Cro-Magnon man dominated Europe from about 45,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Although they are sometimes considered the first Whites, they are actually only one of three races that gave rise to the white race (the other two being Anatolian farmers and steppe pastoralists).
Draw-A-Man IQ test
Long ago I looked at their cave art, with an emphasis on drawings of people, so I could apply Dale Harris’s revision of the beloved Goodenough Draw-A-Man IQ test. The first drawing of a man I found was discovered in South-western France and believed to be 17,000 years old. It’s known as “The Wounded Man”.
The Goodenough Harris Draw-A-Man test has a maximum raw score of 73, but because this drawing depicted the man with the head of a bird, not a human, 13 of the items dealing with features unique to the human head could not be scored, so it ended up with a score of 22/60 which I then prorated to 27/73.
Another mysterious cave painting found in the cavern known as ‘The Sanctuary’ at Trois-Frères, Ariège, France, made around 15,000 years ago is known as “The Sorcerer”.
Unfortunately this too is a man-animal hybrid, and the animal features made some of the items inapplicable, in this case, the six items dealing with clothing (items #29,#55,#56,#57,#58 and #59), but out of the remaining 67 items, the picture scored 49, which I prorated into a score of 53/73.
Averaging the two drawings together, Cro-Magnon man scored 40/73 on the Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. The smoothed mean and standard deviation for U.S. 15-year-olds (considered adult level for the purpose of this test) is 45.2 and 9.83 respectively, so this equates to an IQ of 92 (U.S. norms) or 90 (U.S. white norms). But because these norms were published in 1963, I originally adjusted for the Flynn effect to determine how they might score by today’s standards, however further research (which I have not yet published) shows Draw-A-Man appears to have no Flynn effect. It may be one of the few genuinely culture reduced tests.
Of course with a sample size of only two people, we can’t be very confident that Cro-Magnon had a mean IQ of 90 (U.S. white norms). But there are two reasons why the figure is quite plausible. First Native Americans have a mean IQ of 92, and like Cro-Magnon man, Native Americans evolved as cold adapted hunter-gatherers so their IQs should be similar.
Second, as Peter Frost recently noted, a new study found that polygenic scores for education (a proxy for IQ) continued to increase even after the Paleolithic by up to half a standard deviation, if the chart below is indicative and half an SD below modern Europe is about 90.
Pumpkin Person 
What’s the argument that an increase in EDU PGS from EUP Europeans to modern Europeans that we should accept the claim that there has been selection “for” “intelligence” when numerous conceptual difficulties with PGS and “IQ” haven’t been addressed? That paper is pretty bad.
The below: refute the claim that psychological traits are physical and therefore measurable; show that there is no agreed-upon definition/theory of intelligence, so how do we know what we are “measuring” if we can’t define it, if we can’t define it, we can’t measure it and if it is ultimately a psychological trait/mental ability then it is immeasurable; show that the mental is irreducible to the physical and so psychological traits are irreducible to genes/brain/neurophysiological states; show that “natural selection” isn’t a mechanism, isn’t a thing, and even if it were, only physical things can be selected, the mental cannot (see eg Nagel, 2012).
Bad scholarship is rife with “PGS” studies, and then using just-so natural selection stories makes them even worse. It’s even worse when conceptual arguments refute claims that shouldn’t have ever left the ground in the first place.
The below: refute the claim that psychological traits are physical and therefore measurable
The entire field of psychology is based on mental traits being measurable.
What’s the argument that an increase in EDU PGS from EUP Europeans to modern Europeans that we should accept the claim that there has been selection “for” “intelligence”
One argument might be that after tens of millions of years living as hunter-gatherers, farming was a novel innovation that required intelligence to adapt to.
there is no agreed-upon definition/theory of intelligence, so how do we know what we are “measuring” if we can’t define it
We can define it as the g factor; the first principal component that emerges when a wide variety of cognitive abilities are factor analyzed. Now whether you want to give g the name “intelligence” is up to you, but g has a very precise definition
numerous conceptual difficulties with PGS
It seems to give good results at the group level. There’s about a 0.9 correlation between the AVERAGE IQ of a group and the average PGS of a group & since we’re talking about population level trends, that’s good enough.
Why do you even bother engaging with RR hes a stone cold idiot.
