Modern IQ tests force test scores to fit a normal distribution, but I’ve long suspected the distribution of intelligence is anything but normal. After all, if you look at the distribution of wealth and income (a crude measure of intelligence), you find the richest people are worth millions of times more than the poorest. And that’s just because they’re not paying their fair share, as Elizabeth Warren would have us believe. We see the same skewed distribution in academic output, with the most productive scientists publishing orders of magnitude more than the least productive.
A member of Prometheus society once hypothesized that the human mind works in parallel, so that complex problem solving speed doubles every 10 IQ points (he later suggested 5)?
And yet at the same time, Arthur Jensen seemed to believe intelligence was normally distributed and in support of this cited cognitive measures that form a natural scale with equal intervals and a true zero point such as the total number of words a person knows or the number of digits they can repeat after one hearing, both of which were normally distributed. What was missing however from Jensen’s examples was complex on-the-spot problem solving.
Thanks to my research on how people today would score on the oldest Wechsler tests (the ancient WBI) I have some novel data on how long it takes people to solve visuo-spatial items. The WBI includes a subtest called Object Assembly where you have to fit a bunch of odd shaped cardboard cutouts together to make a familiar object, and over the past decade or so, this was administered to a relatively random sample of White young adults (n = 17). One seven piece item was easy enough that all 17 were able to complete it within the 3 minute time limit, yet hard enough that no one could solve it immediately.
Normally I wouldn’t show items from an actual IQ test, but the WBI is over 80 years old and Object Assembly is no longer part of current Wechsler subtests.
[update april 1, 2020, I decided to remove the photos to be safe, but it’s too bad because those were gorgeous photos I took]
When one test participant saw these cardboard cutouts being placed on the table, he apologized for being unable to contain his laughter. A painful reminder that my life’s work is considered a joke by much of the population. And yet for all their apparent absurdity, these silly little tests remain the crowning achievement of social science with one’s score being largely destiny .
Even on this one item, there seemed to be a correlation between IQ and occupation/education. The time taken to complete the puzzle ranged from 14 seconds (a professional with a Masters degree in Engineering from a top Canadian university) to a 137 seconds (a roofer with only a high school diploma). Below are the times of all 17 participants ranked from fastest to slowest.
14, 18, 21,30,31,33,34,35,48,58,60,65,68,69,82,89*,137
Mean = 52 seconds, Standard Deviation = 30 seconds
In a normal distribution, 68% fall within one standard deviation of the mean. In this distribution, 71% fell within one standard deviation of the mean (22 to 82 seconds) which is pretty damn close. Also in a normal distribution, 95% fall within two standard deviations (-8 to 112 seconds) and in my sample, 94% did (even closer!).
So simply by picking at least a moderately g loaded novel problem that is both easy enough that no one gives up, yet hard enough that everyone is forced to think, and measuring performance on a natural scale (time taken in seconds) a normal curve emerges, though a somewhat truncated one (the slowest time is much further from the mean than the fastest, perhaps because human hands can only assemble puzzles so fast, regardless of how quick the mind is).
To convert from time in seconds to IQ, all one needs to do is make the natural mean of 52 seconds equal to the IQ mean of 100, and make each natural standard deviation (30 seconds) faster or slower than 52 seconds, equal to 15 IQ points (the IQ standard deviation) above or below 100, respectively.
Thus the elite Masters degree in Engineering professional gets an IQ of 119 (14 seconds) and the high school only roofer gets an IQ of 58 (137 seconds). But note that even though IQ appears to be a true interval scale (meaning an X point gap between any two points on the IQ scale are equivalent), it is not a ratio scale, meaning IQs can not be meaningfully multiplied. So even though IQ 119 is about twice as high as IQ 58, the difference in actual problem solving speed is about an order of magnitude. This is because unlike height, weight and time in seconds to solve puzzles (which can be meaningfully multiplied) the IQ scale has no true zero point.
Of course the normal curve only applies to the biologically normal population, so it’s interesting to note that it’s now standard procedure to exclude pathological cases from IQ test norming samples. Indeed one man was excluded from my sample after he told me that years ago he had suffered a stroke (quite unusual for a man in his thirties). This man struggled greatly with the above puzzle, only joining 25% of the cuts within the 3 minute time limit. The only way to estimate what his time would have been had he not given up is divide 3 minutes by 25% which gives 12 minutes (720 seconds). This is more than 22 standard deviations slower than the mean of the normal sample, and equivalent to an IQ of -234! Such extreme deviations remind us how sensitive the normal curve is to the normality of the sample.
*one person solved the puzzle in 67 seconds, but the ear pieces were reversed, so only 75% of the cuts were correctly joined. I thus considered this equivalent to a perfect performance at 75% of the speed (67 seconds/0.75 = 89 seconds).
Pumpkin Person 
“After all, if you look at the distribution of wealth and income (a crude measure of intelligence), you find the richest people are worth millions of times more than the poorest.”
You serious with this example?
“When one test participant saw these cardboard cutouts being placed on the table, he apologized for being unable to contain his laughter. A painful reminder that my life’s work is considered a joke by much of the population. And yet for all their apparent absurdity, these silly little tests remain the crowning achievement of social science with one’s score being largely destiny. ”
Nah. IQ isn’t causal. Ones IQ is an outcome of their life experience.
And most of the main IQ-ists—I’ve not come across any who have argued otherwise—believe that” IQ “is normally distributed and they assume that, since it’s a “biological trait” that it should be normally distributed.
“A member of Prometheus society once hypothesized that the human mind works in parallel, so that complex problem solving speed doubles every 10 IQ points (he later suggested 5)?”
I have no idea why you keep saying this, as if anyone here can verify this was said, that this is true, and who cares who said it? Does his being a “Promethean” mean he’s more likely to be right?
Jensen conveys, also in 1969, that while an IQ of 50 probably results from pathological genetic or abnormal genetic causes, IQ between 60 and 80 are disproportionately associated with people classified as being among the disadvantaged (pg. 26).
