, if I recall correctly):
A teacher , whom I know, who is methodical and considerate, has given an account of the habits he has formed for studying his pupils; he has analysed his methods, and sent them to me. They have nothing original, which makes them all the more important. He instructs children from five and a half to seven and a half years old; they are 35 in number; they have come to his class after having passed a prepatory course, where they have commenced to learn to read. For judging each child, the teacher takes account of his age, his previous schooling (the child may have been one year, two years in the prepatory class, or else was never passed through the division at all), of his expression of countenance, his state of health, his knowledge, his attitude in class, and his replies. From thes diverse elements he forms his opinion. I have transcribed some of these notes on the following page.
In reading his judgments one can see how his opinion was formed, and of how many elements it took account; it seems to us that this detail is interesting; perhaps if one attempted to make it precise by giving coefficients to all of these remarks, one would realize still greater exactitude. But is it possible to define precisely an attitude, a physiognomy, interesting replies, animated eyes? It seems that in all this the best element of diagnosis is furnished by the degree of reading which the child has attained after a given number of months, and the rest remains constantly vague.
As Michael Howe notes in IQ in Question, Binet chose the items on his test for practical, not theoretical, reasons.
“Psychometric tasks are great at being objective, but they’re not always great at measuring intelligence. By contrast teachers are great at judging intelligence, but they’re not always objective. Thus by selecting only those test items that most confirmed teacher judgement, they got the best of both worlds: An objective scale that was great at measuring intelligence.”
How are psychometric tasks” objective “? The tests are anything BUT objective, as Mensh and Mensh (1991) discuss in The IQ Mythology. Test items are deliberately chosen because they give the score distributions that are presupposed.
“Of course RR might argue that the teachers were just judging social class, not intelligence, and by extension so were the tests. Further he would argue that if the tests predicted socioeconomic success, it was not because smart people rise to the top, but rather because SES is all the tests were measuring in the first place.
However we now know that IQ tests predict life outcomes, not because they correlate with teacher’s judgments, but because they correlate with g; the general factor of IQ tests.”
The point with teacher evaluations and test items is important. Binet’s original test was based off these judgments, and so are current tests today.
In any case, teacher judgment ‘predicts’ life outcomes better than IQ test scores. I’ll leave a reference later.
The claim that IQ test scores predict life outcomes is circular since they’re highly correlated to achievement tests like the SAT (which, of course, are biased as Mensh and Mensh discuss).
“g is whatever variable(s) causing all cognitive abilities to positively inter-correlate”
g is test construction?
“IQ skeptics can cite tests that don’t correlate with g, but these tests don’t qualify as ability measures”
The only thing that “IQ skeptics” need to do is show that score distributions are presupposed and so the test constructors get what they want to see – it’s not like the test fell from the sky.
ALL tests of ability are culturally biased (Michael Cole).
“No one to my knowledge has come up with a mental test that actually qualifies as an ability test yet does not correlate with g with the possible exception of the BITCH test (ironic name for a test that’s supposed to fight anti-black bias) however the BITCH test is clearly culturally biased. None of the major IQ tests are culturally biased against any of the founding racial subgroups of the United States (at least as defined by psychometric criteria).”
This is a claim – why’s the argument? And there is also the Dove Counterbalance test.
they’re objective because they have a right answer dummkopf.
or they’re timed and faster is better.
if a test can be graded by machine then it’s objective.
what’s subjective is the decision on which items to include, exclude.
this is similar to the way mass media used to be. it didn’t lie, but it was biased via the stories it chose to cover. it would cover stories which confirmed the editorial bias and ignore stories which disconfirmed it.
Yes, the subjectivity is what items are kept/discarded. As Jensen states, items “emerge arbitrarily from the heads of test constructors.” Meaning…?
but rr is right that the MODEST predictive validity of IQ IN REAL LIFE is not really a validation like a measure of brain size etc. might be.
that is, if the society is working for the kid, he scores high, and the society willl keep working for him, he has a place.
as a shitholer peepee doesn’t appreciate how native whites are discriminated against in favor of shitholers by white gentiles, and how important class is to whites, more important than ethnicity.