RaceRealist, if you can’t intuitively recognize that:
1. There is a general factor underlying cognition, roughly defined as a person’s ability to comprehend
2. The degree to which someone possesses this factor varies immensely between individuals
3. A person’s amount of this factor is almost entirely inborn, barring rare outliers (e.g., brain damage)
then all the evidence in the world won’t persuade you otherwise.
RR is a diehard Berkeley sociologist. He doesn’t believe any trait or characteristic is innate.
His inability to believe that traits are innate is most likely an innate trait of his.
ganzir,
comprehension is only type of intelligence, There is organisation, resourcefulness, leadership, judgement etc. g for all of these should be measured.
For example justices may have a higher g regarding judgement skills but lower g in say leadership.
ganzir,
comprehension is only type of intelligence, There is organisation, resourcefulness, leadership, judgement etc. g for all of these should be measured.
For example justices may have a higher g regarding judgement skills but lower g in say leadership.
You can’t measure g for all of them, since there is only one g. What you could do is study the correlations between g and those other variables.
PP,
“The entire field of psychology is based on mental traits being measurable.”
So the entire field of psychology rests on conceptual issues that have not—and cannot—be resolved. If what I argue is right, then we cannot measure psychological traits and they can’t be selected-for.
“One argument might be that after tens of millions of years living as hunter-gatherers, farming was a novel innovation that required intelligence to adapt to.”
That’s the story that (attempts to) validate the results found in the paper? In my PGS causation piece—the four steps that I argue need to be addressed for clinical application for PGS—can you answer that challenge?
“We can define it as the g factor; the first principal component that emerges when a wide variety of cognitive abilities are factor analyzed. Now whether you want to give g the name “intelligence” is up to you, but g has a very precise definition”
Jensen abandoned Spearman’s g and replaced it with PC1 and Jensen’s g (PC1) is a tautology.
“It seems to give good results at the group level. There’s about a 0.9 correlation between the AVERAGE IQ of a group and the average PGS of a group & since we’re talking about population level trends, that’s good enough.”
That citation is from Lynn, right? Again, can you address my challenge in my PGS causation article?
Ganzir,
“There is a general factor underlying cognition, roughly defined as a person’s ability to comprehend”
g is one’s comprehension? How is this MEASURABLE (see my arguments in the above articles)?
“The degree to which someone possesses this factor varies immensely between individuals”
So this “factor” is a biological variable and therefore measurable, right? Where in the brain is this factor and how do we measure this, not with IQ tests?
“A person’s amount of this factor is almost entirely inborn, barring rare outliers (e.g., brain damage)”
Can you provide a valid argument (preferably in premise and conclusion form) that this factor: is real, quantifiable, measurable, and that exists somewhere in the brain? That’s what these claims amount to.
“His inability to believe that traits are innate is most likely an innate trait of his.”
What’s the argument that traits are innate? Have you kept up with recent literature on this matter?
Jensen abandoned Spearman’s g and replaced it with PC1 and Jensen’s g (PC1) is a tautology.
How is the existence of g and/or PC1 a tautology? Are you asserting that the statistical methods used to extract g necessarily, a priori, demonstrate an overwhelmingly large general factor/first principal component? That would be news to me.
g is one’s comprehension? How is this MEASURABLE (see my arguments in the above articles)?
If you concur that there is a general factor of comprehension, and that this varies between people, it follows that it must be measurable, at least in principle. Item response theory can put I.Q. scores onto an excellent approximation of a ratio scale, as demonstrated by its success in item-free person measurement and person-free item calibration. All we have to do now is connect the two by agreeing that whatever I.Q. tests measure is, more or less, the aforementioned general factor of comprehension. I am certain that it does because, among other reasons, I observe such massive differences in understanding between people for whom I know their I.Q. test scores, and those with higher scores consistently display greater comprehension.
So this “factor” is a biological variable and therefore measurable, right? Where in the brain is this factor and how do we measure this, not with IQ tests?
Where in the body is height?
Differences in g result from differences in at least several physiological variables, as found by studies of the correlations between I.Q. and measurable traits, and these traits aren’t necessarily localizable, instead being distributed over the brain and in some cases beyond it. Neural conduction velocity and brain size, for instance. I can provide sources for these but don’t feel like looking for them unless and until you request.