These two observations emphasize that intelligence scores should not present a bell curve distribution; that 1) there is a bubble in the IQ spectrum below a score of about 50, and that 2) the scores between about 50 or 60 and 90 are largely determined by environmental factors. This author goes further and indicates that sores above 50 are largely determined by environmental factors.
From Young Minds Wasted, Thomas Shtick
Your source misunderstood Jensen. He wasn’t saying IQs of 60 to 80 are caused by disadvantaged environment, he’s saying that people with GENETICALLY NORMAL low IQs inherit both their low IQ & independently their bad environment from their parents, while people with GENETICALLY PATHOLOGICAL low IQ are born to any family, because they involve de novo genomic afflictions.
Quote him in his ’69 paper saying that.
Jensen said IQ under 50 is due to pathological genetic or genetic causes and that IQs 50-80 are found within the Disadvantaged (see pg 26 of Jensen, 1969).
You don’t need to quote, I skimmed it and found it. Pg 26. In any case, the ultimate claim holds, that (1) and (2) show that IQ isn’t normally distributed.
Jensen felt IQ was approximately normally distributed from 50 to 150
He was wrong, as was Binet, Terman, Yerkes, Goddard et al.
The fact that childhood IQ predicts adult income, occupation, & criminality, even controlling for social class, implies causation.
“The fact that childhood IQ predicts adult income, occupation, & criminality, even controlling for social class, implies causation.”
Source? What does “predict” mean here? What does “controlling for social class” mean here? How does that imply causation?
The source is Charles Murray, He found that even in the SAME family, the sibling with an IQ of 120 earned about $18 K more a year (1993 dollars) on average than the IQ 100 sibling who earned about $9 K more than the IQ 80 sibling & there were similar differences in occupation & education. It’s predictive because you can predict from an IQ score taken in childhood or adolescence, that 120 IQ kids will be more successful on average than their IQ 100 siblings who will be more successful than their 80 IQ siblings. It implies causation because the other variable thought to cause success (social class) is controlled since we’re talking about siblings raised by the same parents, leaving IQ as the likely suspect.
But I’m sure you’ll come up with some bizarre excuse for rejecting this study.
Surely there are no other individual variables at play even when “social class” is “controlled.”
Then the onus is on you to say what those other variables are & explain how we’d measure them. Just saying it’s something else is not a testable hypothesis.
And how does this line up with Ceci’s and Henderson’s analysis that when IQ is equated and social class isnt that social class is determinitive variable?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/02/16/herrnsteins-syllogism/
Obviously social class causes success too. Having rich powerful parents is a huge advantage in life regardless of IQ, but having a high IQ is also an advantage in life regardless of social class. The most successful people are those who have both.
So… Ceci and Henderson showed life success = class, not IQ.
No he showed social class causes success just as Murray showed IQ causes success. Success has many causes.
Murray didn’t control for “social class.”
He controlled for the family that raised you. What better way to control for social class?
There are cognitive, affective and performance demands. One sibling may be test anxious, the other not.
Nevermind the fact that since he again uses the AFQT then it falls prey to the dozens of critiques forwarded to Murray over the past 26 years. The AFQT (ASVAB) is “a measure of acculturated learning.” http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/roberts2000.pdf
Nevermind parental treatment on different siblings. Nevermind schooling, etc etc etc. There are many many things to think about.
I’ll let you piece together the rest.
Also see this analysis using the same 1979 NSLY. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/684445
So…. Your point?
Nevermind parental treatment on different siblings. Nevermind schooling, etc etc etc. There are many many things to think about.
See how biased and unscientific you are? When Ceci and Henderson showed that social class predicted success while controlling for IQ, you accepted it at face value, but when Murray showed the reverse is also true (IQ predicts success after holding social class constant) you unleash a litany of variables confounded with IQ. You could undermine Ceci and Henderson using the same nitpicking (maybe high social class people are successful because they’re better looking, or taller, more fit, energetic and healthier. There are many things to think about)
You can undermine almost any established theory by saying what about X,Y and Z? If you have an alternative hypothesis, state it and tell me how you plan to test it, but your strategy of throwing everything against the wall and hoping something will stick is boring and unproductive.
Yea and I cited a paper for the claim I made—also I knew that first para was going to come. Ceci and Henderson – controlled social class. Murray – used SES as a proxy when it’s not the whole story. Used NLSY while the analysis i cited showed that birth order influenced parental behavior and education. And he used the AFQT.
I stated the hypothesis and cited a reference—it uses the same database Murray did.
The correlation between IQ and birth order is weak. Parental preference for first borns can’t explain why high IQ siblings do better.
Did you read it?
“Parents and families face different temporal and financial constraints over time, which may lead to unequal distribution of inputs and resources across children. These disparities may benefit the first- and the last-born children, who tend to share family resources with fewer siblings over their lifetime (Birdsall 1991), or they may advantage later-born children, if parental earnings tend to increase significantly over time (Parish and Willis 1993). Additionally, the presence of an older or a younger sibling or changes in parental characteristics or attitudes could also contribute to changing home environments for children in the same family. For example, later-born children may receive greater cognitive stimulation or better care from older siblings and more educated parents (Zajonc 1976). However, if the level of intellectual stimulation at home is closely tied to parental time and attention, later-born children may be disadvantaged from being part of a larger family.1”
So even though Murray compared people raised in the same home, you’re nitpicking by saying even members of the same home can differ in socio-economic resources. The same nitpicking could be done to Ceci and Henderson’s claim that they controlled for IQ when measuring the correlation between social class and success. Did they really control IQ? Even people with the same score on one test might have differed on other tests. Did they control for every test the people had ever taken in their lives? You can undermine any study by going down rabbit holes.
They used the printed Talent sample. Go and nitpick it.
I don’t see how Murray’s huge uncontrolled confound is “nitpicking”, but that’s just me.
So if someone went back and controlled for birth order, and still found high IQ siblings were more successful, would you admit IQ causes success or would you just unleash more excuses for why the study was flawed?
