Psychologists have long divided IQ variance into three major parts:
- Genes (measured by subtracting the IQ correlation of DZ wins raised together from the correlation of MZ twins raised together and then doubling the result or simply the correlation of MZ twins raised apart)
- Shared environment (measured by subtracting the IQ correlation of siblings raised apart from the correlation between siblings raised together or simply the IQ correlation of unrelated people raised together)
- Non-shared environment (measured from subtracting the IQ correlation of MZ twins raised together from the correlation between the same person tested twice).
One thing both Arthur Jensen and James Flynn agreed on was that the role of genes roughly doubled from about 40% of the variance in early childhood to 80% in later adulthood. To make room for this doubling, the role of shared environment shrank from roughly 40% in early childhood to 0% in later adulthood.
Meanwhile the effect of non-shared environment remains constant at 20% throughout the life span.
Flynn believed non-shared environment was just luck, and since luck by definition is random, it can’t favor adults or children on average which explains why it stays 20% while the other sources of variance rise and fall. Flynn also implied (though I don’t want to take him too literally) that non-shared environment was “free will”. By this I assume he meant, we don’t choose our genes or the homes we are raised in, but that 20% IQ variance that remains is up to us.
Jensen also believed non-shared environment was luck but he viewed it as specifically biological luck, writing:
a large part of the specific environmental variance appears to be due to the additive effects of a large
number of more or less random and largely physical events— developmental “ noise” — with small, but variable positive and negative influences on the neurophysiological substrate of mental growth
Now what’s interesting is Jensen not only believed that 80% heritability applied to differences within U.S. races, but also to differences between them. He called this the default hypothesis because if we don’t know what’s causing the IQ difference between races, the default should be that it’s the same cause as within them: Occam’s razor.
In 2006, Rushton & Jensen wrote:
Shuey’s (1966) compendium to document that the average Black-White difference was 0.70 standard deviations in early childhood, 1.00 standard deviations in middle childhood, and 1.20 standard deviations in early adulthood….Until the results of several such studies allow reassessment of the situation, the best estimate of Black-White convergence over the past 100 years is between 0 and 3.44 IQ points – a maximum effect size of 0.23 – well within the predictions of our estimated heritability of .80 for the Black-White g difference in the United States
In would have been nice if Rushton and Jensen had shown their math. Maybe their logic was, if 80% of the IQ variance is genetic, and 20% is non-shared environment, and the square root of 20% is 0.45, then we can at most expect the black-white IQ gap to shrink by 45%. So if the gap was originally 1.1 standard deviations (17 IQ points) in WWI, the most it could shrink by would be 1.1SD(0.45) = 0.5 SD or 9 points.
On the other hand, if genes explain 80% and the square root of that is 0.89, then the black-white gap should never shrink to less than 0.89(1.1 SD) = 0.98 SD = 15 points.
Something’s not adding up.
But there’s another problem with Jensen’s elegant default hypothesis. If non-shared environment is luck as Flynn and Jensen implied, how can it differ at all between races? Luck by definition is random so an entire race can not be lucky or unlucky. Rather the lucky and unlucky members of both races should cancel each other out leaving the non-shared environment equal and genes as the only cause of the racial IQ gap.
This seems to fit the data better.
Pumpkin Person 
So which assumptions of the ACE model aren’t routinely violated? It seems like quite a few are.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888873/
Again, this assumes that the additivity assumption is true. Due to interaction between G and E, this is untenable. It’s funny, Rushton and Jensen (2005) stated that “if gene-environment interactions make it impossible to disentangle causality and apportion variance, for pragmatic purposes that view is indistinguishable from the 100% culture-only program because it denies any potency to the genetic component proposed by hereditarians.”
They ALMOST got the point, then they let it slip away between their false dichotomy. Charney has shown how untenable the additivity assumption is. So again, h2 assumes non-interaction (as seen from Rushton and Jensen), quantifiable, separable components which are a fantasy due to the considerations from Oyama, Griffiths, and Moore to name a few, and Rushton and Jensen nor any other hereditarian have seriously addressed these claims. Gottfredson (2009) is one of the only hereditarians who attempt to address these objections, but she still misses the point as I explained belowe. It’s like theoretical arguments are anathema to them and they need everything to be either or with no third option because their model quite obviously can’t account for the objections that are raised to them. Schonemann, too, has refuted many hereditarian claims, most importantly on g and heritability.
At the end of the day PP, you are yet another hereditarian who shows that hereditarians need to keep these untenable assumptions alive because there is no other way for them to do their “science.”
“fallacy” is misspelled. it should be “phallusy”.
Lurker should know that r selected people are more creative than K because of lower latent inhibition and higher associative horizons.
Simple enough!
Controlling for IQ they may be more creative
Blacks are more creative than east asians but their IQs are so far lower its hard to tell.
No blacks are less creative than the average East Asian, they just seem more creative because the ones we see in the entertainment industry are among their best and brightest.
Matched for IQ they are probably more creative though, compared to not only East Asians but also whites.
Blacks are way more creative than asians. The problem is that because their IQs are so low there are limited means to express it. But with what they have access to intellectually, they totally excel. Most modern music and a lot of fashion is basically down to blacks. Look at the way they use language even. Its not formulaic.
You know I hate blacks, but leaning schiz definitely makes you more creative than leaning autist.
Most modern music and a lot of fashion is basically down to blacks.
As I said, at any given IQ level, blacks will be the most creative, so an IQ 100 black will be more creative than IQ 100 white who will be more creative than IQ 100 East Asian.
But that doesn’t mean the average black (IQ 80) will be more creative than the average East Asian (IQ 105+)
Look at the way they use language even. Its not formulaic.
Well controlling for IQ blacks will not only be more creative than East Asians but also more verbally skilled.
But creativity is not just about the arts, it’s also about technology.
According to Michael Hart, not a single important invention of the last 20,000 years was made in sub-Saharan Africa. By contrast East Asians invented paper, gun powder, navigation, weights and measures, the cross-bow…the list goes on and on.
You know I hate blacks, but leaning schiz definitely makes you more creative than leaning autist.
Leaning schiz decreases latent inhibition, meaning you can’t suppress irrelevant ideas. But this only causes creativity if you have the IQ to combine those irrelevant ideas in useful ways and make them relevant. But low IQ people don’t have the working memory to do this so for them it’s just information overload, leading to psychotic breaks.
No leaning schiz is more than just exposing yourself in public. Remember that list of famous schiz people I posted? None of them were scientists, except Nash. All of them were artists.
Theres something about schiz that just makes you more open and ‘weirder’ and challenging existing ways things are done. But its mainly in the arts, fashion and music we see it. Whereas for science and engineering, autism is ideal. Look at Mark Zuckerberg and Saul Kripke.
Look I’ve made the same observation as you. East asians have the intellect to create the musical instruments. But blacks have the schiz to use these instruments to very interesting ways that other races are not able, even though they may be smarter.
If there can be no environmental effect without a biological organism to act on, if there can be no organism outside of its context (like the organism-environment system), if the organism cannot exist without the environment and if the environment has certain descriptive properties iff it is connected to the organism, then nature and nurture are inseparable. For some strange reason, this logic hasn’t hit the hereditarians yet, but they, as I said previously, have no other way to be.
“An approach that partitions variance into independent main effects will never resolve the debate because, by definition, it has no choice but to perpetuate it.” (Goldhaber, 2012)
IQ is a hundred percent genetic but it’s a lot more complicated than we think!
Nature and nurture are inseparable in the sense that your genes cause your environment and so even if we can separate twins at birth, they end up in similar environments by adulthood.
Twin studies would do a better job separating genes from environment in India where the caste system restricts social mobility
“your genes cause your environment”
What’s fhe justification for this claim? What’s the argument?
“Twin studies would do a better job separating genes from environment”
They can’t do this, though. It’s based on a conceptual blunder.
“your genes cause your environment”
What’s fhe justification for this claim? What’s the argument?
Well for example, you might have some genes that make you very tall and someone recruits you to join the basketball team and after years of practice, you join the NBA where you reunite with your identical twin separated at birth.
This would give the impression that basketball skill is super genetic since despite being separated at birth, twins ended up on the NBA,
But did your genes cause you to be good at basketball? Yes, but only indirectly. It was the basketball practice environment your tall genes allowed you to enter that had the direct effect but because that environment was caused by genes, it gets counted as genetic.
Now I’m not saying it works that way for IQ but it is an example of nature and nurture being hard to untangle.
IQ is not as much about outcomes as it is about innate ability!
“your genes cause your environment”
What’s fhe justification for this claim? What’s the argument?
Ok now hes taking the piss. Ban him immediately.
And the conceptual arguments justify the claim that nature and nurture are inseparable. Genes (DNA) are inert molecules and don’t cause anything. They are used by and for the physiological system to carry out certain developmental processes. Sounds like Bouchard’s tortured logic to make actual environmental effects as “due to genes” which is straight nonsense.
How would twin studies be able separate G and E? What is it about twin studies that would get around the conceptual objections on the inseparable effects of nature and nurture? What do you think of the constantly violated ACE model adjustments? Why are Rushton and Jensen lying calling a developmental view “environmentalist”? That’s quite the admission that they need to perpetuate the nature-nurture debate to push their false arguments.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119494/
rr doesn’t let other pipo comment on his blog because little baby girl satanist so he should be banned from this one.
the coup was staged! and it’s obvious. four reasons:
1. the way it ended.
2. prigozhin was not just another guy but one of the closest to putin.
3. if it were real putin would have minimized it. instead he exaggerated it in his speech.
4. the arrest of the general.
this is not just a matter of opinion. it will be proved right or wrong in a short period of time. will there be a purge? will putin’s powers increase dramatically?
You and Melo are both mentally fucking retarded. Even Anime would give you a better take on this stuff.
^^^AUTISM^^^
there might be a purge if it were real too. but a different sort of purge.
recall putin came to power in a false flag operation, the apartment bombings.
would you trust john brennan as president not to do shit like that? that’s the sort of guy putin is. he’s a chekist. and he’s proud of it.
possible.
dont worry i hate mexicans a smidge more than i hate Indians. the former are a bunch of cowardice incompetents!
you need to balance both sides of the equation pp
what you do to the black you must do to the white
because variation is random the black-and-white mean could go up or down by 20% in an E-confidence interval.
white = 100 +/- Env.noise(0.45)SD15 = 93.25 and 106.75
black = 85 +/- Env.noise(0.45)SD15 = 78.25 and 91.75
The gap could widen or contract.
Anime never even finished high school and has an adavnced understanding of stats….more evidence of severe autism.
It only seems advanced because he makes it up. Advanced enough to fool you I guess LOL
99% of high school dropouts dont know what a confidence interval is dumbass.
That’s because he’s way more intelligent than the average high school dropout, not because he’s autistic.
Even the high school dropouts that are really intelligent don’t read stats for fun Puppy….jesus christ. Were you raised in a laboratory or something?
Anyways, I want you to answer this simple question:
Does Anime have autism?
I think both are true in his case. It probably takes a math IQ of 110-115 to even understand how a probability distribution functions. I’ll bet Trump and Obama don’t.
I think statistics is one of the most g-loaded topics in math. I’ve shown PATMA Q10 to at least 20 intelligent people and none of them have been able to crack it.
PP’s next math IQ test should involve only statistics questions of varying difficulty.
P 1.0 = G(0.895)^2 + E(0.45)^2
P 1.0 = 15(0.895)^2 + 15(0.45)^2
20.175 = 13.425 + 6.75
1/(20.175) =
0.04956629491945477075588599752169
1/(20.175) x 13.425 = 0.66
1/(20.175) x 6.75 = 0.33
P 1.0 = 15(0.66) + 15(0.33)
P 15 = G(9.9) + E(4.95)
If the gap is 80% genetic and 20% non-shared environment.
The gap should shrink by 4.95 points.
Because G and E should add up to 100% (P 1.0) or 15.
“But there’s another problem with Jensen’s elegant default hypothesis. If non-shared environment is luck as Flynn and Jensen implied, how can it differ at all between races? Luck by definition is random so an entire race can not be lucky or unlucky. Rather the lucky and unlucky members of both races should cancel each other out leaving the non-shared environment equal and genes as the only cause of the racial IQ gap.”
I think theres something seriously wrong with you. You keep saying everything always cancels out constantly. Like tourettes or something. Non-shared environment wouldn’t cancel out dumbass if its luck. By definition one race would be luckier than the other at any given time.
Something wrong with the way you think Puppy.
No there’s something wrog with how you think. Namely, you don’t LOL!
One race can’t be luckier than another.
That’s like saying if we asked all 230 million white Americans and all 40 million black Americans to each roll a dice 100 times, white Americans would get an average dice roll of 4 and black Americans would get an average dice roll of 3.
THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!
When you’re talking about millions of people the statistical power is so great that both races would have an average dice roll of 3.5000
This is actually way more complicated than you can believe but luck isn’t a statistical artifact. Its a phenomenon. You are a mathematician and attempting to measure a concept using math logic not general logic. Category error.
If you are saying one race can never be more luckier or one group of people can never be more luckier…you are basically saying luck doesn’t exist then basically. Luck, by definition only exists if a person or group if more fortunate than another person. Its not about going to a casino. We’re talking random variations.
Look, you don’t understand what luck is. Email marsha and ask her what luck is.
Fortunately for you, in this specific context, Rushton and Jensen didn’t elaborate on what luck meant to them either. But if you are talking about the general concept of luck one group HAS to be more fortunate than another otherwise you are saying luck doesn’t exist which is illogical.
Pill how can you not understand my comments yet critique them? are you full blown retarded?
Well blacks due to their lower genetic IQ are always going to select inferior environments or cause inferior environments. RR who is sub 100 IQ thinks the environment causes the IQ for blacks and not the other way around like normal people.
I’m surprised they say 80% heritability with genetics. Thats very strong. Traditionally people say its 50:50 with the environment. But yeah I can see how IQ might be more like height than say waistline.
You need to ban RR. What he is doing is called gaslighting. He personally believes IQ is very genetic but does this jewish routine of pretending to be a blank slate person because of some weird political agenda (which is evidenced by fucking a black woman).
This is where you lack social IQ. Why would RR devote his life to arguing something he doesn’t believe? He, like millions of others, simply believe the ani-HBD dogma that is taught in academia.
And even if he doesn’t believe it, I sill would not ban him. Lawyers often don’t believe their clients but they still argue the case professionally.
I dont want a fucking lawyer in the comment section. He does believe in genetics because half his blog is dedicated to it up until 5 years ago when something happened in his personal life.
You don’t learn the world is round and then go back to thinking the world is flat again. Not even RR is capable of that.
“when something happened in his personal life”
Yea, reading things I didn’t agree with which led me to rethink and finally change my views. I know that’s incomprehensible to you.
Its incomprehensible to a person with an IQ over 100.
Your math is wrong. The square root of a variance component is it’s standardized path value. So if nonshared environment is 20%, the standardized effect size of changing that by 1 standard deviation is 0.45 d for the phenotype. Read up on path analysis.
So if nonshared environment is 20%, the standardized effect size of changing that by 1 standard deviation is 0.45 d for the phenotype
Is that not what I wrote in the article?:
In would have been nice if Rushton and Jensen had shown their math. Maybe their logic was, if 80% of the IQ variance is genetic, and 20% is non-shared environment, and the square root of 20% is 0.45, then we can at most expect the black-white IQ gap to shrink by 45%. So if the gap was originally 1.1 standard deviations (17 IQ points) in WWI, the most it could shrink by would be 1.1SD(0.45) = 0.5 SD or 9 points.
how is this blog so active? Just stumbled upon it and I thought the timestamps were duped. I like it though. phallusy. anime. lol
The search for truth never stops just because it isn’t getting media attention. Plus there are some people who treat this blog as their public diary (Philosopher, Mugabe, AK, and LOADED). Also it probably has to do with PP’s personality.
my mother was more educated than my dad but that means nothing. my dad was a lot smarter than her in every day to day life.
i am also less educated than my sister but aside from her conscientious striver predisposition which a lot of my other family members have i have an innate ability that is mostly unmatched by other people.
i am very extroverted though so that leads to reward dependence and wanting to flourish for the sake of flourishing. also very open minded although these idiots around the world try to compete with me on that level.
Could be random or pseudorandom if the universe doesn’t allow true randomness. Personally I believe it does, but don’t know if t does.
Anything that exists must both fulfill the requirements of existence and meaning. In addition, since it exists in our universe it must fulfill whatever requirements that entails. Therefore even if something has no cause outside itself, and could be called “random”, it has to be meaningful, take up existence, and cohere with the requirements of the universe. Since the universe clearly has a lot of rules, it would be hard to see anything as existing in a very disconnected (and hence “random”) way.
lurker needs to be banned because high school drop out.
I dropped out and literally got my GED before I would graduate. I lived in a rural shithole where 70% of my classmates were 90 IQ Mexicans. People who were handed their lives and still have alcoholism wouldn’t understand.
i too dropped out of high school, technically…but because i realized my teachers were morons…
and i had to beg my cunt parents…
i took classes at the local university. and a correspondence class.