Can you provide a valid argument (preferably in premise and conclusion form) that this factor: is real, quantifiable, measurable, and that exists somewhere in the brain? That’s what these claims amount to.
Yes. Yes, I can. But if you can’t see for yourself that this factor satisfies all of those descriptions, all the arguments in the world wouldn’t persuade you otherwise. Also, you’re effectively asking me to summarize existing knowledge. Grab yourself a copy of Arthur Jensen’s The g factor and don’t come back until you finish.
What’s the argument that traits are innate? Have you kept up with recent literature on this matter?
RaceRealist, if you cannot recognize that traits are innate, nothing will convince you otherwise. Nothing. Have you kept up with the recent literature on satellite telemetry? If not, I demand that you provide me with an exhaustive explanation of why the Earth is round.
If what I argue is right, then we cannot measure psychological traits and they can’t be selected-for.
Well it’s obviously not right because if it were, animal breeders could not have domesticated wild animals by selecting for tameness (a psychological trait), yet we know they did.
Ganzir,
Jensen merely computed PC1 then talked about it if it were Spearman’s g – thereby replacing it.
I never concurred – I don’t take a statistic to be a biological variable and to the best of my knowledge no IQ-ist has answered the challenge in my articles on psychological “measurement.” I asked “How is X measurable” since psychological traits are immeasurable because they’re not physical. You need to address the arguments in my linked articles. Your assertions don’t trump the conceptual arguments I’ve made. Is 140 IQ twice as “smart” as 70 IQ? IQ is on an interval scale.
If you’re asking “Where in the body is height” then I don’t think you understand the issue. We measure height because we have a specified measured object, the object of measurement and a measurement unit. You should really read Berka and Nash on measurement, if you did you’d understand why your question is nonsense.
Appreciate you able to provide sources for correlations with IQ but those are to be expected and while I do agree that attempts at cognitive localizations using fMRI fail (https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/07/the-lack-of-iq-construct-validity-and-neuroreductionism/), reductionism of any kind (reducing psychology to brain/neural/physiological states) is impossible as I argue in one of the articles above. Again, correlations are expected but that doesn’t mean X causes Y.
You said you can provide a valid argument in premise and conclusion form that gets to the heart of the matter so I’ll wait for you to do that. I’ve read Jensen’s book. Anything specific in mind?
What’s the argument that some traits and not others are innate? You can make claims but can you use the claims you make and create arguments?
In any case ganzir, the irreducibility of the mental to the physical is why a science of the mind is impossible and why we cannot measure the mind and its why psychology fails. You can’t assert that X is being measured with Y without addressing the conceptual arguments I’ve linked above. Arguments for dualism are a kill shot for the psychological measurement enterprise.
I’ve been writing something on and off for a few months on how dualism being true means that psychology can’t be measurable. Since hereditarianism is a physicalist theory of mind then if physicalism is false then hereditarianism is false. Physicalism NEEDS to be true for hereditarianism to be true. For if it is false and dualism is true, then hereditarianism is false.
PP,
Tameness is a behavior, not a psychological trait. And by the way, this is the same mistake Darwin made. The arguments against psychophysical (and against natural selection) reduction are a priori, by the way.
P.S.
Recent results undercut that assertion about breeding for tameness in Russian foxes.
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30302-7
Tameness is a behavior, not a psychological trait.
By that logic, intelligence is also a behavior not a psychological trait.
When talking about “intelligence” people seem to be talking about cognition/intentionality. Cognition is intentional and therefore irreducible.
Behavioral dispositions can be selected but mental traits can’t because they aren’t subject to physical laws. Foxes/other nonhuman animals lack propositional attitudes and therefore they lack intentionality/ability to intend.
If cognition is a behavioral disposition then it can be selected. If cognition is an action then it cannot be selected. If cognition cannot be selected, then it is because of the irreducibility of the mental and the irreducibility of the mental is due to the fact that the mental is underdetermined by the physical. I’ve realized over the years that hereditarians make claims thsg basically amount to “X is dependent on Y” – yes, necessary conditions exists but just because X is necessary it doesn’t follow that X is sufficient.
In any case, they lack intentionality because they lack minds.
Well I don’t have the time or interest to pursue this rabbit hole except to say mental traits like intelligence are just something we infer from adaptive behavior. But ultimately it’s the behavior that is being selected for regardless of its cause. Thoughts that don’t manifest as behavior can not be selected for.