Depends on methods. Are you saying IQ is necessary or sufficient for success in X?
Therefore, birth order matters for Murray’s analysis. He didn’t stratify by birth order thus his analysis is confounded.
of course there’s discrimination…like i would’ve committed myself if i hadn’t learned better.
that is, the fast talking will discriminate against the slow talking and in favor of the fast talking…
and this discriination may show up in subjective job peformance evaluations.
as you can see here, the rate on 10 y treasuries was WAY bigger during the great depression than it is today, 3+%, despite deflation.
why?
does pill know the history of central banking at all?
https://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate
it reached 2% in 1940.
why?
the US officially entered the war dec 13 iirc.
congress decared war in japan dec 8, 1941.
dec 11, 1941 on germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_billionaires_by_net_worth
that’s a YUGE amount of billionaires for what hannity calls a “socialist country”…
in fact way more per capita than the US.
what a stupid MICK!
interesting how chomsky actually names “hannity” as a slave of capitalist bullshit.
and where’re the wallenbergs in that list?
it’s almost as if…
mugabe is the sexiest man alive!
I don’t really know anything about statistics, but this calculator(http://www.statskingdom.com/320ShapiroWilk.html) says your data has:
Asymmetrical, right/positive skew, long right tale (pval=0.009)
Leptokurtic, potitive kurtosis, long heavy tails (pval=0.005)
I excluded the 89* second data point, it can’t be directly compared to the others IMO. With it included it says:
Asymmetrical, right/positive skew, long right tale (pval=0.031)
Potentially Mesokurtic, normal like tailes (pval=0.077)
Thanks for the link. It’s clearly not a perfectly normal curve but I’m impressed that it fits the 68%, 95% rule.
“What the evidence on heritability tells us is that we can, in fact, estimate a person’s genetic standing on intelligence from his score on an IQ test.” – Jensen, 1970, Can We and Should We Study Race Difference?
“Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population?” – Jensen, 1969: 95)
“… the best thing the black community could do would be to limit the birth-rate among the least able members, which is of course a eugenic proposal.” – A Conversation with Arthur Jensen, American Renaissance
“Genetic standing”, “genetic enslavement”, it was all there in Jensen’s original writings on IQ. “Limiting the birth-rate among the least able members” (lower class, and black), of course. That’s been Jensen’s—and other’s—goal since the inception of “IQ.” And this was carried out, throughout the world and even in North America until recently.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/02/17/eugenics/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/11/26/eugenics-and-the-state/
Reading old hereditarian writing you’ll find a lot of stuff like this. Not surprising.
Eugenic policies, as admitted by the IQ-ists themselves, have been the goal of the program since its inception, and this, along with the harm that would come from thinking that some groups are “less intelligent” than others is why IQ “research” should be opposed and banned. This is clearly a goal of Jensen and Herrnstein and Murray.
(P1) The Hereditarian Hypothesis is false
(P2) If the Hereditarian Hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true, then policy A could be enacted.
(P3) If Policy A is enacted, then it will do harm to group G.
(C1) If the Hereditarian Hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true and policy A is enacted, then it will do harm to group G (Hypothetical Syllogism, P2, P3).
(P4) If the Hereditarian Hypothesis is false and we believed it to be true and it would harm group G, then we should ban whatever led to policy A.
(P5) If Policy A is derived from IQ tests, then IQ tests must be banned.
(C2) Therefore, we should ban IQ tests (Modus Ponens, P4, P5).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/11/an-argument-for-banning-iq-tests/
This is why The Bell Curve was written to lend more credence to Herrnstein’s syllogism (https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/02/16/herrnsteins-syllogism/) and, of course, they state policy for what “should” be done.
I don’t care if they ban IQ for selecting students and employees…actually that would make it easier to study the effect of IQ without the self-fulfilling prophecy confound. But banning IQ research is just anti-science. If it’s as bogus as you say, let the research prove it.
IQ isn’t science—it’s ideology.
No it’s science. It’s based on measurable observations and testable predictions.
It’s a political ideology which is evident from its beginnings. Standardized testing has political origins—case-in-point, Binet and Simon’s “ideal city” “where everyone would work according to his known apptitudes in such a way that non particle of psychic force should be lost for society.” But this “ideal city” is just like today—so income Inequality and social stratification is “ideal”?
What’s the response to Nash (Intelligence and Realism: A Materialist Critique of I.Q)?
“Always since there are just a series of tasks of one sort or another on which performance can be ranked and correlated with other performances. Some performances are defined as ‘cognitive performances’ and other performances as ‘attainment performances’ on essentially arbitrary, common sense grounds. Then, since ‘cognitive performances’ require ‘ability’ they are said to measure that ‘ability’. And, obviously, the more ‘cognitive ability’ an individual posesses the more that individual can acheive. These procedures can provide no evidence that IQ is or can be measured, and it is rather besides the point to look for any, since that IQ is a metric property is a fundamental assumption of IQ theory. It is imposible that any ‘evidence’ could be produced by such procedures. A standardised test score (whether on tests designated as IQ or attainment tests) obtained by an individual indicates the relative standing of that individual. A score lies within the top ten perent or bottom half, or whatever, of those gained by the standardisation group. None of this demonstrates measurement of any property. People may be rank ordered by their telephone numbers but that would not indicate measurement of anything. IQ theory must demonstrate not that it has ranked people according to some performance (that requires no demonstration) but that they are ranked according to some real property revealed by that performance. If the test is an IQ test the property is IQ — by definition — and there can in consequence be no evidence dependent on measurement procedures for hypothesising its existence. The question is one of theory and meaning rather than one of technique. It is impossible to provide a satisfactory, that is non-circular, definition of the supposed ‘general cognitive ability’ IQ tests attempt to measure and without that definition IQ theory fails to meet the minimal conditions of measurement.”
Also note how the SAT, created in the 1920s, is a “child” of the IQ test—the original standardized test. So kill IQ, kill everything it birthed. Standardized tests are political tools, as argued by Mensh and Mensh (The IQ Mythology, 1991), Garrison (A Measure of Failure, 2009), and Au (Unequal by Design, 2008).