If you set up the definition of randomness in such a way that you can’t see the universe being compatible with it, then thats one thing.
But when I say randomness I mean the randomness of propensity, that is, if an event happens, and if you can roll it back and play it again, will it always get the same outcome? If it does, then we have determinism, if it doesn’t and gets different outcomes with the same starting conditions, we have true randomness. Different outcomes are possible, but only one happens.
An alternative to both simple determinism and true randomness is MWI which is a multiple outcome deterministic thing. Another alternative is hidden variables, but I’m not a fan of non-local ones so I don’t believe in that hypothesis.
Now if you want my definition of randomness to be compatible with your definition of things having to be meaningful and coherent, then consider this proposition: there are many possible outcomes, all ontologically real and if only one of the many occurs then any and all of them are acceptable to the universe. All outcomes entailed in a standard wavefunction are meaningful and coherent. But if only one occurs, the other meaningful and coherent things are swept aside even if they could have happened.
mugabe: like all hereditists, rr too does not unnuhstan GxE. surprising this is so hard for pipo to get. i mean not for rr, but for apparently intelligent pipo.
peepee: no they get it. they just dismiss it.
mugabe: FALSE!
for example the “non shared environment” doesn’t exist. and steve shoe does NOT unnuhstan this. he spoke of it as “random microworlds” like a retard. just because he’s chinese doesn’t mean he’s not retarded peepee.
“non shared environment” = the difference in the effect of the same environment on different genomes, aka GxE.
but rr also doesn’t know what an approximation is because tarded. the additive model is an approximation. just because it’s false doesn’t mean it doesn’t describe reality roughly.
“non shared environment” = the difference in the effect of the same environment on different genomes, aka GxE.
Very interesting theory!
Lil Peep when will you give me credit 4 anything i do its like you simply live 2 exploit me and others because i feel like you never acknowledge that theyre better than u
its an inferiority complex and your protests stemming from denial doesnt make any of the truth go away!
“non shared environment” = the difference in the effect of the same environment on different genomes, aka GxE.
But non-shared environment is the difference between the individual and his identical twin raised in the same home.
That difference can’t be about their genomes reacting differently because they have the same genome. They’re MZ twins.
im much smarter than Kanye West and im probably smarter than u 2 Pumpkin.
i think very much in depth and have a better future orientation than you.
smartness is holistic intelligence and IQ are consequences of being smart or vice versa but you may indeed have a stronger intellect than me although i doubt the other commenters do however….
im smarter than you! plain and simple! i get the bigger picture much faster than you believe to be imaginable for yourself!
and no im not being narcissistic and anything Pill or other retards on this blog say means theyre projecting because their truth is skewed to just lambast me for no reason
theyll always come up with rationalizations for whats happening but it never amounts to success! let that sink in 4 them!
it’s a general phenomenon taleb talks about:
pipo habitually confuse their model of reality with/for reality.
or as one of my psychology profs said, “pipo assume that every word refers to something in reality.”
so they will speak of things like “non shared environment” as if it were a real thing and not realize it’s just part of the model.
another thing pipo habitually do is confuse social reality with nature. so mere human institutions become like the tides or volcanos or whatever…
1. superior in all environments. but perhaps by varying degrees.
OR
2. maximum over all environments.
i think #2 is one reason why the wypipo of walmart but have done most of the great shit.
waiting for the chinese newton…
is like Waiting for Godot?
Meghan Markle is probably the only really good looking black woman I can think of…and she literally looks more middle eastern than black.
Back in the 90s the jew media promoted Naomi Cambpell as like the hottest thing to hit modelling. I never rated her.
If youre talking about non-mixed blacks I literally am drawing a blank. Maybe that British footballer Eni Aluko. Honestly I would be so ashamed and frankly disgusted if I went near a black woman. No matter how desperate or how bad times are in the Philosopher’s household hes not going to be dumpster diving like that degenerate pig RR.
Why are there so many Indians on the internet?
Lupita N”yongo is very beautiful.
Jane Fonda has been making a lot of movies lately. She was blacklisted by the Deep State for campaigning against Vietnam. It destroyed her career. Its good she is finally being forgiven 50 years later.
It reminds me of those singers the Dixie Chicks that campaigned against the evil Iraq lebensraum campaign and now they are literally exiled in their own country.
The strange thing about Markle is that she actually looks better today than when she was younger in Suits.
Non-shared environment (measured from subtracting the IQ correlation of MZ twins raised together from the correlation between the same person tested twice).
as usual i didn’t read peepee’s article. if this is the way it’s measured then my theory is retarded. but not as retarded as lurker and rr.
what about the same person tested twice but with a different personality like peepee vs lurker?
I have heard of split personalities with different IQs but maybe it was just the test’s unreliability
thats actually fascinating enlighten me more PP i think i have multiple personalities but so does everyone else who uses the Internet lmao
I don’t know anything more than that. I think you have whatever disorder Kanye West has
so what disorder do you have? youre not neurotypical either!
so what disorder do you have?
Not a damn thing. YOU GUYS are the freaks. I’m just the generous person who created a home for you freaks to give your sad pathetic lives a little meaning.
Don’t get it twisted as the black people say.
YOU’RE WELCOME!
youre an idiot dude clearly you have a mental illness and all you do is project about it.
youre not even that smart!
You don’t think I’m that smart! That’s you expressing your opinion which I think is great!
But for every person who thinks that, there are THOUSANDS of people who read my blog every single day!
I am anti Flynn effected meaning I have a much lower functioning than my intelligence would suggest although my social abilities are sky high and most people seem like illiterate retards when I interact with them!
stubbornness the way Pill utilizes it is stupidity but the way i use stubbornness is actually brilliant!
Internalize love not hate Pumpkin. youll sleep better!
This comment section made me laugh fucking hard. You’re a saint for not censoring them “pp”
all humans interacting in the current Western society that havent completely dropped out have a mental illness.
it would be grandiose 2 say that youre thoroughly neurotypical when it just isnt true.
dont mock our intelligence or observational abilities Pumpkin!
Well, at least someone is enjoying this shitshow.
The shared/non-shared environment studies are not clear. For example, being raised in a religious family is shared but having a warm versus cold upbringing is non-shared.
Studies sais being religious is genetic and non-shared once you’re an adult. That’s based on twins and adopted children. But if the criteria were being a catholic or a Muslim, then it would be mostly shared environment. Same for the language you speak.
Shared/non-shared is vague (it seems that the only
Criteria is what makes children from a same family/environment alike) and as environment can mean family but also school, neighborhood and almost anything, it’s even more loose.
Another criteria could be controlled influenced versus random (then the fact of being the first born wouldn’t be non-shared) but it’s also quite vague and difficult to assess. I wonder if the distinction has any theoretical or practical added value …
This Plomin presentation is quite good even if it doesn’t address my doubts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3147062/
Bruno another common way of describing shared vs non-shared is between family variance vs within family variance
I guess in the way that the term is usually used, additive variation is not “interactionism,” but it technically is because, as I said before, traits can’t be expressed in a vacuum. It’s just a different kind of “interacting.” But perhaps I’m being even more anal about my word usage than RR is, if that’s even possible.
Regardless, what’s going to end this debate is the empirical analysis of whether VA, VGXE, or VI contributes the most to VP in Humans, not a philosophical debate, or theoretical math.
Interacting with computers increases your computer intelligence I guess. But so many types of software exist it is hard to tell when that interaction makes your brain relatively better or worse than another brain at solving problems.
Do we for instance grade people on how well solve problems in general or just some problems? What is a general problem-solving ability because some people, let’s say IQ 175, are way better than 105 regardless of how both are exposed to or not exposed to computers for instance.
RR cannot do math, why? was it because he was not exposed to it or because he chose not to do it? Does this mean he sucks at problem-solving that is not math related?
I suck at drawing because drawing is not something I am good at so I chose not to learn how. I chose to do other things. What does that mean?
But when it comes to everything, everything should add up together. So if I suck at one thing I should be an expert at another thing. But what about people who suck at everything and those who are best at everything.
What happens when we are exposed to new things? There should be a way to tell who learns faster regardless of the environment they grew up in. to take a situation and break it down into steps and then arrange things to be a certain way so as to achieve an outcome.
That is how it works. That we find a way to achieve an outcome regardless of what we were exposed to given certain constraints.
The round peg goes in the round hole. And then we go further. All the parts go together until the limit is reached of what the mind can do. If the brain is not degenerating and the environment is not increasing the natural working memory then some people just have more and some have less. This is not memorization it is the actual ability to comprehend several things at the same time. In the front of the brain and in the back of the brain. A natural ability to do more than 8 things at once in your head. 16 or even 32 things. that cannot be because of the environment.
So you can italicize, bold, and quote text but can’t put subscripts? Weird.
Dude you’re a ducking idiot end your life!
A ducking idiot? You mean like George W. Bush? Meanwhile you’re the guy throwing shoes
maybe professor shoe added this later?
here he seems to get it:
The factors listed are not intrinsically good or bad for learning — what matters is whether the learning environment is matched to the nature of the individual child. Some react well to discipline or pressure or story telling, others do not. Further, none of the factors is obviously correlated with SES, parental education level or IQ.
but he still does not get that selecting embryos for their PGS is not selecting healthy babies or selecting healthy future adults per se…it is selecting for genomes which are fit for the current environment…which, for humans, is constantly changing because humans make their own environment…selecting embryos for their PGS is effectively treating the man made as if it were God made/nature…
much better would be for the PGS to be available to people so they can do what they need to do to bring their risk down.
jones made this point on charlie rose…smoking does not cause cancer in some people…does this mean embryos should be selected for immunity to tobacco smoke? no! it means people should stop smoking!
how are these embryos made in the first place? women only have so many eggs? are these embryos actually derived from only a few eggs but lots of different spermatazoa? so all the genetic variation is coming from the father?
but then i found out steve jones was mentally retarded. sad.
steve jones claims that the average age of fathers has decreased…since when?…he doesn’t say.
whereas in reality the average age of fathers and mothers has increased…
lower mortality = higher average age of parent
it’s just the homo sapiens have a quirk such that women can’t have chirren past a certain age unless they freeze their eggs.
in fact older fathers has been used as an excuse for the abuses of psychiatry…”older fathers have autistic chirren” — professor shoe
what steve jones was talking about apparently…
https://news.iu.edu/live/image/gid/2/width/500/height/535/6308_Figure_2.rev.1672955906.webp
but i do NOT believe it.
Through our research on modern humans, we noticed that we could predict the age at which people had children from the types of DNA mutations they left to their children…
bullshit!
the only way to explain this is YUGE polygamy.
and i do NOT believe that polygamy has ever been more than a perversion of a small minority.
but these figures say the oldest guy got all the womens…
this doesn’t happen among gorillas. the silver backs are no more fecund than the youngins.
“but science! anthony fauci is science and trans women are women and anal philosophy is philosophy.” — rr
Transformers are not women. They are not men either. They are a mix of both.
But what makes you think fauci is not science?
I meant transwomen, damn autocorrect.
Women have more convergent intelligence while men have more divergent intelligence. Of course there are exceptions to this like peeps, i am talking generally.
On another note; Peeps are you aware of any studies that examine why and how women mature faster than men in teenage and cognitively decline slower than men in old age?
Puppy is in the top 1% of people in terms of quant intelligence. Theres no doubt about it. I’m surprised he didn’t do a STEM degree in school but at least now hes in a STEM job.
[redacted by pp, 2023-07-02]
Thanks Dude!
Wow, Philo, that was such a nice thing to say about Pumpkin.
If Chris Langan came here and talked frankly, Puppy would moderate the living shit out of him. He’d call him a racist and an ‘antisemite’. Langan would probably laugh at these jew words being shaken at him.
No Chris is a celeb like me so I’d give him a pass
Then why did you moderate his comment when i copied and pasted it from facebook?
Because that’s not the same as him choosing to comment here
Puppy found out about HBD by total accident. He was researching IQ statistics and found a book by Lynn or Rushton and discovered it. Obviously statistical fact is irrefutable so Puppy probably spent days trying to disprove it like RR but in the end slammed his fist on the table and gave up.
No just from looking at the different races I always felt there was an evolutionary progression, but I suppressed these feelings thinking they were evil
But then when I learned they differed in brain size too I could no longer lie to myself
I don’t knoe peeps I still believe in multi regional origin hypothesis. Imo it makes more sense for asian homo-erectus to directly evolve into asian homosapiens than going through the african phase and then evolve into asian homo erectus. Can an african facial skull transform into an asian facial skull in just 3 million years?
The majority of the genome of all modern homo sapiens converges within the last couple hundred thousand years. Only the archaic admixture is multi regional.
The overwhelming majority, not just the majority.
“I don’t knoe peeps I still believe in multi regional origin hypothesis. Imo it makes more sense for asian homo-erectus to directly evolve into asian homosapiens than going through the african phase and then evolve into asian homo erectus. Can an african facial skull transform into an asian facial skull in just 3 million years?”
Haha no way. What empirical evidence exists for your belief?
@pumpkinperson
There are interesting hypotheses regarding the origin of anatomically modern homo sapiens. For example the yDNA and mtDNA difference between Neanderthals and AMH is smaller than the yDNA and mtdna difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans. Some think this is because of AMH admixture into Neanderthals but Iosif Lazaridis thinks that the uniparental difference between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals which is smaller than the uniparental difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is due to Neanderthal admixture into early Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens in Africa.
RR does not believe in DNA evidence so any argument you give him will not work that way @pp @name
^^^ delusional. My views on psychology and genes are irrelevant here for the claim that name made. Where have I ever stated that I don’t believe population genetic studies which ascertain different groups based on their genome? The racial realism I hold to is partly based on K=5 studies, so you’re obviously wrong
He can’t give me any DNA evidence for that position. Will he cite the discredited Kylosov studies?
RR,
you do not believe in differences at all.
RR,
You believe genes have zero effect on phenotype
You believe any set of genes can produce any phenotype.
“you do not believe in differences at all”
This is ridiculous. You just don’t understand my view.
My views on the gene and it’s role in the system is irrelevant to using DNA evidence to verify a multi-regional racie theory. Philosopher, I think I agree with you on AK’s “certain ways of thinking.”
You fucked up dishonest bastard.
This is why I don’t interact with you anymore.
I’m dishonest but you’re saying that my view on genes and psychology entails that we can’t learn anything through population genetics? Talk about dishonest…
“RR,
You believe genes have zero effect on phenotype
You believe any set of genes can produce any phenotype.”
Exactly! Facts.
That’s why he is a blank slatist. He’ll never accept any sort of “inheritance” or determinism in development. RR thinks development just happens but there is absolutely nothing predictable about it (because he can always point to anything not being the absolute/first cause of itself).
>you’re saying that my view on genes and psychology entails that we can’t learn anything through population genetics?
No, I did not you prick.
I am saying that Races cannot have different phenotypes if genes do not produce different phenotypes. You believe any set of genes can produce any phenotype. Therefore all races are the same phenotype if the genes don’t matter. A Black / Asian / White can become any other racial phenotype in your worldview Race Realist.
No matter what genes a person has they can become any other racial phenotype according to race realists.
If KanyeWest and Kim Kardashian had a baby it would not grow up to look like Keanu Reeves because they are Black and Keanu Reeves is half Asian and half White.
But according to Race Realist genes do not matter to phenotype so it is possible in his worldview that their baby will look like him.
“That’s why he is a blank slatist. He’ll never accept any sort of “inheritance” or determinism in development.”
My view is explicitly not “blank slatist.” I’ve never denied inheritance, what are you talking about? The whole developmental system is inherited.
“RR thinks development just happens but there is absolutely nothing predictable about it”
What does this mean? I’ve shown, for example, that behavioral individuality is not predictable and is effectively random.
“I am saying that Races cannot have different phenotypes if genes do not produce different phenotypes.”
What “produces the phenotype” is the irreducible interactions between all developmental resources, it’s not reducible to genes or any developmental resource. That’s the false hereditarian assumption, which I’ve shown.
“But according to Race Realist genes do not matter to phenotype so it is possible in his worldview that their baby will look like him.”
ALL developmental resources “matter.” My view is that development isn’t reducible to any of these resources.
Again, it’s irrelevant to using population genetic studies to ascertain which groups moved to and from certain locales.
RR, you are right. You are not a blank slatist, you are just an idiot. You believe development is both random, yet is also caused by the environment as a whole. You don’t have an explanation for anything.
You are just an anti-“anything that can actually be said to explain development in any specificity so you can disagree with it online and win points from smarter people who sophists”.
>My view is that development isn’t reducible to any of these resources.
So it is possible for any race phenotype to exist with any set of genes. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West’s baby could possibly look like Keonue Reves no matter what genes they give it.
got it.
“You believe development is both random, yet is also caused by the environment as a whole. You don’t have an explanation for anything.”