Thought us an action. If one has a thought then one is thinking. Thinking is aimed at a possible future based on belief, desire etc. So you’re confusing concepts. Actions are motivated by what can be while behaviors arise due to antecedent conditions.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/13/the-distinction-between-action-and-behavior/
Well according to wikipedia, actions are a type of behavior, (” The first question in the philosophy of action is to determine how actions differ from other forms of behavior, like involuntary reflexes.” ) but I don’t want to get bogged down by semantics so I’ll try to stick to your definitions.
One could define intelligence as behavior that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain in whatever body or environment the agent is in.
Yea actions are future-oriented while behaviors are what occurs due to antecedent conditions (“involuntary reflexes” as Wikipedia says). Actions would be voluntary, you intend to carry something out. Wikipedia is using different words to convey the same meanings that I did.
So the definition you just gave me, how is that transferable to the quantification of IQ test scores?
Well an IQ test is a microcosm for life. When we solve problems we feel good, when we struggle we feel bad. These feelings would be observable as chemical changes in the brain.
Jensen merely computed PC1 then talked about it if it were Spearman’s g – thereby replacing it.
Okay? What’s your point here? Are you implying that Jensen didn’t find a large PC1?
I never concurred – I don’t take a statistic to be a biological variable and to the best of my knowledge no IQ-ist has answered the challenge in my articles on psychological “measurement.” I asked “How is X measurable” since psychological traits are immeasurable because they’re not physical. You need to address the arguments in my linked articles. Your assertions don’t trump the conceptual arguments I’ve made. Is 140 IQ twice as “smart” as 70 IQ? IQ is on an interval scale.
1. You can’t know that IQ is on an interval scale. Not unless you force it to be on one (normalization). By the standard definition of IQ, IQs are just percentiles in disguise.
Sure you can measure psychological traits. That’s what tests are for. Item-response theory, for instance.
If you’re asking “Where in the body is height” then I don’t think you understand the issue. We measure height because we have a specified measured object, the object of measurement and a measurement unit. You should really read Berka and Nash on measurement, if you did you’d understand why your question is nonsense.
I might read Berka and Nash if you read Rasch.
I suppose we should get rid of tests in schools, then, since a grade of 100 in Algebra class doesn’t prove you’re better at math than the kid with a 35?
Appreciate you able to provide sources for correlations with IQ but those are to be expected and while I do agree that attempts at cognitive localizations using fMRI fail (https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/07/the-lack-of-iq-construct-validity-and-neuroreductionism/), reductionism of any kind (reducing psychology to brain/neural/physiological states) is impossible as I argue in one of the articles above. Again, correlations are expected but that doesn’t mean X causes Y.
So now you’re diverting this into the mind-body problem and holism versus reductionism??? If so, I recommend that you read Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. Otherwise, well, you’re still trailing this into philosophy rather than science.
You said you can provide a valid argument in premise and conclusion form that gets to the heart of the matter so I’ll wait for you to do that. I’ve read Jensen’s book. Anything specific in mind?
What’s the argument that some traits and not others are innate? You can make claims but can you use the claims you make and create arguments?
If you can’t see it, nothing will convince you otherwise. End of.
In any case ganzir, the irreducibility of the mental to the physical is why a science of the mind is impossible and why we cannot measure the mind and its why psychology fails. You can’t assert that X is being measured with Y without addressing the conceptual arguments I’ve linked above. Arguments for dualism are a kill shot for the psychological measurement enterprise.
1. I can assert it all I want
2. DUALISM?!?!?!?! I suppose you won’t believe that a modern CPU is faster than an Intel 8008 because the number of transistors and the clock speed don’t affect computing performance???!!!
I’ve been writing something on and off for a few months on how dualism being true means that psychology can’t be measurable. Since hereditarianism is a physicalist theory of mind then if physicalism is false then hereditarianism is false. Physicalism NEEDS to be true for hereditarianism to be true. For if it is false and dualism is true, then hereditarianism is false.
Again, if you’re questioning physicalism, you’re effectively questioning epistemology and objective reality. If you’re in such fear of Descartes’ evil demon, be my guest.