And also see Hoffman (The Tyranny of Testing, 1962) and Harris, Smith, and Harris (The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don’t Tell You What You Think They Do, 2011).
‘Psycho'”metrics” is nothing but a political ring.
IQ theory must demonstrate not that it has ranked people according to some performance (that requires no demonstration) but that they are ranked according to some real property revealed by that performance.
What criteria distinguishes a real property from a fake one?
A “property” is a characteristic of “object” X. You need to answer the question at the end of the quote, as that’s what Nash is getting at.
you didn’t answer my question. you just provided a synonym for property
IQ tests supposedly test general intelligence. General intelligence is the supposed property that causes cognitive performance of an individual. This is then expressed as a score, so the number therefore becomes a proxy for the property.
Real properties exist. In this instance, g is conceptualized as either emergent or latent property. There is no way to identify the existence of a property a priori, it’s an empirical question.
This, then, leads to… The end of Nash’s challenge.
The ’empirical evidence’ for ‘general intelligence’ is the positive manifold identified by Spearman—and it lives or dies by that identification, end of story. Therefore the onus is on the IQ-ist to show that IQ tests meet the basic requirements of measurement (that is, to show that the concept ‘general intelligence’ meets Berka’s requirements of measurement). A necessary condition for the measurement of X is that they meet ontological and epistemological criteria. A board is 2 feet long. The board is the measured object and the length is its property—the object of measurement.
For example, the length of a column of mercury presupposes a lawful relationship between the length of the mercury and temperature. But this lawful relationship does not exist with IQ or ‘intelligence.’ For an outstanding read on the history and construction of temperature, see Hasok Chang’s Inventing Temperature.
You can empirically identify intelligence without spearman’s g
If Spearman would never have identified the positive manifold we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.
That could be true. Still doesn’t mean it’s necessary for the empirical validation of general intelligence
“… the best thing the black community could do would be to limit the birth-rate among the least able members, which is of course a eugenic proposal.”
Suprisingly, not a quote by Margaret Sanger, liberal Democrat hero and founter of PP.
Good point. Jensen really was something else, and his acolytes uphold him as some sort of objective arbiter of truth when, in the social “sciences” (and all of science) is influenced by the current political and economic landscape.
“However, despite pious claims about objectivity in social research, it is true that values influence not only our selection of problems for investigation but also our interpretation of empirical data.” – Wilson, 2012, The Truly Disadvantaged
Jensen’s comment proves nothing. If you believe a group’s problems are caused by genes, it’s only logical that you think eugenics would help them. You make it sound like he was endorsing genocide.
Eugenics is only a scary word because of Hitler but the reality is it’s practiced all the time. Ashkenazi Jews have almost eliminated many genetic diseases by screening couples before they have kids & David Reich has encouraged other highly endogenous groups like East Indian castes to do the same
https://altrightorigins.com/2019/06/07/jensen-nazi-friends/
Jensen ran with racists. This is a good article.
In virtue of what does Jensen’s comment not prove that he wasn’t endorsing genocide? He, like Lynn, just dressed it up (like Lynn talking about “phasing out” populations. I bet he’s ‘objective’).
That’s called “negative eugenics”, PP. Programs such as Dor Yoshirem have been objected on grounds that individuals with Tay Sach’s would be stigmatized and discriminated against.
It is wrong to select out disabilities. It is wrong to select out disabilities in virtue of the fact that negative and damaging messages would be sent out to individuals who have the disability that is being selected out. People have disorders; they cannot be reduce to their disorders.
Disorders don’t exist without people and people aren’t disorders. A person is never a disorder that should not exist. The unstated assumption is that people with disabilities should not exist which therefore would send negative messages to currently-existing persons with disabilities.
The comment does, in fact, prove that hereditarian ideas pop up during certain time periods—funny how Jensen’s first writings came after the CRA in the late 60s…
Jensen was promoting genocide—you can try to dress it up in academic language but the meaning is clear.
You have zero evidence to back up such inflammatory claims.
“the civil rights act in the late 60s” doesn’t exist. it was passed in 1964.
Let me provide the rest of the passage from Wilson:
“And although there are no logical rules of discovery that would invalidate an explanation simply because it was influenced by a particular value premise or ideology, it is true that attempts to arrive at a satisfactory explanation may be impeded by ideological blinders or views restricted by value premises. The solution to this problem is not to try to divest social investigators of their values but to encourage a free and open discussion of the issues among people with different value premises in order that new questions can be raised, existing interpretations challenged, and new research stimulated”
My stance is that this has been debated for decades and I believe it was settled decades ago so we should just ban socially harmful harmful research. Such research CANNOT be socially neutral (see Dorothy E. Roberts):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hast.499
Howard Taylor isn’t as radical as myself—he doesn’t think research on within-/between(group heritability should be banned—but he doesn’t “encourage such research” while also stating that IQ heritability is “”low” or even “very low”” (Taylor, 1980: pg 9).
While not definitive, Constance Hilliard suggests in Straightening the Bell Curve, that Jensen’s inability to become a symphony conductor pushed him towards these kinds of views:
“When Shockley addressed a meeting of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in the late 1960s, one member of the audience drawn to his discourse was Arthur R. Jensen, a psychologist who taught at the University of California–Berkeley. Jensen, who had described himself as a “frustrated symphony conductor,” may have had his own reasons for reverencing Shockley’s every word. The younger psychologist had been forced to abandon a career in music because his own considerable talents in that area nevertheless lacked “soul,” or the emotional intensity needed to succeed in so competitive a profession. He decided on psychology as a second choice, carrying along with him a grudge against those American subcultures perceived as being “more expressive” than the white culture from which he sprang. Jensen received his bachelor’s degree in that field from the University of California– Berkeley in 1945.”