What are you talking about. I just comprehensively explained my framework.
“So it is possible for any race phenotype to exist with any set of genes. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West’s baby could possibly look like Keonue Reves no matter what genes they give it.”
That doesn’t follow from my view. Talk about dishonest…
What’s the argument that my claim that development is irreducible to any developmental resource that I thusly would think due to that claim that Kanye West and Kim Kardashian would have a baby that looks like Keanu Reeves?
Give me an actual argument and not your usual claims and assertions with no substance. When one asks for an argument for a claim, you need to give one. Claims aren’t arguments. Arguments have premises and conclusions and inference rules. You can write it in the text without formalizing it, I can ascertain the premises and conclusion and inference rule.
Again, what does that claim have to do with ancient pop gen? It doesn’t. Due to your…. Certain way of thinking, you see me ask for a certain kind of specific evidence that would be needed to verify a claim from someone and then jump to a completely unrelated discussion.
>When one asks for an argument for a claim, you need to give one.
Fuck you, no I don’t.
The evidence is plain to see.
phenotype is caused by genes.
You do not understand the evidence.
Cats and Dogs have different genes thus different phenotypes.
“The phenotype is caused by genes”
Nope it’s caused by an irreducible interaction between all developmental resources of which genes are but a part of.
First Tucker, now Alex Jones saying Trump is a little autistic. What do you make of it Pill?
Well then he doesn’t know what autism. Scott Adams says trump is a social genius and Scott is a world renowned expert in psychology + MENSA.
To his credit, Scott estimated trump to be top 10% in intelligence which perfectly matched my estimate of trump having a 120 IQ
He also correctly predicted Oprah was too smart to run for president but was so smart she would let us think she was running
I find trump funny and he says a lot of common sense stuff but I doubt hes 120. More like 110.
A couple of years ago i said trump could have aspergers and you brushed it off with an evil smirk.
Trump possesses 1-in-a-million combination of comedic timing and class consciousness. He is the least autistic person in the room.
Puppy said he had autism Paul. What kind of person says that?
No I said he had pre-autism which is a benign condition where social IQ is preserved but that was just a theory
Tucker Carlson & Alex Jones are the ones who said he had actual autism
Autism is whatever you want it to be if you selectively pay attention because everyone has some weird habits and don’t completely fit in all environments and so must ignore some “social” cues some of the time, or be aloof, as we are all finite creatures.
Teffec, aspie people can have comedic timing, sense of humour and class consciousness. they are defined by intense obsession with a few things/issues, saying the same thing over and over (mostly) in the same conversation, failing to understand individual and mass psychology (especially conversational psychology). Speech/thoughts which are tangential or circumstantial. Presence of bodily mannerisms. Speaking childish or weird stuff in public without understanding social rules and cues (in other words not mature enough for their age). They are cognitively normal though…..intelligence is normal or sometimes could be higher than normal.
I’d say Obama is the smartest president since Nixon. Anyways, Nixon was a disaster so it shows that IQ is not the only requirement of the job. Obama had good character.
if sailer is right about his LSAT then yes. but he’s still a sell-out. as chomsky said, “sarah palin was right to ridicule ‘the hopey-changey’. obama was an ad campaign.”
i still don’t know what happened to trump.
peepee: he was stupid…and sheldon adelson controlled him.
mugabe: maybe.
or carter and clinton. but because peepee is black and you’re peepee we can pretend.
Haha. I imagine Puppys voice being like Michael Jacksons too.
john derbyshire memes:
^^Michael Jackson^^
Arrested development
Lack of pruning
david mccullough said and i’ve heard it before that “if you could give every president an IQ test, john quincy adams would come out on top.”
Why don’t you suggest Harvey Weinstein runs for president? He would probably make Oprah his VP then.
Marianne probably has way better foreign policy
sadly…
Pumpkin you dumb sand nigger you know you have zero IQ right?
like youre brain dead. like my mother. and her sand nigger relatives.
all sand niggers are born with an incapacity to think properly. its because they fuck 2 many camels!
Blocked for EIGHT LONG DAYS (count em). You can come back on July 13 (iceland time)
Just ban him permenantly. He has some serious mental health issues.
Puppy what happens when [redacted by pp, 2023-07-06]
Banned for 4 days. See you July 10th, Iceland time.
Peeps, you said the smartest person you know has an iq of 180. Do you really think he has that much IQ?
“that much IQ”, he says, as if there is a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for IQ
specified measured object: human brain
object of measurement: intelligence
measurement unit: IQ
IQ tests measure the brain?
An object of measurement is a definite quality of an object, so how is “intelligence” a definitive quality of an object?
How is IQ a measurement unit if IQ tests measure IQ? Before one introduces a unit of measurement, they must know what they want to measure and if it can be measured. Even Richard Haier admits in 2 papers that there is no measurement unit for IQ.
IQ tests measure the brain?
Yes
An object of measurement is a definite quality of an object, so how is “intelligence” a definitive quality of an object?
The same way pumping blood is a definitive quality of the heart and digesting food is a definitive quality of the stomach and strength is a definitive quality of the muscles.
How is IQ a measurement unit if IQ tests measure IQ?
Because it’s a definable magnitude: Each IQ point corresponds to about 1/15th of a standard deviation in a specified reference population.
Even Richard Haier admits in 2 papers that there is no measurement unit for IQ.
Because he probably thinks IQ is just an ordinal scale which is a common misconception.
“Yes”
Which test was the first to “measure a brain”? When I think of brain measurement I don’t think of using tests to measure it. (Nevermind the conceptual and methodological issues with MRI and fMRI.)
“The same way pumping blood is a definitive quality of the heard and digesting food is a definitive quality of the stomach and strength is a definitive quality of the muscles.”
Naming this we have established qualities for doesn’t mean anything for IQ. Attempting to relate those to IQ is like how Geary attempted to liken an already established process mitochondrial functioning to Spearman’s g—co-opting established physiological processes and claiming they have identity with a reified thing doesn’t mean that thing exists in reality.
“Because it’s a definable magnitude”
No, I mean the claim is that IQ tests measure IQ, then they wouldn’t be a unit of measurement.
“Eqch IQ point corresponds to”
On a constructed test to fit a bell curve, each point corresponds to X. Makes sense. That’s not a measurement unit.
“he probably things IQ is just an original scale”
He says they’re constructed using interval scales.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00034/full
IQ tests are ordinal, but that’s besides the point since it doesn’t provide evidence for the property of IQ or that IQ has been measured.
When I think of brain measurement I don’t think of using tests to measure it.
Not all measures are direct
Attempting to relate those to IQ is like how Geary attempted to liken an already established process mitochondrial functioning to Spearman’s g—co-opting established physiological processes and claiming they have identity with a reified thing doesn’t mean that thing exists in reality.
If the stomach processes food why can’t the brain process sensory input? There’s a reason the eyes and ears are on the head. So that information goes straight to the brain. By your logic we could argue food digestion doesn’t exist in reality. Indeed the mental is the ONLY thing we actually know exists. I think therefore I am.
No, I mean the claim is that IQ tests measure IQ, then they wouldn’t be a unit of measurement.
I don’t understand. IQ tests measure intelligence. IQ is the unit.
On a constructed test to fit a bell curve, each point corresponds to X. Makes sense. That’s not a measurement unit.
It is if the construction fits the reality. We force IQ tests to fit a bell curve because this is more efficient than creating naturalistic tests that actually do. But if IQ units did not reflect an underlying physiological reality, we would not get a linear relationship between IQ and brain size, reaction time and mental age. Siblings who share 50% of our segregating genes would not regress precisely 50% to the mean.
It’s low IQ that he repeats the “specified measured object, object of measurement, and measurement unit for IQ” trio over and over again, because his actual problem is that he thinks intelligence is mental and mental things cannot be measured, even relatively. Any psychometrician could easily find a specified measured object for IQ, even one that doesn’t reference the physical brain, but that is not RR’s problem with it.
I’ve already told him how thoughts can be discretized into quantums of information, and how everything “objectively” physical is actually measured relatively (because there is nothing else to measure something physical against but something else) but because no one can actually give him a JPG that shows the “physical” bits of information a mind is processing, that means intelligence cannot have any relative differences in magnitude… and we can’t say any thinking is more complex than any other.
“he thinks intelligence is mental”
It is described as something mental.
“Any psychometrician could easily find a specified measured object for IQ, even if one doesn’t reference the physical brain”
They’ve had 30+ years to do address Nash and 40 years to address Berka and not one psychometrician has done so. As I stated, before you try to conceptualize a measurement unit, you need to know what you’re measuring and if it could be measured. I argue that if it is a mental thing, then it is immeasurable.
What’s the argument that “thoughts can be discretized into quantums of information”? Define your terms “discretized” and “quantums of information.”
The thing about IQ tests is that first the “tool” was created and then they attempted to “see what it measured”, but that’s the wrong way to go about measurement.
“everything “objectively” physical is actually measured relatively”
I don’t deny that, but we have rulers, for example, to measure length. And 2 people can each measure the same thing with the same ruler and come to around the same conclusion on its length. This isn’t so for psychological traits.
The issue is that if mind-brain identity is false, then what you’re saying is nonsense. That’s not even a position I hold. Merely asking a question that, if unanswerable, destroys the field of psychometrics is valid.
I’m not even the only one who holds that view, though I’m sure I came to my conclusion that psychology is immeasurable through different avenues compared to Michell and Uher.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09593543211046204
“psychometrics does not establish systematic relations to individuals’ minds as needed for measurement and that, consequently, psychometric results should not be used to make decisions about persons.”
Click to access 30461%20UHER_Psychometrics_is_Not_Measurement_%28AAM%29_2020.pdf
“It is described as something mental.”
Yes, intelligence is mental. Not disagreeing if you read what else I wrote.
“They’ve had 30+ years to do address Nash and 40 years to address Berka and not one psychometrician has done so. As I stated, before you try to conceptualize a measurement unit, you need to know what you’re measuring and if it could be measured. I argue that if it is a mental thing, then it is immeasurable.”
Well I just addressed it, PP just addressed it, probably many others have addressed it, just because you don’t understand how information processing is measurable, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
“What’s the argument that “thoughts can be discretized into quantums of information”? Define your terms “discretized” and “quantums of information.””
Discretized means making something into individually separate and distinctcomponents or units.
A quantum of information would be a discretized form of information that an information processing structure like a mind would be processing.
“The thing about IQ tests is that first the “tool” was created and then they attempted to “see what it measured”, but that’s the wrong way to go about measurement.”
The idea that intelligence levels differed predates IQ tests, obviously. IQ is just a formalization/systemization of that.
“I don’t deny that, but we have rulers, for example, to measure length. And 2 people can each measure the same thing with the same ruler and come to around the same conclusion on its length. This isn’t so for psychological traits.”
How is that not true? It is simply far more complicated, but yes, we can measure two mental things and come to the same conclusion. Millions of people can agree that “434 * 228” is a far more complicated mental calculation than “2 * 3”. That shows there is an agreed relative measurement based on complexity.
“The issue is that if mind-brain identity is false, then what you’re saying is nonsense. That’s not even a position I hold. Merely asking a question that, if unanswerable, destroys the field of psychometrics is valid.”
What I’m saying has nothing to do with whether mind-brain identity is false. I’m talking about purely mental measurements.
“I’m not even the only one who holds that view, though I’m sure I came to my conclusion that psychology is immeasurable through different avenues compared to Michell and Uher.”
Gonna need a nosecheck for these guys!
“psychometrics does not establish systematic relations to individuals’ minds as needed for measurement and that, consequently, psychometric results should not be used to make decisions about persons.”
Well, I would not want to base any huge decision based on psychometric results either. That’s why I don’t like cultures like China’s based on test results or the ancient “civil service examination”.
Lurker,
“Yes, intelligence is mental.”
Right, so if my argument is sound, then it’s not measurable.
If the mental is irreducible to the physical and genes are physical, then genes can’t explain the mental.
“Well I just addressed it, PP just addressed it, probably many others have addressed it, just because you don’t understand how information processing is measurable, doesn’t mean it isn’t.”
No he didn’t. Not at all. Not did you. Why don’t you state the three things and explain the and how they’re physical or based on physical processes?
“Discretized means making something into individually separate and distinctcomponents or units.
A quantum of information would be a discretized form of information that an information processing structure like a mind would be processing.”
So what’s the argument that “thoughts can be discretized into quantums of information”?
“The idea that intelligence levels differed predates IQ tests, obviously. IQ is just a formalization/systemization of that.”
Nope. You need an appropriate theoretical description of the property that’s measured and this is a necessary condition for measurement. So in order for a property to be measured, we must know the character of its manifestation. The scales were constructed first and then using correlational studies they attempted to ascertain what is being measured by the test. That’s not how to go about measurement.
“By developing an exclusion-inclusion criteria that favored the aforementioned groups, test developers created a norm “intelligent” (Gersh, 1987, p.166) population “to differentiate subjects of known superiority from subjects of known inferiority” (Terman, 1922, p. 656). (Bazemore-James, Shinaprayoon, and Martin)
Since newer versions of the S-B have been “validated” against the first S-B (now on the 5th edition), then this assumption is of course still there.
“How is that not true?”
Because only physical things are measurable. Go ahead and conceptualize psychological traits as physical or properties of a physical object, and name the property that IQ tests measure.
“I’m talking about purely mental measurements.”
“Mental measurement” is any oxymoron, the mental isn’t measurable. My DEC framework refutes that idea.
“Gonna need a nosecheck for these guys!”
That doesn’t address their arguments. What’s the argument that psychological traits are quantifiable? What’s the argument against Michell and Uher?
PP,
“Not all measures are direct”
Can you elaborate?
“If the stomach processes food why can’t the brain process sensory input? There’s a reason the eyes and ears are on the head. So that information goes straight to the brain. By your logic we could argue food digestion doesn’t exist in reality. Indeed the mental is the ONLY thing we actually know exists. I think therefore I am.”
Of course the brain processes sensory input. Of course food digestion exists in reality. It’s an actual physical process of a physical object. I argue that this just isn’t possible for psychology.
“I don’t understand. IQ tests measure intelligence. IQ is the unit.”
Don’t hereditarians claim identity between IQ and intelligence? If so, IQ can’t be the unit of measurement.
“But if IQ units did not reflect an underlying physiological reality, we would not get a linear relationship between IQ and brain size, reaction time and mental age. Siblings who share 50% of our segregating genes would not regress precisely 50% to the mean.”
By “IQ units” you mean IQ points? What’s the underlying physiological reality? Can you provide references which show “a linear relationship between IQ and brain size, reaction time and mental age”? Can you provide references that show “Siblings who share 50% of their segregating genes regress precisely 50% to the mean”? What’s the property that IQ tests measure?
“Not all measures are direct”
Can you elaborate?
Well as Arthur Jensen noted, we can measure a mountain’s height by the altimeter in an airplane flying
alongside its peak, or with a surveyor’s transit, or by the time it takes a cannonball shot out horizontally from the peak to reach
the ground level, or by the oxygen content of the air sampled at the peak.
Similarly we can measure the time since man split from the apes by counting the number of places on our mitochondrial DNA in which man and apes differ, or we can simply date the oldest bipedal apes.
Science is full of scenarios where no exact solution is possible so we have to get creative.
Of course the brain processes sensory input. Of course food digestion exists in reality. It’s an actual physical process of a physical object. I argue that this just isn’t possible for psychology.
Well that’s a religious belief. No argument I can make will dissuade you because you arrived at this conclusion using faith not reason.
Don’t hereditarians claim identity between IQ and intelligence? If so, IQ can’t be the unit of measurement.
Even if they do, so what? One can claim identity between weight and pounds, does that mean pounds can’t be a unit to measure weight? Don’t throw your weight around could be stated don’t throw your pounds around.
By “IQ units” you mean IQ points? What’s the underlying physiological reality?
The useful synthesis of sensory input
Can you provide references which show “a linear relationship between IQ and brain size, reaction time and mental age”? Can you provide references that show “Siblings who share 50% of their segregating genes regress precisely 50% to the mean”?
If I do will you admit you’re wrong so we can finally get some closure and advance the debate?
“Right, so if my argument is sound, then it’s not measurable.
If the mental is irreducible to the physical and genes are physical, then genes can’t explain the mental.”
Not really, intelligence is mental but it also has extension (spatial extension) because all information needs extension.
“No he didn’t. Not at all. Not did you. Why don’t you state the three things and explain the and how they’re physical or based on physical processes?”
Why would I need to describe why they’re physical when physical things are only measurable relative to other physical things, the same as mental things would only be measurable relative to other mental things?
“So what’s the argument that “thoughts can be discretized into quantums of information”?”
The fact that they are literally discretized into quantums of information, given that we talk about them as discrete things composed of other discrete information.
“Nope. You need an appropriate theoretical description of the property that’s measured and this is a necessary condition for measurement. So in order for a property to be measured, we must know the character of its manifestation. The scales were constructed first and then using correlational studies they attempted to ascertain what is being measured by the test. That’s not how to go about measurement.”