One way of dealing with non-physical aspects: for everyone, it is essentially similar, and thus automatically controlled for. If it wasn’t, you’d see people with freakin’ teleportation and ESP stuff much more commonly than what the claims are (even if they are taken to be true).
What do you mean by “it is essentially similar, and this automatically controlled for”? Sure, all humans have minds and since this fact holds, humans can act which is distinct from behavior.
I don’t see how that throws a hurdle in measuring intelligence as a physical quantity if it doesn’t provide a better explanation.
After his mother’s death in 1971 he started taking antidepressants and
amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking them for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that it impacted his performance: “You’ve showed me I’m not an addict. But I didn’t get any work done. I’d get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I’d have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You’ve set mathematics back a month.”[65] After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his use of Ritalin and Benzedrine.[66]
///
he died at 82…like that cornish guy who said, “ciderrr drrrinking killed my fatherrr…it took 80 yearrrs to do it…but it did it.”
“talk like a pirate” day is every day in cornwall.
btw, i have tried speed by prescription and it wrecked my sleep even if i took a very small amount upon waking. so like mj i decided it was for fags.
My drawing ability is horrible. I don’t think drawing is related to IQ at all. The best artists in my class growing up were below average students. Once again puppy doesn’t understand how intelligence works.
Draw-a-man correlates with IQ because it’s not measuring drawing per se, but knowledge of the human body. You get points for including things like necks, pupils, joints, the right proportions etc. But as a test of general intelligence it is among the poorest, correlating only 0.5 with g.
pp, you are confusing knowledge with intelligence. Yes there is a correlation between both, but both are still different. intelligence or g as you put it is ability, not knowledge.
One could define intelligence as the ability to acquire knowledge. Because most humans have had similar opportunity to learn what a human body looks like, variation in such knowledge will largely reflect the ABILITY to learn it.
That is all fine philosopher, but what is your head circumference?
lol
Drawing is a pretty innate ability. Its weird how some people can draw and some can’t.
Another mass shooting. The Supreme court actually loosened gun laws recently LOL.
pill, you don’t say LOL when there’s been a shooting. That shows poor social judgement and/or psychopathy.
Your social intelligence is so bad you think Im laughing at the victims rather than how stupid the ruling was.
No, I just think laughter in connection to anything related to this story is the wrong tone for such a sombre occasion.
The fact that mass shootings are a media spectacle in America is all the proof you need that most people don’t think statistically. Mass shootings kill fewer people than heatstroke. How many people do you know who died of heatstroke?
Maybe my lack of concern at mass shootings shows poor social judgment, but that shows that social judgment demands poor statistical judgment
your lack of concern doesn’t show poor social judgement, ADMITTING it does.
Yes, but I wouldn’t admit to it so readily if I weren’t on the internet behind a veil of pseudonymity.
That’s true but I’m sure even your internet reputation matters to you to some degree
I’d probably perform in the retarded range on this test; I certainly wouldn’t get a score indicative of my I.Q. I wonder if I could improve my drawing skill with practice.
A couple of issues:
-Pre-LGM Europeans didn’t leave much ancestry into later Europeans.
-The best pieces of realistic stone age European art are from the pre-LGM Europeans and some post-LGM ones like Magdalenians. The latter also didn’t contribute much to modern Europeans.
-This means that we won’t know the phenotype-genotype correlations for those groups unless we clone the ancient DNA samples to get an idea. In our current computations we are likely missing pre-LGM and Magdalenian alleles for intelligence. Whether a correction will result in a higher polygenic score is unknown however.
-The later hunter gatherers like western hunter gatherers did contribute to Europeans, so extrapolating polygenic scores backwards to them is more plausible.
Also the guy in the first pic isn’t a “cro-magnon”.
Why are black women so damn ugly puppy?
black men are ugly
black women are gorgeous
Black women are wayyyy worse looking than black males. Have you seen them? Most are severely obese whereas not all black dudes are fat. Also the white dude in the last pick looks like he has terminal cancer or something.
Nigga are you for real? Sexual market value of black men >>> that of black women. Would hit Brittany Venti out of the park tho, no question. With all due respect
Yes black men have more sexual market value than black women, though that’s partly supply and demand (black male value goes up when many are in jail), partly the media brainwashing us into thinking black men are more alpha, and partly nature (black traits are masculine and thus a better fit for men).
https://i0.wp.com/www.uselessdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/precious-gabourey-sidibe1.jpg?fit=3600%2C2410&ssl=1
This is the typical black woman.
pp,
your like for oprah is clouding your judgement. i am not an american so there is no media brainwashing me into thinking black men are better looking. I too think black men are better looking than black women.