The references Hilliard provides are Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur Jensen, quote:
“[Jensen] soon realized, however, that no matter how much or how hard he practiced, he lacked the ‘special something’ required to make it to the peak of the musical world. So Jensen switched career paths, entered the University of California at Berkeley, and majored in psychology.”
And Pearson’s Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe.
A person with Down syndrome completed a 4 year college degree and raised his iq by 50 points. Clearly iq does not measure innate ability but rather some sort of crystallized mental discipline.
I didn’t know RR graduated
How do IQ tests account for gene and environment interaction?
If you deny IQ, stop posting here. It’s like a church that invites atheists and lets them debate them on whether or not Christ exists. Obviously it’s stupid to be so open-minded to debating them and secondly if there’s no way of answering the questions to the debate then leave it and expand on your positions differently in order to incorporate more than just the basic concepts involved. That’s all I can say because that’s all that can be done. Please follow suit.
But Puppy agrees with RR. He said IQ is a ‘social construction’.
I never once said that or thought it. You’re very confused. You’re right that I did blame some inequality on the legacy of colonialism, but that’s no contradiction of HBD. Genetic inequalities create even bigger social inequalities because the naturally smart oppress and exploit the naturally less smart, creating an intergenerational unlevel playing field that multiplies the innate inequality.
IQ isn’t even “a thing.” What happened to phlogiston again?
You definitely said that. I remember asking whether you were drunk and why were you going against the whole point of your blog.
“If you deny IQ, stop posting here”
The echo chamber begins.
How do IQ test adminstrators account for test anxiety and insecurity issues? Smarter people tend to be more anxious.
IQ tests are forced to a normal distribution.
I solved this puzzle in 29 seconds, and I am quite the moron.
Of course there’s no verification of this.
Also
But the original IQ scores were simply the ratio of mental age to chronological age. These were not forced to fit the bell curve, they did so naturally, at least from about IQ 50 to 150.
“But the original IQ scores were simply the ratio of mental age to chronological age. These were not forced to fit the bell curve”
What original IQ scores? Which test? Binet’s? He (wrongly) assumed a normal distribution, Nash in Intelligence and Realism has a good discussion. Here’s a passage:
“It is necessary,’ [Binet] remarked, ‘that the advanced of one year shall not equal in number the at age pupils of the higher year, and that the at age of one year shall not equal the number of retarded pupils of the preceding year’ (ibid., p. 251) Binet never seems to have understood that he had actually constructed his scale in such a way that a normal distribution was built-in. To him the reassuringly normal curve appeared to confirm that his tests were, indeed, revealing a unitary and functional intelligence with a natural basis.” (Nash, 1991, Intelligence and Realism, pg 14)
Binet just selected items so that discriminated between most kids at age X compared to those a year younger. If you want to call that forcing a bell curve, that’s probably a stretch, but regardless it’s totally obvious cognitive development fits a roughly bell shaped curve. Look at what age kids learn to talk or read. Most cluster around average, very few acquire these milestones at half or twice the average age.
What he wrote is explicit: he forced it without realizing it.
You have to examine his actual procedure, not just a quote. But either way, vocabulary and digit span are both parts of IQ tests and they’re normally distributed:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/11/13/iq-the-bell-curve/
The quote was the procedure.
what “puzzle”? that face tangram thing? that’s not a fucking puzzle! you’d have to be retarded to use that as an IQ test question with a stop watch. for non-retarded people all variance would be due to chance.
if this is the real swaknasty:
how many children has marsha aborted?
why was scalia’s opinion in heller shit?
why is textualism shit?
Textualism is shit in your mind because you believe that present social facts don’t matter in law, and they manifestly do. Current meaning best represents the will of the governed. To allow past generations to bind future generations is contra the republic.
Scalia’s opinion in Heller was founded on the Federalist papers and the original intent present in them, so you’re arguing with yourself on that point. Textualism would get you the result in that case you’re looking for.
You adorable tit.
I actually think original intent and textualism give you the same answer in heller (i.e. the right to bear arms is for arming the state militia)
No state militia => no right to bear arms. So Scalia’s wrong.
no you silly goose.
Scalia dismisses the introductory clause to the second amendment as ‘mere surplassage’ in Heller, a big no-no in textualism.
so you’re right in that no state militia —> no right to bear arms. but that’s the result textualism would support.
you’re both wrong but swank isn’t only wrong he’s lying.
at the end of his opinion scalia himself explains why his opinion is shit. so maybe he was controlled, threatened somehow.
this is explained by chomsky and by me.
btw, as i’ve said before and chosky has said, the dissentiong opinions were shit too.
there were only two legit opinions:
1. heller wins because the ability of the people to assassinate politicians and bureaucrats and/or carry on an insurgency no less effective than that of ISIS or the taliban or the mujihadeen.
2. heller loses and DC wins because the second amendment has no interpretation in a world of WMD and fully automatic rifles (which are still banned),
bryer is a [redacted by pp, April 2, 2020], but stevens’s opinion did make the very important point that the right to bear arms for self defense against criminals or bears was considered by the framers and rejected.
yes, the right answer must be the second amendment has no meaning.
mugabe isn’t even wrong.
a fundamental precept of law is that any law so ratified by the people via their representatives meanings something.
and a law cannot be preserved to facilitate lawlessness, because that is opposite the very purpose of law.
both of your opinions are shit.
Welcome back, swank.
Did you just post an Eminem song? Lmao cringe.
yeah. that’s true of all the so-called PIQ questions. everyone who isnt retarded gets them very easily but their scores are how fast they did it. this is bullshit!
the wechsler performance section is 100% bullshit!
psychometrist: touch your nose!
you didn’t touch your nose fast enough. therefore, you’re retarded!
mugabe: NO! you’re retarded! you fucking cunt [redacted by pp, april 1, 2020] sandwich chef!
iirc object assembly was my highest performance score. the closest to a legit IQ test question in the whole performace section.
I thought Mazes was your highest Performance score?