Explain how information is not discrete and not measurable?
“Since newer versions of the S-B have been “validated” against the first S-B (now on the 5th edition), then this assumption is of course still there.”
How does any one test not being perfect show that magnitude differences don’t exist? You can’t refute my argument about mental calcuations obviously and objectively according to many people being different in complexity. You’re just a slimy weasel.
“Because only physical things are measurable. Go ahead and conceptualize psychological traits as physical or properties of a physical object, and name the property that IQ tests measure.”
Physical traits are all psychological. That’s what a property or information is. Everything that physically exists is literally defined by the information it consists of.
““Mental measurement” is any oxymoron, the mental isn’t measurable. My DEC framework refutes that idea.”
Because you’re wrong as I’ve just pointed out many times.
“That doesn’t address their arguments. What’s the argument that psychological traits are quantifiable? What’s the argument against Michell and Uher?”
I literally just gave them. “Nosecheck is not an argument”, no it is a handy-dandy rule of thumb.
Again, your quotes of them have already been addressed for this argument.
“Not really” “Why would I need to explain why they’re physical”
Yes really, since only physical things can be measured. You can’t measure one’s psychology as if it’s a physical object because psychology isn’t physical nor reducible to the physical. Your only recourse is arguing for M-B identity.
“The fact that they are literally discretized into quantums of information”
What does this mean? I asked for the argument, you didn’t give one and merely repeated the claim that needs to be argued for.
“Explain how information is ny discrete and not measurable?”
How is that relevant to what I wrote and the argument that the scales were constructed first and then correlations were looked at to ascertain what is supposedly being measured?
“How does any one test not being perfect
It’s more than that—it’s the fact that the a priori bias was built into the test and it’s still alive today. That’s the point.
“You can’t refute my argument”
Saying that “Multiplying small numbers is easier than multiplying large numbers” isn’t an argument. You didn’t give an argument. In any case, your assertion isn’t an argument nor is it even a claim that the mental is measurable.
“Physical traits are all psychological.”
What’s fhe argument for this claim?
“your quotes of them have already been addressed for this argument.”
That’s funny.
In any case, psychometricians need empirical evidence that psychology is quantitative, devise models that which could possibly show the evidence, and they need to refute all skeptical arguments that argue against the possibility of “psychological measurement.”
No one has done this. No one has addressed Berka and Nash. Brand et al tried in 2003, but they failed and their response is laughable.
Some people can multiply and divide large decimal numbers in their heads without paper and without practicing.
That is proof mental calculations are measurable.
No it’s not. That’s a mere assertion and doesn’t refute the argument for the irreducibility of the mental.
“No one has addressed Berka and Nash.”
Well, I did. Or at least I addressed Garrison, who seemed to cite Berka a lot, and I’ve been waiting literal years for your promised response to that article. But I don’t really read your blog that often anymore, so maybe you did it during my hiatus.
How does the argument go again? Is M immeasurable because of its irreducibility to P?
“Yes really, since only physical things can be measured. You can’t measure one’s psychology as if it’s a physical object because psychology isn’t physical nor reducible to the physical. Your only recourse is arguing for M-B identity.”
If you want to assert that “only physical things are measurable” and that intelligence is by definition not physical and therefore not measurable, despite my counterarguments about what makes something measurable (it’s not “physicality” but more like consistency, discreteness, and comparability, hence why even digital currency can be measured), go ahead but you look like a retard.
“What does this mean? I asked for the argument, you didn’t give one and merely repeated the claim that needs to be argued for.”
What are you having trouble understanding about thoughts being discrete and informational?
“Saying that “Multiplying small numbers is easier than multiplying large numbers” isn’t an argument. You didn’t give an argument. In any case, your assertion isn’t an argument nor is it even a claim that the mental is measurable.”
The argument is that obviously, the amount of information going into multiplying the larger number is higher, hence why it is more difficult to process in the mind. I could literally go on endlessly with examples like these, quite clearly showing the measurable nature of the mind.
“What’s fhe argument for this claim?”
Hey RR, do you know how to read? Who gave you a degree?
‘Everything that physically exists is literally defined by the information it consists of. ‘
Informational = Psychological. (Because all emotions and feelings and thoughts are information, so they are equivalent in terms of “measurability” at least). We only understand physical things by our psychological processing of them anyway.
“That’s funny.
In any case, psychometricians need empirical evidence that psychology is quantitative, devise models that which could possibly show the evidence, and they need to refute all skeptical arguments that argue against the possibility of “psychological measurement.””
It’s not really funny that you continue to waste more intelligent people’s time.
I just refuted the skeptical arguments against the possibility of “psychological measurement”, it’s your own low IQ that you don’t understand the words or concepts.
Anime: some people can calculate more than others in their head than others
RR: That’s a mere assertion
rr does not think working memory is real I guess?
Melo,
I’m pretty sure I responded in that same year (2020).
“How does the argument go again? Is M immeasurable because of its irreducibility to P?”
Yea, that’s the irreducibility argument. What I call the Berka-Nash measurement objection is also of course related to that, but they don’t go as far as I do in arguing it in the way I do.
There is visual and verbal working memory.
This is measurable if we test people on solving big problems.
The bigger problems they can solve the more they have.
So yes intelligence is a real measurable thing.
Lurker,
“If you want to assert that “only physical things are measurable” and that intelligence is by definition not physical and therefore not measurable, despite my counterarguments about what makes something measurable (it’s not “physicality” but more like consistency, discreteness, and comparability, hence why even digital currency can be measured), go ahead but you look like a retard.”
So what. Is. The. Specified measured object. Object of measurement. And measurement unit for IQ?
“What are you having trouble understanding about thoughts being discrete and informational?”
I asked for an argument and you repeated the assertion that needs to be argued for.
“The argument is that obviously, the amount of information going into multiplying the larger number is higher, hence why it is more difficult to process in the mind. I could literally go on endlessly with examples like these, quite clearly showing the measurable nature of the mind.”
Another assertion. Must be your low IQ preventing you from being able to formulate a valid argument for your claim.
“Hey RR, do you know how to read? Who gave you a degree?”
What’s fhe argument?
Physical properties and psychological traits are conceptually distinct from each other. There’s no reason to conflate the two.
“It’s not really funny that you continue to waste more intelligent people’s time.
I just refuted the skeptical arguments against the possibility of “psychological measurement”, it’s your own low IQ that you don’t understand the words or concepts.”
Why don’t you give me one valid argument against mine for the impossibility of psychological measurement? Or does your low IQ prevent you from doing so?
PP,
“Well as Arthur Jensen noted, we can measure a mountain’s height by the altimeter in an airplane flying
alongside its peak, or with a surveyor’s transit, or by the time it takes a cannonball shot out horizontally from the peak to reach
the ground level, or by the oxygen content of the air sampled at the peak.”
I don’t disagree with this, but that’s in no way related to the claim that psychological measurement is like physical measurement.
“Well that’s a religious belief. No argument I can make will dissuade you because you arrived at this conclusion using faith not reason.”
Huh? I reasoned myself into those beliefs. It has nothing to do with faith.
“Even if they do, so what? One can claim identity between weight and pounds, does that mean pounds can’t be a unit to measure weight? Don’t throw your weight around could be stated don’t throw your pounds around.”
It matters since IQ tests are the tool, IQ points are supposedly the measurement unit and the object of measurement would supposedly he the normal distribution of intelligence.
“The useful synthesis of sensory input”
How is that related to IQ? What is the response to the numerous changes across different tests to change score differences, eg between men and women on Terman’s S-B?
“If I do will you admit you’re wrong so we can finally get some closure and advance the debate?”
That’s not how this works, but I will read the references and return with comments.
AK,
“This is measurable if we test people on solving big problems.”
What’s fhe specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for these?
I don’t disagree with this, but that’s in no way related to the claim that psychological measurement is like physical measurement.
You’re simply defining measurement as physical measurement. Anyone can define any word any way they want; it doesn’t change reality.
“Well that’s a religious belief. No argument I can make will dissuade you because you arrived at this conclusion using faith not reason.”
Huh? I reasoned myself into those beliefs. It has nothing to do with faith.
Believing we have a soul that somehow transcends the physical brain is pretty much the definition of religion or at least spirituality. You should join pill & I in endorsing Marianne Williamson. 🙂
It matters since IQ tests are the tool, IQ points are supposedly the measurement unit and the object of measurement would supposedly he the normal distribution of intelligence.
Suppose we didn’t have tape measures or stadiometers. The only way to measure how tall people were would be to record the highest shelf they could reach. And suppose we had no way of knowing how high each shelf was, only that some were higher than others.
It would be perfectly reasonable in that situation to say those at the 85th percentile of shelf reaching have a height of +1 Standard deviation and those at the 15th percentile are -1 SD because on a bell curve, those deviations correspond to those percentiles.
We could then multiply those deviations by 15 and add 100 and we’d have HQs (height quotients) instead of IQs.
These HQ units would be the equivalent of inches in every way except they couldn’t be multiplied or divided because they’d have no true zero point.
But if we knew, from back when tape measures did exist, that U.S. adults average about 67 inches with an SD of 4, instead of multiplying the deviations by 15 and adding 100, we could multiply by 4 and add 67, they’d be virtually indistinguishable from directly measured stadiometer height at least in the biologically normal population.
So the point is, the normal distribution is just a tool we use to estimate what the units would be if they could be measured physically.
That’s not how this works,
It kind of is. If you don’t have some pre-defined criteria by which you reject your hypothesis, it’s not science, it’s dogma.
“rr does not think working memory is real I guess?”
Exactly.
RR’s whole argument about intelligence being immeasurable hinges on “M not being reducible to P because of language”. Even though in that argument itself, there is a common link – language – he acts as if they are completely separate because they are different words. Somehow that makes mind immeasurable.
Since I can’t see inside your mind, that means it is not measurable for some reason… which is like stating that the length of schrodinger’s cat is not measurable because it is in a box and you can’t see it… and so therefore it has no length? And even though physical and mental are both words with meaning, meaning informational, composed of properties, and hence equivalent on all those fronts, somehow their differences makes it so that the physical is the only one that can possess magnitude along any axis? It is the only one that is quantifiable? Why? Berka and Nash apparently.
Illogical robot reasoning. Only explanation: Bias.
RR,
“Another assertion. Must be your low IQ preventing you from being able to formulate a valid argument for your claim.”
Holy crap. Low IQ. If you respond to my arguments with “what’s your argument” that means you have low IQ. If you need me to specifically formulate my arguments in the exact wording that allows you to understand that they are arguments and what they are, that means you have a lower IQ.
A high IQ person would be able to understand my arguments regardless of whether I specifically label one thing “premise” and “conclusion”.
You asked me for “specified measured object”. I already gave you one, many, many times. It would be a person’s intelligence, which would be equivalent to the complexity of information they could process logically, or the amount of meaningful information they could grasp at once or within a specified time limit. It’s basically the same as how we would consider power in a computer, but obviously the brain having an actual experiential/qualia component with intentionality and centralization.
“Specified Unit” is obviously the discrete bits of information processed. Yes, we can’t actually see those or measure them directly, but the fact that is they obviously exist, because some problems are obviously harder to solve and require more mental work. The fact that reality is composed of finite, distinct, informational bits means that our mind must also be.
Green and red are different properties that are not measurable as being larger than the other, but guess what? Two colors together IS larger than one color by itself. That is what marks the QUANTITY of intelligence or information processing (multiple colors) vs. the TYPE of information being processed (a color or a sound).
There you go. Let’s hear your next excuse.
“You’re simply defining measurement as physical measurement. Anyone can define any word any way they want; it doesn’t change reality.”
Those things you mentioned have a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit.
“So the point is, the normal distribution is just a tool we use to estimate what the units would be if they could be measured physically.”
Great explanation. However, assuming that height is like a physical property of height is fallacious. And the bell curve is assumed and the questions are added and subtracted until they get the normal distribution. Thus, assuming IQ is normally distributed makes it normally distributed in virtue of how the tests are constructed.
“If you don’t have some pre-defined criteria by which you reject your hypothesis, it’s not science, it’s dogma.”
Reading a paper and critiquing concepts is predefined criteria making it dogma?
Lurker,
“[Specified measured object] would be a person’s intelligence”
I may have already asked you this, but how does this gel with how tests have been changed eg for men and women and 2 groups in South Africa who had scores equalized? That’s the thing—it’s socially constructed, it’s not a biological thing that we use the test to “find”, which goes back to how the tests were constructed and then correlational studies were used to “ascertain” what is being measured.
“we can’t actually see those or measure them directly”
This is ridiculous. Before you dictate what the unit could be, you need to know if you can measure the “object” you have “conceptualized.”
P1: The amount of information going into multiplying the larger number is higher.
P2: It is more difficult to process higher amounts it information in the mind.
C: So the mind has a measurable nature.
Would this be a fair evaluation?
The difficulty of processing doesn’t necessarily imply a measurable nature of the mind. What could be difficult for one may not be difficult for another so the assumption of a universally nature of mind based on difficulty or mental processing is flawed. Complexity of a task doesn’t determine the nature of the mind. The assumption is that the difficulty of multiplying larger numbers is indicative of the mind’s measurable nature. But the complexity it a particular task doesn’t entail that the mind has a measurable nature. It could reflect the complexity of the task, not that the mind is itself measurable. And finally, the argument assumes that the mind is measurable, so it’s a circular argument, and there is no empirical evidence provided that the mind is measurable.
Further, that a task is complex doesn’t necessarily reflect that the mind is measurable. Multiplying larger number is a complex task, but it’s not an indicator that the mind is measurable and you can’t infer that the mind is measurable based on the complexity of tasks. The claim that the mind is measurable means that the mind is quantifiable, meaning that psychological traits are quantifiable. Complexity is subjective, so the presence of task complexity isn’t evidence that the mind is measurable, meaning it is quantifiable. Complexity is a character of of a task while measurability would refer to the measurable nature of the mind. So task complexity isn’t evidence that the mind is measurable.
Great explanation.
Thanks.
However, assuming that height is like a physical property of height is fallacious.
Why?
And the bell curve is assumed and the questions are added and subtracted until they get the normal distribution.
That would be way too tedious. Instead they just convert each score to its percentile rank and then find the IQ that percentile would correspond to if the curve were perfectly normal.
Thus, assuming IQ is normally distributed makes it normally distributed in virtue of how the tests are constructed.
But they’re constructed that way because it’s hypothesized that the true distribution is more or less normal and this assumption is based on the central limit theorem. That is complex traits are determined by a great many micro-effects analogous to flipping a coin thousands of times. Some people have a lot of genetic and environmental good luck, others have a lot of bad luck, but for most of us, good and bad luck cancel out forming a bell curve.
Reading a paper and critiquing concepts is predefined criteria making it dogma?
Having views that can’t be falsified is dogma
“Why?”
Sorry, I meant “assuming that IQ is like a the physical property of height”
“That would be way too tedious.”
That’s how Jensen described it in Bias in Mental Testing and g Factor.
“good and bad luck cancel out forming a bell curve
They cancel out, forming the curve that’s “seen by” the IQ test? I reject the claim that “environmental and genetic luck” matters for IQ—it’s all due to being exposed to the items on the test. I have never read a coherent take on how genes would cause mental abilities and differences in them, anyway.
Eventually I’ll write something on genes and how they work and why they don’t work how the hereditarian needs them too.
“dogma”
Falsification is a property of empirical claims and the scientific method. Most of my arguments are a priori, so falsification is irrelevant.
“Why?”
Sorry, I meant “assuming that IQ is like a the physical property of height”
It’s just a matter of faith on your part that the mind is not physical and a matter of faith on my part that it is. No human actually understands enough about neurology to arrive at either conclusion through reason even though you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you have.
That’s how Jensen described it in Bias in Mental Testing and g Factor.
Provide the page numbers if it’s not too much trouble.
They cancel out, forming the curve that’s “seen by” the IQ test? I reject the claim that “environmental and genetic luck” matters for IQ—it’s all due to being exposed to the items on the test.
Well that’s certainly true for crystallized tests. Flynn argued that abilities that parents put on display for their kids (vocabulary, information) show much more persistent shared environment effects (lasting well into adulthood) than tests that measure novel problem solving (where shared environment vanishes as early as age five)
I have never read a coherent take on how genes would cause mental abilities and differences in them, anyway.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/study-reveals-how-apoe4-gene-may-increase-risk-dementia#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20significant,to%203%25%20carry%20two%20copies.
Now I realize this is a pathology and may not much affect normal variation, but it still shows how in theory genes can cause mental traits.
I don’t think neurology is relevant, since that presumes a mind brain identity.
“Provide the page numbers”
Bias in Mental Testing, p 147-148 and 71.
Yea I understand that associations exist, and that some SNPs are associated with X percent risk for certain maladies. But that doesn’t answer the question. It’s all correlational.