Dr.Howard Gardner from harvered university answers the question of is intelligence measured as one thing or multiple skills
In his book “frames of mind” the theory of multiple intelligence in his opinion intelligence is a biopsychological potential so there are some criterias to measure intelligence There are 8 criterias being:
1-logical mathematical intelligence ( which obviously einstin was perfect at)
2-linguistic intelligence ( like knowing how to play with your words and knowing when how to use them mainly being in journalists and writers)
3-spatial intelligence (or visual intelligence meaning people who know how to read the room or visuals art fine art being people who play chess or fine art artists)
4-musical intelligence (explains itself ig)
5-bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (people who know how to use there body properly mainly in sports)
6-interpersonal intelligence (or public intelligence aka street smart people like reading a person and knowing thier weak points and thier goals usually lawyers or politics)
7-intrapersonal intelligence (or like self intelligence like knowing what you want your rights and your inner voice is there etc etc)
8-naturalistic intelligence ( knowing how to use your surroundings and how to create more out of it and creating a coping mechanism of it)
IQ tests were thought to measure 2 types of intelligence which are the logical mathematical intelligence and language intelligence.
Robert Sternberg who thought there are only 3 types of intelligence….analytical, practical and creativity thought that iq tests only measured the analytical side.
Agree with this comment. [redacted by pp, 2022-07-05]
Lovely work. Well done. Keep going. James
Thanks!
Mississippi is the highest infant mortality and poorest people. How much of that is HBD (i.e big black underclass) or down to republican pro 1% policies?
Oprah was born in Mississippi and suffered infant mortality at 15 in Nashville.
How did Oprah suffer from infant mortality if she was 15 years old by then????!!!!
her baby
I was joking, pp. But I guess I’ve said enough stupid shit that the joke wasn’t immediately recognizable as such
I thought you might be joking but you’re so weird that I wasn’t sure. It was kind of funny though.
Did you know that teen pregnancy rates decline sharply starting at age 20?
LOL!
I think it is both. Remember this golden rule when you are not sure which factor is responsible for something among the given factors.
How much of republican anti redistribution eco policy is down to the Southern states having a black underclass. If there were no slaves, would the south be like canada?
The resignations of Johnson’s ministers today throw in stark relief how south asians have moved into the elite circles of the Brits. I have always said south asians with adequate nutrition have similar IQs or close to similar IQs to whites and maybe east asians.
RRs head just exploded reading my comment
peepee is a legally blind south asian. but unlike 99% of south asian immigrants she was not hyperselected.
Is algebraic ability about as g-loaded as a full-scale IQ test? Feel like g is more or less the ability to assign and retain values to symbols/concepts and manipulate them, hence the super high g-loadings of the Figure Weights and Vocabulary subtests. The difference between IQ intelligence and “real” intelligence is that that which should be appraised/considered isn’t as explicitly laid out irl.
I would think so
Gestalt & Blocks are highly g loaded despite not measuring symbolic ability.
At some level, whatever Gestalt and Blocks measure will reflect symbol manipulation in the brain, in the form of neurons firing. But they’re far enough abstracted from sheer symbol manipulation that this isomorphism may not be relevant to Teffec’s point.
What if symbols are ultimately just proxies for objects, this would mean that the aim of symbol manipulation is to simplify object manipulation and is ultimately grounded in simpler object manipulation where the symbol has to necessarily correspond to some object (though not necessarily permanently linked only to that object). This is my hypothesis, do you think it is compatible with that Ganzir (of the brain fundamentally using symbol processing, but synthesizing it with the notion that it is selected for aiding object manipulation)? Or do you notice issues with that?
Surprise surprise – gestalt tests are not “culture-free.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/10/06/knowledge-culture-logic-and-iq/
Flaminhotcheetos: Yes, I think that’s basically correct.