Performance IQ is useful in that it’s much less sensitive to schooling which was the whole point of IQ tests (to measure intelligence relatively independently of culture, though this might be oxymoronic since intelligence can be defined as the ability to manipulate culture)
You get time bonuses for going fast but super fast performance is not rewarded. For example on the hardest WAIS-III Object Assembly item, you got 8 raw score points for solving it within the 3 minute time limit, and 2 extra raw score points for solving it under 50 seconds, but not additional points for going faster than that.
“psychometrist: touch your nose!
you didn’t touch your nose fast enough. therefore, you’re retarded!”
pitcher: hit this ball with the bat!
you didn’t swing the bat fast enough. therefore, you struck out! (plus can’t be on MLB team)
take this basketball, and look around and note the location of all the players and assess the situation and pass it to the person on your team in the best position to bring the play forward!
you didn’t pass the ball fast enough, therefore, you suck at basketball!
Excellent point^
“Headstart and similar enrichment programs don’t work to raise IQ! Once the child leaves the enriched environment, their IQ returns to baseline!”
“Going to the gym to get big doesn’t work! Once one leaves the gym, they get smaller and lose muscle!”
oh no. now i remember.
i did best on mazes and second best on object assembly because…
i had done so many mazes for fun and had done so many jigsaw puzzles for fun.
there’s no way to divorce experience from ability/talent.
hereditists need to admit this or admit that they’re retarded.
the most charitable interpretation of hereditism is hereditism = no norm crossing AND the difference between norms across environments varies little/norms are nearly parallel wavy lines.
a “norm” is a curve of phenotypes for a given genome across environments.
if one genotype always has a phenotype above another genotype irrespective of environment, then this genotype may be called “superior” to the other.
As a child taking the WISC-R I was so impressed with block design because I remembered thinking, this is so different from anything I’ve ever done before so it measuring true intelligence (not experience).
There is however a commercial game that closely resembles block design but probably only 1% of the population has played it enough to have practice effects.
“I remembered thinking, this is so different from anything I’ve ever done before so it measuring true intelligence (not experience).”
How wrong you were (are).
Evidence?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2020/03/31/the-true-distribution-of-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-154288
That’s a philosophical critique of IQ in general, not empirical evidence that variation in Block Design performance is experiential
In virtue of all knowledge being experience-dependent this is true.
“there’s no way to divorce experience from ability/talent.
hereditists need to admit this or admit that they’re retarded.”
“this is so different from anything I’ve ever done before so it measuring true intelligence (not experience).”
Therefore Pumpkin is retarded. Cognition is experience dependent. That’s as much as a fact as Gravity.
melo you’re too dumb to understand the difference between fluid & crystallized ability
Pumpkin you’re too dumb to understand that both are experience dependent.
Intelligence is not an innate potential.
Your comment belongs on r/woooosh
Beyond early childhood, psychological experience explains none of the variation in fluid IQ. By contrast psychological experience explains substantial variation in crystallized IQ well into adulthood
A trait with high heritability is not the same as a trait that is robust. I know that you know that.
What is the source for your statement?
Actually crystallized ability has higher heritability.
a very clear example of one genome “dominating” another is…
across all environments XY is taller than XX by 4-6 inces iirc.
and even XYY is taller than XY.
it used to be thought XYY males were stupid and criminal…but now iirc the thinking is their only distinuishing feature is…they’re tall.
Black Jesus
tl;dr
it’s all additive
and
it’s all the same
point is i don’t see how “pure speed tests” of any kind are actually relevant to job performance unless the job is front line soldier or cop.
if all non-retrads get the right answer but one gets it a split second faster…
this has no real world relevance…
not in today’s economy at least.
I don’t consider Object Assembly a speed test because in theory they could have no time limit, just a gradual series of very easy to very hard puzzles that people could take as much time as they needed to solve (virtually everyone gives up if they make little progress after a few minutes). But because creating an untimed version of Object Assembly would vastly increase the number of items and the amount of time to administer, it’s easier to just use time bonus to discriminate between people. The people who can solve a 3 minute puzzle in half the time can also solve a 30 year puzzle in half the time, but the more time it takes, the more likely non-cognitive factors like persistence will contaminate the score.
The only true speed tests on the Wechsler are Digit Symbol (and Cancellation). These are true speed tests because there’s no way to measure the same ability without a time limit, and they’re VERY relevant. 1) low scores correlate with autism, and 2) clerical speed is extremely important in many office jobs where productivity is judged by how quickly and accurately you get information documented and processed on the company software.
The bagger at the grocery store has to fit many differently shaped objects into a bag with the least wasted space. A Tetris puzzle, if you will. One can find a solution instantly and keep the queue moving. The other needs to contemplate for half a minute, “do chips go on the bottom, or was it cans? Just a minute, let me watch the employee training video again” as the queue backs up. Who gets paid more?
Speed of mental calculation is literally the difinition of IQ.
Night Court – C’mon, Speedy!
in fact jobs for which being a split second faster matter are things like sales…
that is, verbal.
it’s interesting…
when i was at the hill there was this guy who sounded (to me) retarded…
i later learned he was one of the smartest guys, but…
he was from memphis.
my dad was slow in the same way and from the south even though nyc parents.
i have learned by experience that people who speak slowly are invariabky smarter than people who speak quickly.
Not from my experience…the correlation is weak but generally faster speakers are smarter. Although theres some cultural diffference in speed that can’t be explained by intelligence differences, i.e. Latinos speaking super-fast.
Citation?
That’s cuz you think Asians are smart, Gondwanaman.
Their intelligence is all correlated to their natural ability to make others conform to their level of expectations and reality.
It’s the sad truth but it’s all facts.
Black people, especially smart black people, rely solely on heuristics to think. They don’t think critically except in social situations. They really think only in stereotypes.
based on phone evesdropping of some kind my own state is the fastest talking…
but based on everything else it’s the slowest.
you see this “talk a lot but say nothing” with latin americans.
it’s not racism…it’s reality.
french people talk fast too.
so there are two facts in conflict.
1. genuinely disabled people speak slowly.
2. still waters run deep.