“Provide the page numbers”
Bias in Mental Testing, p 147-148 and 71.
I looked into this & nowhere does he say items are added or subtracted to get a normal curve. The closest he comes is saying items that correlate poorly with the totality of items are removed to increase reliability.
Yea I understand that associations exist, and that some SNPs are associated with X percent risk for certain maladies. But that doesn’t answer the question. It’s all correlational.
And when scientists start editing genomes, removing dementia genes, you don’t think the risk of dementia will decrease? That’s a true experiment and experiments are the gold standard for proving causation.
“I looked into this”
Yea that’s the point… To construct a normal distribution they must remove and add items until they get what they want.
I don’t think that will happen because there are no “genes for” traits. You should read Kostas Kampourakis.
“I may have already asked you this, but how does this gel with how tests have been changed eg for men and women and 2 groups in South Africa who had scores equalized? That’s the thing—it’s socially constructed, it’s not a biological thing that we use the test to “find”, which goes back to how the tests were constructed and then correlational studies were used to “ascertain” what is being measured.”
The fact that any test is not a perfect measure of any person’s intelligence or that bad tests exist does not invalidate the idea of intelligence or IQ or testing revealing something about that person’s IQ.
“we can’t actually see those or measure them directly”
“This is ridiculous. Before you dictate what the unit could be, you need to know if you can measure the “object” you have “conceptualized.””
The fact that those units exist is implied by the fact that reality is made up of quantifiable information, as is mental processing.
“P1: The amount of information going into multiplying the larger number is higher.
P2: It is more difficult to process higher amounts it information in the mind.
C: So the mind has a measurable nature.
Would this be a fair evaluation?”
Well that shows how people can “objectively” agree on a measure of intelligence without directly interacting with it.
The fact that information is discrete and hence quantifiable and that is what the mind processes is what shows that the mind has a measurable nature.
“The difficulty of processing doesn’t necessarily imply a measurable nature of the mind. What could be difficult for one may not be difficult for another so the assumption of a universally nature of mind based on difficulty or mental processing is flawed.”
But the fact that information of a similar nature is quantifiable is true by definition. That the mind processes or accepts information is true by definition. That even information that is of a different nature (color vs. sound vs. taste) can be compared and counted as separate elements is true. So assuming that we have any similarity in the types of information we process (which must be true because information is how literally anything is defined and we can think in terms of “pure information” with no prior interpretation which is what symbols or words are), and assuming there is a consistent nature to that processing (people don’t randomly have less or more capable minds, which obviously they don’t).
“Complexity of a task doesn’t determine the nature of the mind.”
It doesn’t determine the nature of the mind it shows the complexity of the mind necessary to complete the task.
“The assumption is that the difficulty of multiplying larger numbers is indicative of the mind’s measurable nature. But the complexity it a particular task doesn’t entail that the mind has a measurable nature.”
Yes it does because information is quantifiable and measurable as I stated above.
“It could reflect the complexity of the task, not that the mind is itself measurable. And finally, the argument assumes that the mind is measurable, so it’s a circular argument, and there is no empirical evidence provided that the mind is measurable.”
The argumen doesn’t assume anything but what are self-evident facts. That information is measurable which is simply a fact, and that the mind processes information. Not a circular argument just one you don’t understand.
“Further, that a task is complex doesn’t necessarily reflect that the mind is measurable. Multiplying larger number is a complex task, but it’s not an indicator that the mind is measurable and you can’t infer that the mind is measurable based on the complexity of tasks.”
Again, I was showing how we can measure things like intelligence without even seeing anything. If you need multiple observers to agree to show that something is an “objective measure”, then clearly the fact that everyone agrees that more complex arithmetic is more difficult than less complex arithmetic (that dealing with lower numbers or less operations) shows that intelligence is objectively agreed upon.
But if you realize that anything intelligible has to be made up of discrete information, there is not even a need for that more subjective argument.
“The claim that the mind is measurable means that the mind is quantifiable, meaning that psychological traits are quantifiable.”
I’m not quantifying “traits” meaning different properties that are mutually exclusive, but multiple elements of something that shares a property. If I use three random properties or elements, like “blue”, “Middle C on the piano”, and “the number 3”, even though they are qualitatively different, they all have at least one commonality which is that they are singular discrete elements or concepts (which is how we can describe them all using words and understand that they are both separate and singular entities). So you can count them and quantify them, as 3 objects, words, concepts, elements, or whatever. And guess what… three is larger than one or two.
“Complexity is subjective, so the presence of task complexity isn’t evidence that the mind is measurable, meaning it is quantifiable.”
The feeling of complexity is subjective, but complexity itself can have an objective defintion.
“Complexity is a character of of a task while measurability would refer to the measurable nature of the mind. So task complexity isn’t evidence that the mind is measurable.”
Well as you hopefully now know, that was just an example of people agreeing on something taking more intelligence to do, but it shows you that even with a task involving even the exact same operations, if you increase the number, everyone subjectively understands that it takes more brain power. If that didn’t point to quantifiably more resources being necessary for the one with quantifiably larger numbers, than I have no idea what it would point to.
“The fact that any test is not a perfect measure of any person’s intelligence or that bad tests exist”
What would a “perfect test” look like? What’s fhe distinction between a “bad test” and a “good test”?
“The fact that those units exist”
That didn’t address my comment.
Is that argument a fair reconstruction of the view you hold?
“the fact that information of a similar nature is quantifiable is true by definition.”
The conclusion in my argument is that psychology can’t be measured. One premise is that only physical things can be measured since they are observed. So you asserting that intelligence is measured because X is flawed.
“It shows the complexity of the mind necessary to complete the task”
What does “mind complexity” mean?
“Yes it does because information is quantifiable and measurable”
That’s not the same as the mental and psychological traits being measurable.
“The argument doesn’t assume anything”
So you think that I reconstructed your view correctly?
It’s circular because the conclusion (mind has a measurable nature) repeats what it implicit in the premises.
“Objective measures” aren’t possible with (subjective) psychological traits/mind.
That’s definitely what it means—if X is measurable, then X is quantifiable. If X is quantifiable, then it is physical.
“objective definition”
Definitions aren’t objective.
“more brain power”
What does this mean? How is this measured?
It doesn’t point to quantifiable mind, the two arguments I have earlier refuted that, as well as the many I’ve given on my blog.
“I’m pretty sure I responded in that same year (2020).”
Can you point it out to me? I’m not sure what you would be referring to.
“Yea, that’s the irreducibility argument.”
I don’t really find it convincing. I mean, Biology isn’t “reducible” to physics, but you can measure physiological traits. What is it about irreducibility that makes something immeasurable?
I also have something to ask about the Berka and Nash argument, but I’ll wait to see if you actually have an article on what I wrote those years back.
I’d need to look, give me a bit. In the mean time, what’s the question?
It’s not really relevant if you did actually have a response, so I’ll wait.
Yea I did many times since then. I don’t really think Garrison strike to the heart of psychometrics as much as Berka, Nash, Trendler, Uher and Michell. If your question wasn’t addressed then ask it and I will answer to the best of my ability.
Pumpkin, back when IQ was calculated based on age(10-year old scoring like an 11-year old equals an IQ of 11/10*100), IQ was basically normally distributed right?
RR, what do you think about that?
That’s right
Binet constructed his test so that a normal distribution was built in, just like in the modern day.
RR, IQ is a unit of measurement of intelligence. When i said ‘does he have that much IQ’ I meant does he have that much intelligence? Kind of like saying does he weigh that many kgs?when asking about weight.
That’s an incoherent analogy.
“What would a “perfect test” look like? What’s fhe distinction between a “bad test” and a “good test”?”
What would a world look like if information was not quantifiable? How would we know when any concept was different from another? Distinctions exist, therefore quantifiability exists, and therefore minds that process distinctions have a quantifiable element.
A test is a better representation of intelligence if it has more questions, and if those questions represent the kind of information processing that is not completely novel to the test-taker but also not something they could have practiced specifically for.
“That didn’t address my comment.
Is that argument a fair reconstruction of the view you hold?”
No I wouldn’t say only that because it is more difficult to process larger numbers and that those numbers are measurable that it means the mind is measurable. I already explained what I meant when I said we have the same subjective feeling of complexity about the same mental tasks. Here is what you said:
RR: I don’t deny that, but we have rulers, for example, to measure length. And 2 people can each measure the same thing with the same ruler and come to around the same conclusion on its length. This isn’t so for psychological traits.”
To which I replied:
Lurker: How is that not true? It is simply far more complicated, but yes, we can measure two mental things and come to the same conclusion. Millions of people can agree that “434 * 228” is a far more complicated mental calculation than “2 * 3”. That shows there is an agreed relative measurement based on complexity.”
The proof that the mind is measurable comes from the fact that information is quantifiable and the mind is an information processor.
My point about people agreeing that larger numbers are harder to multiply is simply showing that contrary to your statement that we cannot come to the same conclusion about psychological traits using the “same ruler”, we can actually evaluate the same two questions and come to the same conclusion about the relative level of intelligence needed to solve it.
“The conclusion in my argument is that psychology can’t be measured. One premise is that only physical things can be measured since they are observed. So you asserting that intelligence is measured because X is flawed.”
If information is physical, then intelligence can be measured and this does not disagree with your argument. If information is not physical, then it does.
What is hard to grasp about this? I’m honestly asking. Obviously you are hung up on the word “physical” and repeat it every time I go through the painstaking effort of rephrasing and explaining my argument, even though I continue to address it.
Since like a year ago or whenever I started arguing with you I already said that both mental and physical things are conceptual. You could also say informational. The point being is they obviously have some commonality which is why we can talk about them in the same sentence or language, and use mental imagery to represent physical things.
If I write an IOU I’m talking about something that will be physical but is not yet existing. It is something with no physical manifestation but is measurable.
If I talk about the height of a fictional animated character like the Hulk or Goku, I’m measuring something that has no actual physical manifestation.
If I talk about a stick in a videogame or a Pixar movie that is four feet long, my TV screen doesn’t have to be four feet long for that to be a meaningful measurement.
“What does “mind complexity” mean?”
It means the mind is processing more information.
“That’s not the same as the mental and psychological traits being measurable.”
Yes it is, because the mind is an information processor and is itself information. Everything is information because anything that exists has properties (or else it would have no distinct existence). What are properties? They are the information of reality. They are what reality means to itself.
“So you think that I reconstructed your view correctly?”
No, because the way you phrased it obviously skipped some of the premises necessary for the conclusion that the mind is measurable, since you keep bringing up things that I’ve already explained as if they weren’t explained. You were using the idea that something is subjectively considered more complex as 100% logical proof that it actually is more complex for every mind, which was not my point.
What it is proof of is that your idea that multiple people can’t come to the same conclusions about the difficulty of a question and measurements of intelligence using the same test questions (ruler) was false.
“It’s circular because the conclusion (mind has a measurable nature) repeats what it implicit in the premises.”
No, you think it’s circular because you ignore the rest of the statements I make that prove the conclusion because you don’t understand them, like when I say that information is quantifiable and how the mind is an information processor.
““Objective measures” aren’t possible with (subjective) psychological traits/mind.”
Then how am I talking to you and assuming you understand me? I assume that your mind is processing what is coming from my mind in the same way.
Is it objectively true that you understand me? Is it objectively true that words like temperature are intelligible? And that they mean the same thing to all scientists?
I have no idea where you get the idea that “objective measures” are not possible with mind. Yes I cannot read your mind. But I know when I have the same feeling. That is me directly comparing (measuring) my mind at different times.
You seem to be hung up on different mind states being incomparable. This why I carefully explained that IQ is not measuring different TYPES of qualia or information processing or whatever, it is measuring the QUANTIFIABLE aspects of that processing.
Yes, obviously picturing something vs. hearing something in your mind are not directly measurable against each other. Congratulations, you’ve pointed out what all psychometricians already know!
You are trying to reduce down every mental state into its own separate category. But in calling them all “mental states” you are already agreeing they share at least one category. Therefore, while every thought is clearly different, as it each one takes place at a different time at the very least, they are also all mental states and are also all informational in nature.
SO… since human minds are all capable of processing pure information (language/symbolization), if one is capable of processing MORE of that information, it would be “smarter”. That would be General Intelligence.
“That’s definitely what it means—if X is measurable, then X is quantifiable. If X is quantifiable, then it is physical.”
Unless you want to claim mental states are physical as well, no.
“Definitions aren’t objective.”
Why would you even bother talking unless you thought definitions had at least some degree of objectivity? This is truly post-modern “There is no objective meaning so therefore I’ve just refuted my own retarded philosophy” territory.
“What does this mean? How is this measured?”
What does “more brain power” mean? I don’t know, take a wild guess.
“It doesn’t point to quantifiable mind, the two arguments I have earlier refuted that, as well as the many I’ve given on my blog.”
No, you’ve never refuted the idea that because the brain requires energy to do mental tasks (showing that mind and body are linked and not two completely separate substances – contrary dualism) that it shows that mental tasks differ in degrees of difficulty and hence it is quite possible that minds differ in their overall ability to accomplish mental tasks. Not that we even need that argument to show that the mind is measurable.
“Distinctions exist, therefore quantifiability exists, and therefore minds that process distinctions have a quantifiable element.”
This argument is invalid because you affirmed the consequent.
Counter:
(1) Distinctions exist.
(2) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily exist for all distinctions.
(C) Thus, it is not necessarily true that if distinctions exist, then quantifiability exists.
“A test is a better representation of intelligence of it has more questions, and if those questions represent the kind of information processing that is not completely novel to the test-taker but also not something they could have practiced specifically for.”
This is a valid argument, but without further explanation on what a “good test” is, it’s difficult to establish soundness. You need evidence.
“No I wouldn’t say [that your reconstruction of my argument is fair]”
“I already explained what I meant”
And I gave a counter that I don’t think you’ve successfully addressed.
“The proof that the mind is measurable comes from the fact that information”
Of course the mind processed information, but that doesn’t mean that therefore the mind is quantifiable. Mind is about more than mere information processing—it also involves conscious/subjective experience, emotions, which are irreducible to quantifiable measurements.
“If information is physical then intelligence can be measured. If information is not physical, then intelligence can’t be measured”
(1) If information is physical, then intelligence can be measured.
(2) The mental is irreducible to the physical.
(3) Thus, information isn’t solely physical.
Regarding what you said about IOU, fictional characters and sticks in a video game, that doesn’t address the measurement objection at all.
“the mind is processing more information”
And we can ascertain this from IQ tests?
If I didn’t phrase your argument correctly and if you believe I left out some premises that would justify the conclusion, then continue where I left off using the template I gave and add the premises that would secure the conclusion.
Objective measurement isn’t possible with mind because mind is subjective and while science is concerned with objective measurement, it means there is an observer. You can’t observe someone’s mind.
I agree that mental states share a category because they are conceptually distinct from physical states.
“You are trying to reduce down every mental state into its own separate category. But in calling them all “mental states” you are already agreeing they share at least one category. Therefore, while every thought is clearly different, as it each one takes place at a different time at the very least, they are also all mental states and are also all informational in nature.
SO… since human minds are all capable of processing pure information (language/symbolization), if one is capable of processing MORE of that information, it would be “smarter”. That would be General Intelligence.”
This argument isn’t valid either.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises and (4) doesn’t transition from (3).
” Unless toy want to claim that mental states are physical as well”
I don’t want to claim that. But I AM claiming that if something is measurable then it is quantifiable and so it is physical.
“Why would you even bother talking”
(1) Definitions are subjective and can vary based on individual perspectives.
(2) Communication serves purposes beyond conveying precise and fixed meanings.
(C) Thus, conversation remains valuable even wkth subjective definitions.
It’s hilarious how Lurker can completely eviscerate RR’s dualistic arguments yet doesn’t even understand Hume’s Guillotine.
He makes an excellent point. IQ tests aren’t trying to measure or contrast mental states. They’re measuring or “assessing” mental ability.
RR’s position is akin to saying that standardized testing can’t elucidate someone’s knowledge of a subject
Should we throw out Math tests? What about the bar exam? How does anyone know if anyone is qualified for a job? You can call it whatever you want but it is pragmatically indistinguishable from “measuring”
“Counter:
(1) Distinctions exist.
(2) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily exist for all distinctions.
(C) Thus, it is not necessarily true that if distinctions exist, then quantifiability exists.”
Re: 2. Quantifibility does not apply to comparing types, such as the distinction between sound and color. But when you say the word “distinctions”, you are literally applying quantifiability to those things as a group.
In other words, the letter A is not more than B, but the letters A and B are more letters than A or B. I know you can understand this if you think about it.
“A test is a better representation of intelligence of it has more questions, and if those questions represent the kind of information processing that is not completely novel to the test-taker but also not something they could have practiced specifically for.”
“This is a valid argument, but without further explanation on what a “good test” is, it’s difficult to establish soundness. You need evidence.”
Well given my argument that the brain is an information processor and information is quantifiable, and the brain processes “pure information” in the form of symbols representing other information, it is apriori true that a good test would show intelligence differences.