That’d be transforming visual information into symbols, and assuming that if such a transformation does occur that our minds utilize this transformation even in tests that aren’t designed to measure symbolic ability. Granted, anything visual once perceived and processed could be interpreted as a variable (symbol), but there still is a difference between visual variables and linguistic variables, and there’s likely a very different sort of process going inside our minds whenever we interpret and manipulate these two different types of variables in terms of immediate interpretation, short-term memory, and long-term memory.
I mean, there’s a difference between being able to recall an image and being able to recall a word.
It’s also true that out of necessity our minds would have to use these variables in order to think or mentally do anything meaningful at all, since our conceptions aren’t literally material reality but just the mental processing of it. But yeah, Teffec’s idea sounds right, though not specific, expanding on the idea of what manipulation is would be my interest. pp would also be right.
Weird thing about jews is that they developed high social intelligence as well as academic intelligence whereas east asians and most high iq whites have a distinct trade off between the two types of intelligence. [redacted by pp, 2022-07-05]
In theory all cognitive abilities are positively correlated because they’re all influenced by g. Of course the correlation is quite low in some cases but it should always be positive. So if we gave the 20 greatest math minds in America a social cognition test, they’d score at least slightly above the average American.
Now there might be subgroups with high math or verbal intelligence and low social IQ (autistics, clever sillies) but these are the exception not the rule.
Pp am I the exception or the rule
Not sure. Your social IQ is way lower than your IQ but if it still manages to break triple digits, you’re still part of the positive correlation
What tests measure “social IQ” and how is this quantified?
LOL how can you not tell puppy? He said he didnt know men and women had sex when they got married until his late teens. Once again poor social judgement from puppy.
Lots of people show poor social judgement so Ganzir saying something socially stupid is insufficient to prove he’s socially dumber than average. He might be, but until my social IQ tests are normed we don’t know.
For example you said it was impossible for Ashkenazi Jews to have Middle eastern ancestry because whites would never tolerate miscegenation and that all the studies showing Ashekenazi Jews are roughly half Middle Eastern are part of an elaborate conspiracy theory.
Now that’s socially stupid.
No its not. If you know how jews operate it makes total social sense to say the DNA testing is rigged. But only a total social idiot thinks marriage happens without sex. There is no good social reasoning for the latter.
Thinking that in the internet age of genetic revolution, Jews could fool the Word into thinking half their genome is Middle Eastern if none of it were is also socially dumb.
The Kazar theory hasnt been disproved.
Yes it has. Only nutjobs take it seriously.
If they tested the whole ashkenazi jew population they would find caucuses genes.
They would find genes from every race but not significant amounts
The mass conversion of the Khazar kingdom in the 10th or 11th century is a historical fact so the onus is on you to explain what happened to all these people.
I think my social IQ must be below average. I say this because there are some dumb people who manage to reproduce. (This assumes a sizable positive correlation between (a) not being dumb and (b) social IQ)
when peepee stops being a robot gorilla she can post proof that oprah faked her failure of the turing test.
No Oprah played it brilliantly. By feigning belief in the troll comment, she became the savior to a moral panic among her mommy audience & she didn’t have to worry about looking gullible since no one respectable would admit to seeing humour in such a disgusting troll. Win Win! Checkmate!
Meanwhile behind the scenes, the big brained star laughed hysterically with her sexy 9000 vaginas
all of these oprah sold to epstein. sad.
zero evidence oprah knew epstein or maxwell. She’s not on the Epstein list::
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html
is homosexuality a mental illness in general?
given that psychiatry and psychology are pseudosciences even a southern italian meathead can cut up.
if psychiatry is a psuedoscience, why do anti-depressants work?
Do they?
drugs work!
idiot!
heroine works!
idiot!
the science is all in the medicinal chemistry, organic synthesis…
make a molecule which cures depression and isn’t addictive or deadly.
mug.
You are changing the goalposts. First you say they dont work. and when i say they work, you imply they are addictive or deadly. you are implicitly admitting they work.
A lot of anti-depressants (in fact most) are not deadly or addictive
^^^you can’t read^^^
First you say they dont work.LIE! learn to read! and when i say they work, you imply they are addictive or deadly.LIE! learn to read you are implicitly admitting they work.i never said they didn’t fucktard! learn to read!
A lot of anti-depressants (in fact most) are not deadly or addictivewhich is exactly what i said. learn to read!
re-read this and paraphrase it.
drugs works!
idiot!
the science is all in the medicinal chemistry, organic synthesis…
make a molecule which cures depression and isn’t addictive or deadly.
mug, you definitely need some kind of drug to keep you stable.
abe was a hit.