Lots of fast talkers in the northeast too. Especially MA, NY, NJ. Maybe rr and loaded can weigh in
Fast talkers with no substance, at least in MA. Great amount of wit but little to say about the world, especially close-minded, and a love for the status quo.
Obnoxious as hell too. They lack any deep-level analytical ability but their memory is sharp. This isn’t just for school-aged people but my observation of the entire populace.
Yea we talon fast here. I don’t hear an accent for me but I’ve been told I have one. I hear it only when I say “cawfee.” Out-of-staters say I’m hard to understand because of my accent—what accent? My other family has way stronger accents that I do hear, but I don’t hear it in mine or my circle’s voices.
By the way I will be going on Bo Winegard’s podcast soon to discuss different subjects.
IQ denialists are just insecure about themselves and the level of intelligence they have. I know as much from personal experience. It’s clear that if you’ve scored well on an IQ test, you won’t deny it and will gladly flaunt it.
Also, to expand on Mugabes point that performance sections of IQ tests are baseless, no one can deny that reading comprehension and vocabulary are so important and g-loaded, it doesn’t even matter that they are social constructs because the social construct is so inherent in the way we develop our society.
lol
It depends.
In areas where speed takes precedence over pure accuracy, timing matters. In areas where accuracy must take precedence over speed, it doesn’t.
I’m not sure if one is better than the other. Some people are wired to affect and others are wired to reflect. Speed makes an impression; logicians are on good authority — seen as buffoons.
I think your Promethean friend is right that the relationship between IQ and problem-solving speed isn’t linear, but I only think it doubles every 25-30 points or so.
If it were 10, let alone 5, you’d see massive disparities in time taken on things like college math tests that don’t exist in reality.
I don’t have any Prometheus level friends, but I did encounter them online long ago.
College level exams consist of many little problems but if the exam consisted of just one really hard problem, you might find some students finishing in the first 5 minutes and others taking several hours.
My Object Assembly study suggests it doubles every 20 points and yet also showed the relationship is indeed linear.
Pumpkin won’t let me share my pasta with all of you.
It’s a shame because it was good Pasta. RR and Philo would have loved it.
Pasta? This a euphemism for gay porn?
Yeah, that’s why I thought you’d like it.
Really though, you don’t know what Copypasta is?
It was more about [redacted by pp, April 1, 2020]
I guarantee Greta is good at math.
So with oil at 20 a barrel I guess now Chairman Robert will suggest a bailout for all the major oil companies?
Bill Gates will now travel to Africa to be there with his people in their time of most need. And if he doesn’t save enough people the blacks will still complain.
Pretty certain the virus is going to end trumps presidency. Hes already botched it. No matter what he does now its too late.
Trump literally may be the worst president we’ve had. Despite my liberal degeneracy, that’s not why I say that.
I mean he’s partially to blame for this pandemic and subsequently the stock market going to shit. On top of that he was impeached for treason.
However, I don’t know if he’s lost this election. I’m sure his cult could do mental gymnastics and “exonerate” him from all these failures in their eyes.
Instead of setting up countermeasures for this exact kind of thing he made the Space Force.
I saw on him on TV the other day and he was exclaiming how he realizes most Americans want to go back to work and this country was founded on hard work or whatever stupid bullshit. It’s all lies, his rich buddies are just going broke so he’s being pressured to do something about it. Nobody wants to go and spread the disease around but they also don’t want to be poor which puts them in a bind, so all the glaring issues of America’s political and economic systems are coming to light.
LOL. CNN Poll of Polls: Trump’s approval up amid coronavirus concerns
That’s insane.
I get so much dandruff sometimes that when I scrape my head a chunk of skin rolls under my nail.
Fantastic.
^autism
“psychological experience explains none of the variation in fluid IQ.”
I thought you were referring to heritability. So do you have a source or can you at least tell me how they came to that conclusion?
Well either way cognition is not robust.
Literally pick up any book on Neuroscience.
I’ll describe my source in my next article. It’s too important to discuss in the comment section.
What do you mean by robust? Non-plastic?
He means cognition is not canalized.
I can’t think of a single polygenic trait that is
I’ll be waiting I guess
And yeah basically. I guess “rigid” would be more appropriate.
Nope, the word you were looking for was in fact “robust.”
Looking at the definitions, both are applicable but you’re right “robust” is a biological term
If east Asians have superior visual IQ because of having a more spherical head then what is the reason spherical heads lead to superior visual IQ.
Surface area (gray matter) and bandwidth (white mater).
Both of these increase with volume but also with shape.
Both increase the utility / distribution of the volumetric system.
That is, the frontal lobes and visual lobes form more connections within and between each other. The density of connections allows for more complex pathways.
|(perception-action cycle)|
for one thing…
how many times have you heard, “i have no friends my own age…because they’re all dead.”
AIDS has killed a total of about 650,000 americans iirc. even if 80% of these were gays…you’d have to be a super un-lucky fag if all your friends were dead…PLUS…
male hetros over the age of like college graduation don’t have any friends…they just have a wife or girlfriend…
Man, I’m reading my old comments (I do that a lot) and I’m so impressed with how intelligent I was and how abstract my mind was working. I have to admit tho, the marijuana helped a lot in expressing all those feelings, thoughts, and rationalizations.
I look at my old comments and realize I was a genius, far ahead of my time and by the looks of it, will probably remain ahead of any time to have existed since the fall of the intelligent, possibly dated back to ancient Greece or Victorian England.
I am the prototypical abstract thinker. A philosopher-king!
Y do some Japs look forward white?
Y do some Japs look white? I dont get it…
Because both races are adapted to the cold
Nice answer, Pumpkin. Fuck all da haterz, u da man, my boi!
No they don’t. Show some examples.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-Japanese-seem-vaguely-European-in-terms-of-their-facial-features
Ok I found my answer…kind of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people
So i just started playing the 55GB expansion to Dirt Rally and its great. It really is a lot of new features. I think you could spend easily 300 hours going through the original game and the expansion.