And you generally see this in reality: no matter how preppable the test is, people with greater ability to reason in the moment will do better than those of lesser ability but with similar pre-existing knowledge levels, and this generally balances out among those with various levels of preparedness and various levels of general intelligence to show accurate relative intelligence levels.
“And I gave a counter that I don’t think you’ve successfully addressed.”
Uh, yes I did. You said subjective feelings of complexity doesn’t show quantifiability of the mind. But when complexity is about how much information you are processing, it does. And given that quantifiability of information is possible, then it shows quantifiability of the information processor.
“Of course the mind processed information, but that doesn’t mean that therefore the mind is quantifiable. Mind is about more than mere information processing—it also involves conscious/subjective experience, emotions, which are irreducible to quantifiable measurements.”
Again you are referring to irreducible things as if we quantifying those. I’m not quantifying a sound vs. a word. I’m stating that distinctions are information, reality is information. Information is quantifiable. Properties are quantifiable. Data is quantifiable. Is that hard to understand?
“If information is physical then intelligence can be measured. If information is not physical, then intelligence can’t be measured”
“(1) If information is physical, then intelligence can be measured.
(2) The mental is irreducible to the physical.
(3) Thus, information isn’t solely physical.”
Sure but you have to show how physical things and mental things are different in ways that make them immeasurable. So far all you’ve said is that different types of data/properties/whatever are not quantifiable against each other, but under more general type/property of “quantum of information”, they are. “Blue” and “A bat’s scream” contain at least two distinct bits of information.
“Regarding what you said about IOU, fictional characters and sticks in a video game, that doesn’t address the measurement objection at all.”
Yes it does. It shows that people can agree objectively about measurements or quantifications of things that are mental.
“And we can ascertain this from IQ tests?”
Yes, as I wrote above about tests averaging out to show intelligence. Even very culturally biased tests would show this. Maybe a more intelligent population would still get worse scores on a culturally biased test than the less intelligent but culturally adjacent population, but it seems quite conspiratorial to think literally every possible test of intelligence would be biased against a segment of a population, since tests of intelligence are largely what life is made of.
“If I didn’t phrase your argument correctly and if you believe I left out some premises that would justify the conclusion, then continue where I left off using the template I gave and add the premises that would secure the conclusion.”
I believe I already did. But here is a proof that the mind is quantifiable:
1. Information is quantifiable.
2. The mind processes information.
3. All information processed by the mind, even if it was said to have absolutely no mutually shared structure, at least shares the category of “information”.
4. Therefore, the processing of the information by the mind is quantifiable on the most general basis (not simply that which is tied to specific fields) and hence we can consider the overall capacity of the mind as quantifiable.
You could also add:
5. There is no reason to assume all minds would process the same amount of information.
6. There is ample reason to assume that minds continue to process roughly similar amounts of information along the person’s lifetime.
7. Therefore, it is possible to get a rough estimate of the capabilities of a mind’s processing by asking that mind to process information that is of a possibly understandable nature to that mind, but not already directly accessible by it.
Obviously for (3), if the information the mind was processing actually had no similarity to any other information that exists, such as that of the physical world or other minds, then intelligence testing would indeed be useless as nothing anyone thought would apply to anything else, but obviously, that is not the case or else we would live in a completely incomprehensible universe and we wouldn’t even be able to communicate the simplest thing. I’m not even sure if it’s theoretically possible for such a universe or reality to exist.
It would be like if every thought and every physical occurence generated a completely new concept or universe that had nothing to do with anything else, like an endless string digits with no other meaning attached to them. Of course, even then, the larger string of binary digits would be quantifiably larger, and hence more complex. That’s my point.
“Objective measurement isn’t possible with mind because mind is subjective and while science is concerned with objective measurement, it means there is an observer. You can’t observe someone’s mind.”
All subjective experiences objectively exist and are objective to that mind. That means they are objective to some sort of coherent framework, even if it is contradictory to another’s. Even if in my mind I’m holding the thought “2 = 3”, while it is not mathematically valid, it at least objectively means that I THINK or am pretending to think that those two numbers are equal. It also objectively validates a lot of implicit systems like the existence of numbers, equality, logic, etc. To think any thought literally requires that thought be logically compatible with thinking, and hence, intelligible to the thinker in some form. Even a thought that is simply a “feeling”, even a feeling that you don’t even understand, at least OBJECTIVELY exists as that feeling.
Feelings are subjective, but the feeling itself is objective.
“I agree that mental states share a category because they are conceptually distinct from physical states.”
Right, and they also all fall under the umbrella of “states”, meaning they share at least that commonality. They are all quantifiable as states. There are many more similarities we can find between various mental and physical states and can quantify those as well.
“This argument isn’t valid either.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises and (4) doesn’t transition from (3).”
Capable of processing the same kind of information, but more of it is what is meant by “smarter”. Or simply even more types of information. But as long as the net value is greater, they are smarter.
I’m not sure what you are referring to as 3 and 4. I doubt there is something I’m missing that you could easily dismiss without explaining yourself (meaning it must be a very hard-to-catch mistake). The only mistake I’d likely be making here is conveying my thoughts, maybe especially in a way you understand. So feel free to specifically say what mistake you see.
“I don’t want to claim that. But I AM claiming that if something is measurable then it is quantifiable and so it is physical.”
Well we seem to disagree with what objectivity means and whether mental states are objective or subjective and in what way. Hopefully what I wrote up there clears that up.
“Why would you even bother talking”
“(1) Definitions are subjective and can vary based on individual perspectives.”
I was talking about the word “complexity” and a technical definition. The fact that people agree the exact same questions are more complex than other ones shows that even subjective judgments have a great deal of consistency towards judging intelligence, and it lends credence to test results actually representing intelligence.
“(2) Communication serves purposes beyond conveying precise and fixed meanings.”
We have thousands of words that can be arranged in many more ways. We are not apes with ten different types of screams. I’m pretty there is some high degree of precision and fixed meaning intended with our use of words pretty often.
“(C) Thus, conversation remains valuable even with subjective definitions.”
It would not be valuable to know 10000 words if there weren’t at least 10000 objectively different things to mean by them. And regardless, when speaking of technical terms, we are usually referring to something with a specific physically or mathematically precise definition, which you would consider quantifiable.
Anyway, definitions are objective insofar as they refer to actual things that objectively exist. And an objective mathematical definition of complexity is what I was referring to anyway, and mathematics and logic are obviously objective, not to get sidetracked.
“It’s hilarious how Lurker can completely eviscerate RR’s dualistic arguments yet doesn’t even understand Hume’s Guillotine.”
Good things are what people want and make them feel pleasure. People may want contrasting things, but good things are what will satisfy all people to the greatest extent (for the longest period, and for a greatest possible reward in the future).
If for example, I want you to die and you want me to die, clearly a good thing would be for us to both have relatively better lives while neither one of us die. Or both to fix our flaws and not hate each other. Or if one of us is actually bad overall and doesn’t bother to get better, for that person to die. Or many other, more complicated directions.
If it makes you feel good, you ought to do it, because it makes you feel good. That’s the point of pleasure. That’s why that feeling exists. There is no other reason for it. It is the signal that you should do something. Avoiding pain is also a signal, but it is obviously in the opposite direction. It is good to avoid pain because pain feels bad.
Something feeling good does not mean it is good overall, but all else being equal, feeling good is what you ought to do, because feeling good feels good.
“Re: 2. Quantifibility does not apply to comparing types, such as the distinction between sound and color. But when you say the word “distinctions”, you are literally applying quantifiability to those things as a group. In other words, the letter A is not more than B, but the letters A and B are more letters than A or B. I know you can understand this if you think about it.”
I’m sure you know that “quantifiability” refers to assigning numerical values or measuring the exact amount of something. It’s not about ranking or comparing categories.
I also think you’re confusing “quantifiability” with “cardinality.” Your attempted counter doesn’t work.
Let me try to strengthen my previous argument.
(1) Distinctions exist.
(2) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily exist for all distinctions.
(3) The distinction between the mental and physical exist.
(4) The mental and the physical are not identical.
(5) If two entities are distinct and not identical, then they cannot be reducible to each other.
(6) Thus, the mental is irreducible to the physical. (inference, 4, 5)
(7) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily mean apply to the distinction between the mental and the physical. (inference, 2, 6)
(8) The lack of quantifiability further supports the irreducibility of the mental to the physical.
(9) The irreducibility of the mental to the physical implies the existence of distinct aspects of reality beyond purely physical phenomena (inference, 6)
(C) Thus, it is not necessarily true that if distinctions exist, then quantifiability exists.
““This is a valid argument, but without further explanation on what a “good test” is, it’s difficult to establish soundness. You need evidence.”
Well given my argument that the brain is an information processor and information is quantifiable, and the brain processes “pure information” in the form of symbols representing other information, it is apriori true that a good test would show intelligence differences.
And you generally see this in reality: no matter how preppable the test is, people with greater ability to reason in the moment will do better than those of lesser ability but with similar pre-existing knowledge levels, and this generally balances out among those with various levels of preparedness and various levels of general intelligence to show accurate relative intelligence levels.”
So what tests do you have any mind? Any test? Do you take to the idea that any test is an intelligence test?
“You said subjective feelings of complexity doesn’t show quantifiability of the mind. But when complexity is about how much information you are processing, it does. And given that quantifiability of information is possible, then it shows quantifiability of the information processor.”
(1) If complexity is about how much information you’re processing, then it shows quantifiability of the information processor.
(2) Subjective feelings of complexity do not show quantifiability of the mind.
(C) So complexity isn’t solely about how much information you’re processing.
“Again you are referring to irreducible things as if we quantifying those. I’m not quantifying a sound vs. a word. I’m stating that distinctions are information, reality is information. Information is quantifiable. Properties are quantifiable. Data is quantifiable. Is that hard to understand?”
You need an argument that the although there is a distinction between M and P, subjective and objective, that M and the subjective are measurable.
“Sure but you have to show how physical things and mental things are different in ways that make them immeasurable. So far all you’ve said is that different types of data/properties/whatever are not quantifiable against each other, but under more general type/property of “quantum of information”, they are. “Blue” and “A bat’s scream” contain at least two distinct bits of information.”
What unit of measurement do you have in mind?
“Yes it does. It shows that people can agree objectively about measurements or quantifications of things that are mental.”
No, it doesn’t. The RPG character progresses through different levels, attaining new skills, attributes and stats, and the number of the stat for example increases during a level up or when using a stat-up item. That’s not the same thing as claiming that a mental thing is measurable since there is a physical instantiation on the screen.
Re test bias, I’ve already shown that the bias was built in by Terman and you said that it’s not a “perfect” test. My claim is that culture-fair tests are impossible and Cole’s 2002 West African Binet argument shows this.
“I already said that both mental and physical things are conceptual. You could also say informational. The point being is they obviously have some commonality which is why we can talk about them in the same sentence or language, and use mental imagery to represent physical things.”
This isn’t an argument but I see what you’re getting at. It’s taken care of with these 2 arguments.
Anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial.
The mind cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties.
Therefore the mind is immaterial; materialism is false.
and
If physicalism is true then all facts can be stated using a physical vocabulary.
But facts about the mind cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary.
So physicalism is false.
Regarding your 7 premise argument, that is valid but here is a counter.
(1) Information encompasses quantitative and qualitative aspects.
(2) While quantitative aspects of information can be measured and quantified, qualitative aspects involve subjective experiences and interpretations that are challenging to quantify accurately.
(3) The mind processes not only quantifiable information, but also subjective experiences, emotions, and other non-quantifiable elements.
(4) So attempted to solely quantify the mind’s processing of information neglects the significant qualitative aspect of human cognition.
(5) Quantifying the mind’s processing of information fails to capture the full range of human cognition along with the diverse ways in which humans engage with and utilize information.
(6) Consequently, any attempt to measure the overall capacity of the mind through quantification alone would be an incomplete representation of human cognition.
(7) So the argument that the overall capacity of the mind is quantifiable based on the processing of information overlooks the qualitative aspects and complexities of human cognition.
Nevertheless, for your (3), not all processes that mind carries out can be categorized under your label of “information”, it ignores non-informational processes, subjective interpretation, embodied knowledge. Here’s the argument.
(1) Some processes in the mind involve subjective experiences, emotions, and qualitative aspects that are not categorized as “information.”
(2) The mind engages in various cognitive processed beyond the strict definition of “information”, such as creativity, intuition, and embodied knowledge.
(3) These non-informational processes play a significant role in human cognition and cannot be reduced solely to the category of “information.”
(4) If not all processes can be categorized as “information”, then premise (3), which claims that all information processed by the mind shares the category of “information”, is false.
(5) Thus, premise (3) which asserts that all information processed by the mind shares the category “information” is false.
“All subjective experiences objectively exist and are objective to that mind. That means they are objective to some sort of coherent framework, even if it is contradictory to another’s. Even if in my mind I’m holding the thought “2 = 3”, while it is not mathematically valid, it at least objectively means that I THINK or am pretending to think that those two numbers are equal. It also objectively validates a lot of implicit systems like the existence of numbers, equality, logic, etc. To think any thought literally requires that thought be logically compatible with thinking, and hence, intelligible to the thinker in some form. Even a thought that is simply a “feeling”, even a feeling that you don’t even understand, at least OBJECTIVELY exists as that feeling. Feelings are subjective, but the feeling itself is objective.”
The issue is, subjective experiences aren’t directly observable, accessible, or measurable by others (a 3rd person observor). You’d need to argue for something like mind brain identity.
“Right, and they also all fall under the umbrella of “states”, meaning they share at least that commonality. They are all quantifiable as states. There are many more similarities we can find between various mental and physical states and can quantify those as well.”
This is taken care of above.
“Capable of processing the same kind of information, but more of it is what is meant by “smarter”. Or simply even more types of information. But as long as the net value is greater, they are smarter.
I’m not sure what you are referring to as 3 and 4. I doubt there is something I’m missing that you could easily dismiss without explaining yourself (meaning it must be a very hard-to-catch mistake). The only mistake I’d likely be making here is conveying my thoughts, maybe especially in a way you understand. So feel free to specifically say what mistake you see.”
I take (3) in that argument to be:
“Therefore, while every thought is clearly different, as each one takes place at a different time at the very least, they are also all mental states and are also all informational in nature.”
And (4):
“Since human minds are all capable of processing pure information (language/symbolization), if one is capable of processing MORE of that information, it would be “smarter.””
It is true that mental states are different but that doesn’t mean that (4) follows, so that means that (C) doesn’t follow from the premises.
(1) Either reducible every mental state into it’s own separate category necessitates that they share at least one category, or it does not.
(2) If reducing mental states into separate categories necessitates that they share at least one category, then the argument is tautological and does not provide meaningful insight.
(3) If reducing mental states into separate categories does not necessitate that they share at least one category, then the argument’s premise about mental states sharing a category is unfounded.
(4) If every thought being different and taking place at different times necessitates that they are all mental states and informational in nature, then the argument relies on an unsubstantiated assumption.
(5) If human minds processing more information makes them “smarter” and reflects general intelligence, then the argument oversimplifies the concept of human cognition.
(6) So either the argument is tautological and lacks meaningful insight, or its premise about mental states sharing a category is unfounded, or it relies on an unsubstantiated assumption, or it oversimplifies the concept of human cognition.
And lastly, regarding your response to my last argument about “talking”:
Technical definitions of course strive for consistency, but that’s not the same as saying it’s an “objective definition.”
Of course the value of knowing 10000 words extends beyond different referents. And to your point about technical definitions, for example physics and chemistry share the term “resonance”, but of course they are talked about quite differently in the field.
Language is inherently subjective.
And then there is the fact that the explanatory gap argument I directly refutes the claim that the mental can be measured. There are dozens of a priori arguments out there that establish the claim that the mental isn’t measurable, through different disciplines. I’ve merely highlighted just a few of them.
(P1): There is an explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective conscious experiences.
(P2): Physical processes can be fully described in objective, third-person terms.
(P3): Subjective conscious experiences cannot be fully described in objective, third-person terms.
(C): Therefore, subjective conscious experiences are not identical to physical processes, so subjective conscious experiences aren’t measurable.
“I’m sure you know that “quantifiability” refers to assigning numerical values or measuring the exact amount of something. It’s not about ranking or comparing categories.
I also think you’re confusing “quantifiability” with “cardinality.” Your attempted counter doesn’t work.”
No, cardinality would be me assigning a number to each category. The fact that we are saying all information exists in the category of “information” means we can quantify all the information we are referring to. We can count it. If I refer to “color”, “sound”, and “shape”, I have named at least 3 categories, and I can count them and quantify them as more than than just two or one category.
“Let me try to strengthen my previous argument.
(1) Distinctions exist.
(2) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily exist for all distinctions.
(3) The distinction between the mental and physical exist.
(4) The mental and the physical are not identical.
(5) If two entities are distinct and not identical, then they cannot be reducible to each other.