“white people hate white people too.”
and then in the US whites don’t even know what class is and will discriminate against whites with a southern accent irrespective of their actual background.
maybe in canada whites with a maritimes accent are discriminated against.
But white people are encouraged to hate white people by the media.
For example, IQ tests are so constructed as to predict school performance by testing for specific knowledge or text‐like rules—like those learned in school. But then, a circularity of logic makes the case that a correlation between IQ and school performance proves test validity. From the very way in which the tests are assembled, however, this is inevitable. Such circularity is also reflected in correlations between IQ and adult occupational levels, income, wealth, and so on. As education largely determines the entry level to the job market, correlations between IQ and occupation are, again, at least partly, self‐fulfilling. (Richardson, GWAS and Cognitive Abilities)
why is NKE worth more than 2x GS?
are all of GS’s shares part of the total market cap?
because advertising. because wieden & kennedy is the greatest ad agency ever.
GS is kind of like a co-operative. All the profit is payed to ‘staff’, not the shareholders.
it is WEIRD that bill gates, bezos (#1), knight (#26), allsup, the red ice people, ted bundy, mr hands, etc. should all live in the PNW.
it used to be seatac and pdx were just timber cities.
the term “skid row” originates in seattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_row
and the movie Street Wise is from skid row seattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetwise_(1984_film)#Plot_summary
This whole debate is silly.
1) There are massive differences between people separated by 15 or more IQ points, regardless of race/class that anyone who isn’t mentally retarded will notice.
2) These differences almost perfectly correspond to our colloquial understanding of intelligence.
3) Whether or not IQ correlates at .9 with income is completely irrelevant, so shut the fuck up no one cares.
So Greta Thunberg might be coming to Canada…
She’s ugly ans weird, just like you!
She reminds me of Gollum from LOTR.
more examples of genetically superior people:
https://www.crimeonline.com/2018/09/30/i-killed-my-mom-son-calls-911-after-murdering-his-mother-cutting-her-into-pieces-and-putting-severed-body-parts-in-refrigerator/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Chong
i found the muslim gay pride flag.
You have no idea what genetically superior is, you dumbass, stop spouting nonsense you old man. You probably look like my ballsack, except whiter. Stop trying so hard to appear cool, you’re most certainly not.
Both you and your mom have the genetic value of each of my testicles, and that’s being generous.
Chinaman aren’t and never can be superior peoples. They’re weak, timid, ugly, look like insects, etc.Just like red-headed peoples are also inferior in many ways.
It’s like Robert/Ian’s never been outside before. These are all pieces of common knowledge that anyone with two eyes and two ears can extrapolate for himself.
Robert only has Internet knowledge, meaning he has no self-awareness or awareness of the real world. The things he says on this blog only hold true on the Internet, all else is garbage and are not useful for daily life.
Also, he’s sick in the head and should be institutionalized because any normal person would be able to tell this guy is a nutjob with a complex. [redacted by pp, dec 15, 2019]
your theory of mind is amazing…like desmond.
Well….thanks.
“Consider an IQ score of 140 or higher, denoting the level of intelligence that can permit people to excel in fields like theoretical physics and pure mathematics. If the mean Jewish IQ is 110 and the standard deviation is 15, then the proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.
The imbalance continues to increase for still higher IQ’s. New York City’s public-school system used to administer a pencil-and-paper IQ test to its entire school population. In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ’s of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews.”
https://www.aei.org/articles/jewish-genius/
Where’s the source? Is the author just being crazy??
Emil kirkegaard seems to think that the 110 figure is highly plausible.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7680
This CNN video will captivate the interest and imagination of the philosopher. Israeli government supported “autism breeding program” and “autism subsidies”:
These people are hardcore on the autism spectrum, you can see it on their faces and lives. They have Arab enemies on the gates of their nation yet they study becuase “the book says that we should study and work hard”. What will these be used for?? Is their autism usefull becuase of high iq? Do the higher iqd ones have the most children?? They seem to be compensating for their Arab, mizrahi and Sephardic r-selected populations.
Another straw man in favor of IQ. There are plenty of tests that dont correlate with g. Anythinf that isnt short term memory intensive. IQ tests are merely glorified short term memory tests..
Pumpkin, do 120 IQ kids have to work hard in honors math classes in high school?
yes.