The other game Im playing now is Destiny 2 but the latest expansions and seasons are a bit lacking in content. My only motivation left now is simply to upgrade my equipment to masterwork level and maybe improve my crucible win %.
You played The Outerworlds yet?
The new resident evil 3 is coming out. So excited. Resident evil is my favourite game series. Well, that and age of empires.
Yeah I stand by my judgement that trump is finished. I see this whole crisis getting very severe in the US thanks to Trumps incompetence. Those polls are based on peoples opinions a month ago when maybe 50% of americans, who are dumb, didnt even know what covid was.
The crisis is principally a public health problem so its strange the us stimulus didn’t have even more money earmarked for medical supplies rather than dopey bailouts for AAA rated corporations.
pretty sure this is actual video of pill.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Smark
mnuchin is himself a yuge extractor. the fox is guarding the hen house. now you know the answer to “cui bono?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mnuchin#OneWest
trump’s approval is higher than ever. supposing the virus goes away by may, biden won’t beat him. despite 4 years of demographic change, biden is an extremely weak candidate.
you also said trump was going to be convicted in his senate trial because you have AIDS.
I never said he would be convicted. This is dementia.
contrary to [redacted by pp, April 3, 2020]like lion, the stock market was never in a bubble.
the total yield (dividends + buy backs) on stocks is ridonculously HIGH compared to long term govt bonds.
unless…
one believed that 30 years from now revenues would be lower than they are today in nominal terms or one believed there was gonna be a communist revolution.
as long as capitalism continues the former possibility is nil despite the below replacement birth rates.
but maybe it won’t continue.
ideally the elite, the 0.01%, are judged by how much better off the 99.99% have become under their rule.
but with the decilne and fall of the aristocracy this has been replaced with…
the 99.99% should worship the 0.01% and beg them to sodomize them…
because it’s the fault of the 99.99% that they aren’t any better off than they were 50 years ago.
I would say that in the mega test, the spatial problems are way more interesting than numerical and verbal ones. I have a background in pure math and law, and for some problems, I was helped by crystallized knowledge in math and i wouldn’t have had the patience (or maybe the ability) to solve them without it.
But to measure real fluid intelligence by math, you need to give problems wich contain a bit more of math (high school) level, like the math Olympiad problems. I have compared them to Putnam competition and I think they are way less math intense but way more astuteness loaded, that’s why I believe it’s the best IQ test in the world.
And it’s predictive power is amazing. But in physics or Computer science, they can’t replicate it, because it’s immediately correlated to knowledge.
The problem with spatial problems in high-IQ tests is that when you know the underlying math, there not that discriminating and are more boring (taking a lot of necessary small steps efforts)
NB : Spatial problems in Mega test are more interesting and difficult than verbal ones but are extremely boring compared to math Olympiad problems
IQ is demonstrably real. The measuring system of actual historical accomplishments is a measure that cannot be dismissively called “Social Constructionism” because the phenomenal ages of of pioneering, commerce, affluence, example, decadence, “intellect”, & conquest are too much dependent on living in reality [rather than social-climbing] in order for their to be many FLUKES of success. However, THE PRESENT TESTS & those like them are not containing all risks & rewards….& therefore are not an absolute representation of any capacity to think, feel, act, journey in the real world.
There are 4 categories of intelligence which I can observe & have been observed by others. These are arguably the original categories. However, because the parts of the brain are more numerous & vary in their quality, one will receive a different measurement of the same or different individual due to the quality of the TOOL that is in use [soul, brain, body, general resources]. Regardless, the number 4 seems reliable to begin with to establish any type of categorical system of identification for the purpose of prospecting the future, so I’m going to use it….especially since it has stood the test of time + critics. [Make an argument if one disagrees & we’ll measure the success of the implementer of the new categorization scheme.]
Ethos – Ethics – The motivation of having organized thoughts. General Intelligence [mental preparation & filter]
Pathos – Path/Feeling – The mastery of controlling emotions. Emotional Intelligence [self, others, both, simultaneous]
Logos – Logic/ACTION – The actuality of executable thoughts & feelings. Actionable Intelligence [It isn’t logic if it isn’t actionable physically. Basically “extraversion”.]
Theos – God’s Eye View – Right Action acrost a span of time in any situation. God Intelligence [It isn’t God if one can’t systematize a series of right solutions implementable before events take place].
Look, I don’t care how “Smart” someone is, I just care that they’re right….
& stupid people are sometimes right….LIFE DOESN’T MAKE SENSE & WHY CAN’T SMART PEOPLE FIX STUPID PEOPLE?….but not all stupid people make that conclusion.
People with low iq’s have actually been able to produce inventions which absolutely have been unthought of by complete geniuses.
Solutions oft come by inspiration or inheritance…..& either can be quick or slow.
So it isn’t to say that IQ doesn’t exist or even that the premise of “IQ” is to be a social construct which inhibits the actual intelligence of those of a seemingly less preferable inheritance in competition [not competence review] with other demograhpic [which of course is not the complaint “Race Realist” has made, making him/her disingenuous, but I digress]. Rather than be dismissive of the fact of intelligence….it’s better to say that the criteria of measurement for IQ are incomplete & require further experimentation of the population of the world over a greater span of time….which means we tolerate IQ TESTS until we find one that can successfully across all situations actually produce iron clad predictive power [which presumes that IQ is 100% mathematically & materially based].
Earliest I was tested [age 9 or so], my IQ was 130 under an official test [location specific].
Latest I was tested [age 26 or so], my IQ was also 130 under an unofficial test [payed online].
Currently I have recovered from severe issues affecting brain-function. I will soon get an IQ test once I have normalized. Regardless I was high-functioning before [I merely had debilitating seizures & palsy, which I solved using self-innovated meditation techniques derived from Lost Northern-European Traditions].
It’s better to say that there is no specified object of measurement, object of measurement and no measurement unit thus the goal of psychometry fails.
Ill return to this comment later.
I there is a troll patrolling about.