(6) Thus, the mental is irreducible to the physical. (inference, 4, 5)
(7) Quantifiability doesn’t necessarily mean apply to the distinction between the mental and the physical. (inference, 2, 6)
(8) The lack of quantifiability further supports the irreducibility of the mental to the physical.
(9) The irreducibility of the mental to the physical implies the existence of distinct aspects of reality beyond purely physical phenomena (inference, 6)
(C) Thus, it is not necessarily true that if distinctions exist, then quantifiability exists.”
2. Quantifiability doesn’t exist between distinctions of different types, but it does exist under a meta-type.
3. I’m not sure what you think the distinction between the mental and physical is, but obviously you think it makes the mind immeasurable. Personally the only separation I see is that the mental world is not always the same “world” as the physical world (we can imagine things) but I do not view them as different substances, because they all ultimately fall into the metaphysical category of having spatial-temporal extension and specific properties. Therefore they are not distinct in any manner that would preclude the mental from being measurable. Our mental and physical worlds are both nested in the same kind of world that quantifies things by definition of having countable distinctions in the first place.
I agree with 4 and 5, but mental and physical do not need to be reducible to each other if they are reducible to something more fundamental which is measurable. 6 obviously doesn’t matter given what I’ve said.
7. Mental and physical are countably two categories if that’s what you mean. But they are both informational so quantifying is possible for both.
8. I already gave examples of being able to quantify mental things. I can quantify mental things all day. Maybe you think that thoughts are somehow a different category from the things we are thinking about, as if experience cannot be quantified or measured. But again, I’m not measuring whether “blue” is more than “the number 13”, I’m saying those things are countably two things.
9. What separates purely physical phenomena and mental phenomena in substantial terms? Nothing except one happens only in our minds.
“So what tests do you have any mind? Any test? Do you take to the idea that any test is an intelligence test?”
Well any test IS an intelligence test, but some tests might be so specific and culturally loaded that they require a sample size approaching infinity to give an accurate measure of intelligence.
But I don’t see what is wrong with most standard intelligence tests. Aside from the item types being prepable, the actual items themselves are good examples of abstract thinking, like raven’s matrices, number sequences, analogies, etc.
“You said subjective feelings of complexity doesn’t show quantifiability of the mind. But when complexity is about how much information you are processing, it does. And given that quantifiability of information is possible, then it shows quantifiability of the information processor.”
“(1) If complexity is about how much information you’re processing, then it shows quantifiability of the information processor.
(2) Subjective feelings of complexity do not show quantifiability of the mind.
(C) So complexity isn’t solely about how much information you’re processing.”
Subjective feelings of complexity that nearly perfectly correlate with some more objectively measurable quantity in that task, do not prove quantifiability of the mind, but obviously they point to it. Just like subjective feelings of heat or cold that most people agree on point to something actually being hot or cold.
“You need an argument that the although there is a distinction between M and P, subjective and objective, that M and the subjective are measurable.”
Obviously the argument comes from the fact that M is also informational in nature.
“What unit of measurement do you have in mind?”
I’ve given the unit of measurement many times: A quantum of information. Anything considered a distinct concept or idea.
“No, it doesn’t. The RPG character progresses through different levels, attaining new skills, attributes and stats, and the number of the stat for example increases during a level up or when using a stat-up item. That’s not the same thing as claiming that a mental thing is measurable since there is a physical instantiation on the screen.”
Do you understand the point that RPG characters’ stats are simply measured relative to each other, and given labels like “strength” and “agility”, but they do not actually have to be composed of a specific amount of atoms like physical measurements are? The same thing applies to mental phenomena. As long as the units attached to the stats are consistent with themselves, they are quantifiable and countable regardless of whether they are physically instantiated.
And where do you think the stats are before they appear on the screen? They are in the data of the computer, stored as bits of information, the same as the rest of the program/game. Where do the stats exist before that? In the person’s mind who made it up. See how all these things are connected?
Also, there is a mental instantiation of anything mental in the mind.
“Re test bias, I’ve already shown that the bias was built in by Terman and you said that it’s not a “perfect” test. My claim is that culture-fair tests are impossible and Cole’s 2002 West African Binet argument shows this.”
Well unfortunately, if culture-fair tests are not possible than culture-fair lives are not possible, and everyone should accept their fate because they cannot change reality.
“I already said that both mental and physical things are conceptual. You could also say informational. The point being is they obviously have some commonality which is why we can talk about them in the same sentence or language, and use mental imagery to represent physical things.”
“Anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial.
The mind cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties.
Therefore the mind is immaterial; materialism is false.
If physicalism is true then all facts can be stated using a physical vocabulary.
But facts about the mind cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary.
So physicalism is false.”
You do not understand the argument. Both mental and physical, material and immaterial, are informational. If they have any intelligiblity, meaning if they have any meaning at all, to anyone or anything, they exist in the form of information. They have properties. Properties are measurable because the word itself “properties” is referring to a plurality.
“Regarding your 7 premise argument, that is valid but here is a counter.”
(1) Information encompasses quantitative and qualitative aspects.
(2) While quantitative aspects of information can be measured and quantified, qualitative aspects involve subjective experiences and interpretations that are challenging to quantify accurately.
(3) The mind processes not only quantifiable information, but also subjective experiences, emotions, and other non-quantifiable elements.
(4) So attempted to solely quantify the mind’s processing of information neglects the significant qualitative aspect of human cognition.
(5) Quantifying the mind’s processing of information fails to capture the full range of human cognition along with the diverse ways in which humans engage with and utilize information.
(6) Consequently, any attempt to measure the overall capacity of the mind through quantification alone would be an incomplete representation of human cognition.
(7) So the argument that the overall capacity of the mind is quantifiable based on the processing of information overlooks the qualitative aspects and complexities of human cognition.”
2.I would agree that subjective experiences are difficult (but not impossible) to quantify, but we can at least agree that all experiences or interpretations are either singular, or made up of multiple components. Either way, when added to any other experience, you’ now have something that is countable.
If life were an endless stream of experience that had no separation, that would imply that no experience had separate recognizable elements from any other experience, which is obviously untrue, as sometimes we are happy or sad, and sometimes we are asleep or awake, or our looking at our hands, our food, or the computer, etc. which are all recognizably distinct experiences.
3.The problem is “subjectivity” doesn’t preclude something from being quantifiable. If it did, then it would mean the experience itself didn’t actually exist in any intelligible manner. Even if the feeling or experience is vague or hard to describe or recollect, as long as there was some distinct feeling that one could compare with other experiences and say it was different, we are looking at a distinct experience, and hence a countably different one.
4.Yes, it does ignore the quality of the experience, in the same way that measuring someone’s height ignores their weight, and measuring the square footage of a house ignores the height or condition of the house.
But we have no reason to assume that everyone has completely different experiences from everyone else, given that we live in the same universe, operate according to the same physical and mathematical laws, and communicate to each other. That’s the point of G.
Regardless, if one’s experience was so qualitatively different from anything we could quantify or compare, it would likely be useless for any real-world application and hence largely ignorable. But it STILL would not preclude that experience from being quantifiable as we can test even the ability to process abstractions.
5.Given that quantifiability of information processing is apriori true, and there is no reason to assume that some people don’t quantify more or less information than others, the test would show that quantitative difference without the need for delving into different qualities of experience.
6. Obviously IQ is an incomplete representation of human cognition. It is assumed that more IQ represents MORE cognition, or even more efficient cognition. It does represent the character of the cognition, just like measuring height does not represent the weight of the human.
7. No, because we are comparing more of the same thing, cognition. But yes, it is possible that someone stupider has a different thought than someone smarter. Probably, a dog is experiencing something much different from my life, but it’s pretty obvious that I’m far more intelligent. Or you could compare someone in a coma, or a baby, to an adult.
“Nevertheless, for your (3), not all processes that mind carries out can be categorized under your label of “information”, it ignores non-informational processes, subjective interpretation, embodied knowledge. Here’s the argument.”
Those all involve or consist of information processing
“(1) Some processes in the mind involve subjective experiences, emotions, and qualitative aspects that are not categorized as “information.”
(2) The mind engages in various cognitive processed beyond the strict definition of “information”, such as creativity, intuition, and embodied knowledge.
(3) These non-informational processes play a significant role in human cognition and cannot be reduced solely to the category of “information.”
(4) If not all processes can be categorized as “information”, then premise (3), which claims that all information processed by the mind shares the category of “information”, is false.
(5) Thus, premise (3) which asserts that all information processed by the mind shares the category “information” is false.”
1. This is not true, because information is literally just meaning. An experience is that which means the experience to the experiencer, and hence is a form of information. Subjective interpretation requires an objective existence of the intrepreter, and they are objectively intrepreting something which objectively has meaning to them within that intrepretative framework, and all of this is informational. “Embodied knowledge” is just part of the structure of the person and exists in an informational form. Information is just a property or set of properties with some form of existence that is intrepreted as meaning that property of set of properties by something else. Everything that exists is information to reality itself. It’s tautologically true.
2. No, although I see how you wouldn’t think creativity is measurable, but regardless it is informational and hence quantifiable. The generation of new things (information) would obviously not fit into our standard idea of “processing” as in solving existing problems using a previously defined algorithm, but it is still informational and there is still something “processing” (experiencing) the creation. Intuition just means knowing something without consciously having to think about it, which again is contrary to a standard idea of processing that computers do, but still involves processing information, even if the answer is given instantaneously. Embodied knowledge literally just means already knowing the answer for whatever reason, but obviously all of that is information processed just as intuition is.
3. No as explained in 1 and 2.
4. No ^
5. No ^
Obviously the generation of information itself is not something we understand about reality, which is basically where all your counter arguments come from. But the mind has to exist in some informational form already, given that it exists and has properties, and all of our experiences consist of information, so if your rebuttal consists of “where does information come from?”, it obviously does not undermine quantifiability, nor does it undermine complexity of individual thoughts. You are simply stating that people can come to conclusions instantaneously, or make new kinds of information up that might be solutions to existing problems, but we could still quantify how many conclusions a mind comes up with or new kinds of information it invents, which is obvious the use of discrete plural terms like “kinds” and “conclusions”.
“The issue is, subjective experiences aren’t directly observable, accessible, or measurable by others (a 3rd person observor). You’d need to argue for something like mind brain identity.”
Lack of direct observation does not at all undermine quantifiability, simply practical measurability.
“I take (3) in that argument to be:
“Therefore, while every thought is clearly different, as each one takes place at a different time at the very least, they are also all mental states and are also all informational in nature.”
And (4):
“Since human minds are all capable of processing pure information (language/symbolization), if one is capable of processing MORE of that information, it would be “smarter.””
“It is true that mental states are different but that doesn’t mean that (4) follows, so that means that (C) doesn’t follow from the premises.”
Basically, even if you declared all mental states separate, the fact that the mind processes language, which is pure information devoid of any specific meaning, means that you couldn’t declare that every mental state being separate was evidence that it wasn’t quantifiable information.
“(1) Either reducible every mental state into it’s own separate category necessitates that they share at least one category, or it does not.
(2) If reducing mental states into separate categories necessitates that they share at least one category, then the argument is tautological and does not provide meaningful insight.
(3) If reducing mental states into separate categories does not necessitate that they share at least one category, then the argument’s premise about mental states sharing a category is unfounded.
(4) If every thought being different and taking place at different times necessitates that they are all mental states and informational in nature, then the argument relies on an unsubstantiated assumption.
(5) If human minds processing more information makes them “smarter” and reflects general intelligence, then the argument oversimplifies the concept of human cognition.
(6) So either the argument is tautological and lacks meaningful insight, or its premise about mental states sharing a category is unfounded, or it relies on an unsubstantiated assumption, or it oversimplifies the concept of human cognition.”
2.It provides the insight that they are similar to some way. What way would that be? At least, they are all experiences and all informational. So there is a useful content revealed by stating that they all share the category “mental state”.
3. Obviously they do, which is why the word “mental state” exists and makes sense.
4.Well we can see now it was not unsubstantiated.
5.The argument oversimplifies human cognition because it is meant to quantify general intelligence, not describe every aspect of cognition.
6. Obviously mental states share a category (I don’t why you are bothering to argue with this), and there is no unsubstantiated assumption, and yes, quantifying cognition does not fully describe cognition, just like quantifying information does not describe the information itself.
“Technical definitions of course strive for consistency, but that’s not the same as saying it’s an “objective definition.””
Then again, there’s no point in discussing this at all. It’s a self-refuting (retarded) argument. If I can glean nothing objective about your argument, even within my own intrepretive framework (which objectively exists), using language to arrive at logical conclusions is pointless.
“Of course the value of knowing 10000 words extends beyond different referents. And to your point about technical definitions, for example physics and chemistry share the term “resonance”, but of course they are talked about quite differently in the field.”
Regardless, they have objective definitions for their field.
“Language is inherently subjective.”
Then all cognition is inherently subjective, because language is just appending symbols to our cognition, and we might as well not try to speak, because nothing leads anywhere and we have no reason to think anything we do will lead to anything else we might want or can even expect.
“And then there is the fact that the explanatory gap argument I directly refutes the claim that the mental can be measured. There are dozens of a priori arguments out there that establish the claim that the mental isn’t measurable, through different disciplines. I’ve merely highlighted just a few of them.”
Those arguments are all wrong.
And there are millions of people who believe in G and IQ.
“(P1): There is an explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective conscious experiences.
(P2): Physical processes can be fully described in objective, third-person terms.
(P3): Subjective conscious experiences cannot be fully described in objective, third-person terms.
(C): Therefore, subjective conscious experiences are not identical to physical processes, so subjective conscious experiences aren’t measurable.”
This only refutes mind being fully measurable in practical terms, orcomparison of unlike types, but does not refute quantifiability of mental processes (as it can’t).
Re: This article.
I showed how Rushton and Jensen were dishonest about interactionism and put it in their “culture-only” box in their false dichotomy between G and E, na and nu. I argued that my dualistic experiential constructivism refutes hereditarianism. This whole entire research program rests on the conceptual blunder of heritability, what it means, and if h2 estimates can tease out the relative contributions of G and E, na and nu. However, as developmental systems theorists have successfully shown, this quest is an untenable one. Heritability estimates say absolutely nothing about development.
The reason we can do what we do is because of the brain.
Drawing for example is an objective measure of the brain’s system of motor and visual spatial processing.
If we have two people and they practice the same time period we will be able to tell the resolution of details they can make.
Faces and figures and such can be objectively evaluated.
We could ask a person to copy a face and then compare it t people of similar age and practice.
Some people will learn to draw faster.
That means their brain is different. It coordinates differently.
All abilities are because the brains of individuals are different.
Intelligence does exist.
The ability of the brain to coordinate itself has a deviation from the mean of more or less control given a population sample.
>a certain type of thinking
The fucked up bastard thinks I am autistic for believing the brain is where intelligence exists. for believing genes play a role in phenotype.
and that means he thinks pp and lurker and name are too.
this is what the communists do.
they say you are mentally ill if you disagree with them.
??? I said what I said because I asked for genetic evidence for the multi-regional human origins hypothesis and then you barge in saying that genetic evidence wouldn’t mean anything to me due to my views on genes and development. You’re clearly not up-to-date on epigenetics and evolutionary development since you’re making such ignorant claims. Genes aren’t special developmental resources nor are they privileged in development. If you think you have an argument against that, then formulate it. (You won’t.)
My view is that development isn’t reducible to genes or any other developmental resources. That doesn’t entail ANYTHING about population genetics.
>Genes aren’t special developmental resources nor are they privileged in development.
They control the signaling process of the feedback loops producing a phenotype. Dogs and Cats have different phenotypes because of their genes. You do not understand how feedback work with the genes involved.
>My view
your certain way of thinking
>I asked for genetic evidence
no matter what arguments I gave you that differences exist and the role genes play in phenotype you always rationalize it away. I assume you would do the same to name. You always tell others they are wrong based on your faith, not anything to do with evidence logic reason or sound argument. again and again, you repeat like a robot “genes are not privileged”. that is your standard argument against anything anyone says.
Your faith (a certain kind of thinking) will always make the claim that others’ claims are false and your claims are true. thus you cannot be reasoned with. faith cannot be reasoned with.
I suggested to name not engage with you because you would preach at him like you do everyone else.
again look at what he is saying name look at what he believes and how he makes his “arguments”. This is not a person you want to engage with name.
fortunately name, he cannot control research in genetics and neuroscience. he is a lame duck. A social justice warrior.
“They control the signaling process of the feedback loops producing a phenotype. Dogs and Cats have different phenotypes because of their genes. You do not understand how feedback work with the genes involved.”
Genes don’t control anything. They are used by and for the physiological system to carry out different processes for development. Saying that organisms have different phenotypes “because of their genes” is a reductionist take, and it’s a false one.
“>I asked for genetic evidence
no matter what arguments I gave you that differences exist and the role genes play in phenotype you always rationalize it away.”