Police said Yamagami was responding calmly to questions and had admitted to attacking Abe, telling investigators he had plotted to kill him because he believed rumors about the former leader’s connection to a certain organization that police did not identify.
the yakuza maybe?
In 1970, Colombo created the Italian-American Civil Rights League. Later that year, the first Italian Unity Day rally was held in Columbus Circle to protest the federal persecution of all Italians everywhere. In 1971, Gallo was released from prison, and Colombo invited Gallo to a peace meeting with an offering of $1,000, to which Gallo refused, instigating the Second Colombo War. On June 28, 1971, Colombo was shot three times by Jerome A. Johnson, once in the head, at the second Italian Unity Day rally in Columbus Circle sponsored by the Italian-American Civil Rights League…
japan’s ganstas are the biggest in the world. bigger than the russians. bigger than the italians. or so i have read.
and the un-marketed reality is that:
1. a psychiatrist usually has to go through multiple drugs before finding one that works on depression…and nothing works on anything else.
2. maybe 50% of the time nothing works even on depression.
3. once one has taken a drug that works for a long time it can be impossible to quit…it changes your brain permanently.
i saw my first papuan in person at the liquor store a day ago. (IQ question: how did i know he wasn’t black?) my guess is he was an engineering graduate from an australian uni. didn’t hear ‘im. just saw ‘im.
peepee feels threatened by this music, because it proves race and hair together aren’t race.
skin color check
hair check
still closer to wypipo genetically speaking
closer than oprah
answer:
1. gestalt
2. orthognathism
3. hairy
4. kinky (but more bushy) hair…not as tightly curled as SSA hair.
5. the nose. no other people have the papuan nose.
btw, the papuan phenotype is also present in far northern queensland. whereas most abos have wypipo hair.
but dude was pretty light skinned so maybe mixed…but then even mugabe would have that cro-magnon’s skin color if he lived in new guinea/the tropics…i tan like a mofo…
the meds fixed my anxiety but now I sleep 17 hours a day. before med changes, it was the same. 17 hours a day 5 years but I was young and had energy. I do not have the energy now. my family use to help me now they don’t. I did activities now I don’t.
the main problem is no energy and no activities.
I hate sleeping all day but anxiety is worse,
even the american southern accent has a variety which is upper class and thus intimidating.
and RP sounds classy to americans.
is there a ton(e)y australian accent?
the afrikaner accent is ridiculed in za (by the british saffers) but is intimidating outside za.
bad joke but still scary!
the name personality is too stupid to be allowed to comment.
this is simply a FACT:
1. no psychiatric meds work anywhere close to as well as antidepressants work on depression, and…
2. 50% of the time there is no antidepressant which works. the other 50% of the time the psychiatrist finds one drug or combination which works…after trying many which don’t. in the literature the gold standard is imipramine, but it has unpleasant side effects so isn’t used as a first line.
FACT:
1. psychiatrists don’t know why antidepressants work. they will tell you this themselves. the chemical imbalance, too little serotonin stuff is just drug company marketing and folk un-wisdom/folklore.
2. ALL of the SCIENCE is in the MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY and ORGANIC SYNTHESIS
3. “…” means “which are”…making molecules which are effective in the way street drugs are effective but at the same time are NOT addictive or deadly like street drugs.
4. and UNLIKE any antidepressant there are drugs which relieve depression 100% of the time. the problem is they’re addictive and deadly. i am referring to some of the opiates.
if peepee continues allowing non-native english speakers to post comments i will never comment again.
klansman vs afrikaner
sleeps with his pet cat vs sleeps with his pet lion
segregation vs apartheid
sometimes lynches actually guilty negros vs beats to death stephen biko
actually more than 30% but close to 30%.
the hair may also be a different color. but i only saw the guy for an instant.
i.e., i think black hair is a really deep red, whereas papuan’s often have blond hair as infants.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/equity-through-incompetence/
Why would George Soros, who is a legit genius, fund such an incompetent man to be DA. He legalised all theft under $500. Thats crazy.
If you really wanted to keep blacks out of prison, you would airdrop crate of condoms all over black areas.