This is why I said what I said about your certain way of thinking (it was mostly a joke). I asked for genetic evidence for the multi-regional hypothesis, them you come in and talk about something completely unrelated.
RR: (it was mostly a joke)
Anime: No is was not,
That is why You’re still a dishonest Bastard.
your baby was not born a duck or cat or pig because of its mother’s and father’s human genes. If you say no you are a dishonest bastard and @name should not debate with you.
Yea, it was.
Babies aren’t born ducks or cats because of the history of their developmental system.
There’s really nothing to debate about the multi-regional human origins hypothesis.
>Babies aren’t born ducks or cats because of the history of their developmental system.
maybe you’re not the father of your child then.
if it has no human genes.
>There’s really nothing to debate
because your faith cannot be reasoned with
What evidence exists that the multi-regional human origins hypothesis is true, AK?
“this is what the communists do.
they say you are mentally ill if you disagree with them.”
^True.
The brain is where intelligence is.
Without genes, there is no phenotype.
Differences in genes and thus phenotype exist.
Genes control the phenotype more than the environment: my clone will not be a dog.
^Yeah exactly. Obviously the phenotype exists because of the interaction of the “whole developmental system” which includes feedback from the environment, but if the environment can be kept fairly consistent on its impact on development compared to the genes, then the genes would be “privileged”.
If we can show that environments differ, yet being born to the same mother and father predicts a huge amount about the developed adult, then obviously, whether it is the genes or epigenetics or even something else that causes them to be similar, there is something that is greatly determining their future state from birth, (and obviously before). That is what is meant from “inheritance”.
“no matter what arguments I gave you that differences exist and the role genes play in phenotype you always rationalize it away. I assume you would do the same to name. You always tell others they are wrong based on your faith, not anything to do with evidence logic reason or sound argument. ”
RR says that he considers all interactions in the environment as equally causal, yet for any explanation that offers predictability, such as natural selection, he will claim it is a “just-so story” and simply revert to randomness. Yet obviously, reality is far from completely random, nor is development. So there is something about the structure of the developing organism that makes it become a certain way in a predictable fashion.
“Genes control the phenotype more than the environment”
Source?
Anime: “Genes control the phenotype more than the environment”
>Source?
Your baby was a human, not a dog or cat or pig because of its human genes.
And
Your clone would be a human, not a dog or cat or pig.
Why make a claim if you can’t provide a reference?
>Why make a claim if you can’t provide a reference?
Your claim is that I need I reference.
I don’t because it’s the truth.
you need a source for that too?
You can’t provide a reference for the claim because none exists. The phenotype is due to an irreducible interaction between all developmental resources, your claim doesn’t refute DST arguments. Genes aren’t special developmental resources.
Pumpkin, I’m sure you could construct your own IQ test now. So, why don’t you do that and then find the correlation between that and bodyfat%? Hell, you could do a lot of experiments then. It’d be way cheaper. You could put to bed much of the debates in the HBD sphere. Maybe you could even expand on Lynn’s earlier work and make up for some of his shoddy stats. Get more accurate numbers.
Yes I have lots of plans
PP would know more about this, but I’m pretty sure Rushton tried doing this with his students. Apparently some of them complained that the questions were too invasive.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Joseph Sobran’s writing and public appearances are worth checking out. He’s one of the best opinion columnists I’ve ever encountered.
http://sobran.com/
https://www.c-span.org/person/?16022/JosephSobran
Peeps love, are you not talking to me?
Of course I’m talking to you
Salve Magister Cucurbita,
I thought that you may be amused to know that I have now been employed for three months as a clerk. If we assume that my I.Q. is ~130 and that Cooijmans is correct that Asperger’s is an effective 30 pt handicap (in the ‘real world’, that is), then I have precisely the job that I ‘should’ have. The work is tedious and uninteresting, but couldn’t be done by someone who is innumerate, illiterate, or unable to type proficiently – so, the bottom half of the ‘white’ population of the United States.
Each man rises or falls to his genetically determined level in due time. A moron will squander an inherited fortune, and a man of iron will and superior intellect will acquire it. Many noble lines were probably saved by the infidelity of noblewomen to their congenitally defective husbands.
Anyway, I’m currently testing ChatGPT’s linguistic capabilities. It doesn’t ‘understand’ formal grammar particularly well, and I suspect that this is because it doesn’t ‘grasp’ ontology. Programming ‘languages’ are – at most – pidgins.
Where did he say that Asperger is a 30-point handicap?
You probably suspect it’s a mistake from Neandercel already ! C. wouldn’t ever have written that because even if he is extremely weird, he is not incoherent.
He gave a graphic example of how bad Asperger is, that sticked into my mind, by saying it’s an equivalent of missing both legs and insisting not equivalent to missing one leg only (sic)
Neandercel may have been influenced, besides the famous alleged 30 IQ points understanding barrier, by another illustration of Asperger clumsiness that would come from having a spatial IQ 30 points below a verbal IQ (160/130).
So even if Asperger were linked to more intelligent persons on average (unlikely), if what decreased their spatial IQ also increased their verbal IQ, there is no IQ point lost (not gained) by definition in the process.
Also pragmatically, C. noticed that among his tests (very) high scorers, those with Asperger are lower on an average.
That observation of a negative correlation leads nowhere in terms of causality because you can’t know if Asperger helped them score higher, but lower than the natural ones, or downgraded their score to the bottom of this pile. If aspies are 0,5% of the population, he must have an over-representation of aspies. But the numbers are probably too small to know the cause of the neg correlation. And even more unlikely to be able to check any negative IQ effect of having an Asperger temperament.
Besides, there must be so many different things under this Asperger roof. He himself analyses it differently for women and men (women don’t have the lower spatial IQ).
” . . . that sticked into my mind”
I would advise you to master basic English grammar before you dare to question my understanding of anything. You write like a greasy Sicilian day laborer.
Anyway, you’re correct that Mr. Cowman never said any such thing. I conflated one of his articles with a reference thereto by Aeoli Pera.
“Neandercel may have been influenced, besides the famous alleged 30 IQ points understanding barrier, by another illustration of Asperger clumsiness that would come from having a spatial IQ 30 points below a verbal IQ (160/130).”
Why does this myth persist even when it’s shown it’s based on a misunderstanding? That Serbian maroon thought the same thing.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-myth-of-the-30-iq-point-communication-range
“Why does this myth persist even when it’s shown it’s based on a misunderstanding?”
It’s a heuristic that was mistaken for a law. I.Q.-ists understand their own construct so poorly that they fail to grasp that ‘differences’ cannot be defined on a merely ordinal scale.
If they weren’t so goddamned stupid, they wouldn’t be working in one of the soft sciences.
It’s at least an interval scale not an ordinal scale.
“It’s at least an interval scale not an ordinal scale.”
No one has ever demonstrated any such thing. It approximates an interval scale in the ‘normal’ range – nothing more.
The normal range is where 95% of the people are. Memory span for digits is an interval scale and number of digits repeated has a roughly linear relationship with Wechsler full-scale IQ. Even among the highly gifted, there’s a linear relationship between chronometrics (an absolute scale) and SAT scores.
The point is that reality has countable aspects for any property it exhibits, as each property is at least one of whatever it is. The mind is part of reality. Nothing more needs to be said.
Whether 10 IQ points between 100 and 110 vs. between 130 and 140 represent the exact same quantifiable difference because IQ is normalized, does not refute that mental processing involves countable entities and it is possible for one mind to process more of them than another mind.
At least let’s move on from that before talking about more nuanced problems.
“It’s at least an interval scale”
What? Temperature is on an interval scale. There is no fixed point of reference for IQ. Regarding temperature, there is a scale, a thermometric property of an object and fixed point of reference. It’s precisely this that doesn’t exist for IQ and (one of many reasons) why IQ isn’t a measure.
“does not refute that mental processing involves countable entities and it is possible for one mind to process more of them than another mind.”
What are these “countable entities”? Test questions? What do you know about how tests are constructed? Because the construction of the normal curve is important for IQ, and it’s exactly how and why the test is normed to a normal curve that spells trouble for it.
Jesus christ RR, did you not read the ten-page responses I wrote at all? The countable entities are whatever is considered distinct information, which obviously includes test questions, but also the concepts that make up those questions.
There is some guy named Goldstein who also agrees with me about this if that helps.
When it comes to information theory, measurement units are well-defined and have precise meaning. But the term “quantums of information” isn’t an established measurement unit. The term “quantum of information” derives from the metaphorical application of the term “quantum” in quantum mechanics and quantum information theory. However, metaphorical usage doesn’t necessarily align with the precise and well-defined meaning of measurement units in information theory. But the immeasurability argument suggests that the complexity, subjectivity and immateriality of psychological traits means they are inherently immeasurable. It also suggests that psychometrics doesn’t truly measure psychological constructs. So considering the immeasurability argument and the subjective nature of psychological phenomena, your (misappropriated) use of the concept of “quantums of information” as a measurement unit isn’t relevant or applicable to psychology and psychometrics. You’re attempting to co-opt a term but it leads to intelligibility because it’s most definitely not a unit of measurement.
Conceptual analysis shows that the mental is resistant to quantification. Psychologists and psychometricians like to talk about “hypothetical constructs” and “latent constructs”, but the issue is is that they are unobservable. If an attribute is measurable, then it is quantifiable. If it is quantifiable, then it is observable. However, due to the hypothetical and latent constructs that psychologists and psychometricians conceptualize and the “nature” of them, therefore, true “measurement” is elusive.
What do you take measurement to be? Would you say that Stevens’ definition is apt? “Measurement is the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rule.”
“The normal range is where 95% of the people are.”
Precisely. The scale is non-intervallic (or has never been proven to be intervallic) in precisely the range which is of interest to you and to most of your readers.
“Memory span for digits is an interval scale and number of digits repeated has a roughly linear relationship with Wechsler full-scale IQ.”
Correlations of absolute value <0.6 are virtually meaningless. Correlation is not mutual information.
"Even among the highly gifted, there’s a linear relationship between chronometrics (an absolute scale) and SAT scores."
There's a positive correlation between intraracial penis length and I.Q.. The correlation strength is somewhere in the neighborhood of ~0.1. You should use this datum for one of your psychometric estimates.
"What do you take measurement to be?"
"A measurement is an observation that quantitatively reduces uncertainty" I stole that. You'll have to discover the source for yourself, but you're a big boy, Race Antirealist.
RR, you write like someone trying to impress his freshman philosophy professor. Drop the pseudo-academic style and your readers will be more inclined to take you seriously.
“Memory span for digits is an interval scale and number of digits repeated has a roughly linear relationship with Wechsler full-scale IQ.”
Correlations of absolute value <0.6 are virtually meaningless. Correlation is not mutual information.
If doubling the gaps on scale X more or less predicts doubling on scale Y, and Y is an interval scale, then X is almost certainly also an interval scale regardless of whether the non-zero correlation is high, medium or low.
“There’s a positive correlation between intraracial penis length and I.Q.”
I should have written that there’s a positive correlation between penis length and I.Q. within a given race.
“When it comes to information theory, measurement units are well-defined and have precise meaning. But the term “quantums of information” isn’t an established measurement unit.”
So what? Is information discrete? Is it countable? Yes. It’s just a term. I could say bit of information but that implies YES/NO or 1/0.
“The term “quantum of information” derives from the metaphorical application of the term “quantum” in quantum mechanics and quantum information theory. However, metaphorical usage doesn’t necessarily align with the precise and well-defined meaning of measurement units in information theory.”
The point is they are countable units.
“But the immeasurability argument suggests that the complexity, subjectivity and immateriality of psychological traits means they are inherently immeasurable.”
Your immeasurability arguments are incorrect. Repeating yourself does not help when I clearly disagree and have mentioned why.
Information is measurable, and in fact, without information or properties, nothing could be measurable.
The only point I see you making is that I’m trying to use information itself as a unit, whereas in physical measurements, we are measuring specific types of information. But that doesn’t prevent information itself being measurable, because information is also a type of information. It is what is meant by something to something.
Anything that is created, or generated, and you view as “immeasurable” can be labeled and theoretically repeated. If it can’t even be labeled then it doesn’t exist in any meaningful form, which means it doesn’t exist at all to anyone or anything.
“It also suggests that psychometrics doesn’t truly measure psychological constructs. So considering the immeasurability argument and the subjective nature of psychological phenomena, your (misappropriated) use of the concept of “quantums of information” as a measurement unit isn’t relevant or applicable to psychology and psychometrics. You’re attempting to co-opt a term but it leads to intelligibility because it’s most definitely not a unit of measurement.”
There is nothing unintelligible about what I’m saying here. My use of “quantum” is to describe the smallest discrete unit of something, whatever that is, since it differs depending on the form of the information. You trying to reject my argument based on the wording just makes you look like you either don’t understand my argument or just want to make me look bad. I probably subconsciously chose “quantum” because if I just said smallest discrete unit of information you probably wouldn’t even bother since it doesn’t have fancy terminology, or just because it is easier to say and immediately conjures up an image of small amounts of information.
Yes, information is very relevant to psychology. Information is obviously relevant to everything, but quantifying information is clearly relevant to intelligence testing, because intelligence is information processing (the use of reason, dealing with new situations, etc. are all less technical definitions of logically processing information). Information processing and generation gets to the heart of what the mind is. Obviously, what you don’t understand is that “quantum of information” is a term I’m using to refute your apriori arguments against IQ, I’m not talking about the practical application of psychometrics, because obviously no one has the ability to perfectly measure such things, as it might be akin to perfectly describing the complexity of the universe.
“Conceptual analysis shows that the mental is resistant to quantification. Psychologists and psychometricians like to talk about “hypothetical constructs” and “latent constructs”, but the issue is is that they are unobservable. If an attribute is measurable, then it is quantifiable. If it is quantifiable, then it is observable. However, due to the hypothetical and latent constructs that psychologists and psychometricians conceptualize and the “nature” of them, therefore, true “measurement” is elusive.”
Well, if reality is made up of distinct properties, and those are all countable because they are distinct, then clearly the mind has some sort of quantifiable nature.
Information of the same type is countable.
Information of different types are countable as different types.
A mind capable of processing more of the same type or more different types is capable of processing countably more information.
The usefulness of information differs (whether is solves some problem or not).
“What do you take measurement to be? Would you say that Stevens’ definition is apt? “Measurement is the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rule.””
Sure, but rule would imply we are already talking about something of consistent units, so we are not really “assigning” numerals as much as recognizing their implicit existence. The point being that if you recognize that information can be discrete and be formed of consistent units, you would have no reason to believe the information processor was immeasurable.
Even if C. didn’t say that, you could reformulate it has having Asperger, in terms of professional success, is like having 30 IQ points less, because you would perform on average 1 sd below, if IQ and prof. success have a 50% correlation.
I still think it’s false.
A 135 IQ surgeon won’t be like a 105 IQ nurse (or Nurse/helper) because he has Asperger. It would be even more difficult to fit as an asp. nurse than as a surgeon.
Same for lawyer/clerk/secretary, engineer/technicien/factory worker etc . And it’s the case both for accessing to the job as for performing the job.
I believe it. Pill’s IQ is at least 125 yet has the lifetime income of a mental retardate
Most aspies can’t even get jobs Bruno. Believe it or not youre more of the higher functioning ones even though youre missing half your brain.
the executive summary of the following comment is that last night i dreamt i had a holmsian penis and beautiful women gathered around me to worship it…one said, “it’s so beautiful!”
rr, melo, and lurker need to be banned. they’re making this blog trashy. i mean…even trashier. they’re all aggressively low IQ…rr is an example of a type which is promoted in america…the person who tries way too hard!..rr’s professor: well he’s obviously retarded, but he tried so hard i feel guilty giving him an F.
rr [screaming]: but immeasurable, no unit of measurement, blar, blar, blar…
mugabe [calm voice]: so what?
rr [screaming]: because…uhhh…because anal philosophy!
mugabe: no one claims IQ tests measure anything in the sense you claim some claim they do. your version of psychometrics is a ridiculous strawman just like fodor’s idea of evolution. IQ test score is a behavior. there is no need even to believe anyone has a mind. IQ tests are like elo ratings. who’s a better chess player? well there’s a way to measure that which predicts results of chess matches. IQ tests are a ranking which is meant to identify ability independent of academic achievement…even though that’s probably impossible…the point being to identify smart people who aren’t identified by other means…it’s a noble goal. and the usefulness of the test has nothing to do with its usefulness for the individual…it’s a means of maximizing the performance of the group…by selecting for IQ. IQ tests have other purposes, but so far these are academic.
rr [screaming]: but…uhhh…anal…what about Analberg & Manginastein 2007?
mugabe: they’re assholes! they’re also morons. anal philosophy is trans-philosophy. it is by design autistic and moronic. that’s the way capital likes it.
rr [screaming]: but IQ tests need to be banned…we need to build a wall to stop the mexican cartels sending IQ tests across the border.
mugabe: why?
rr [screaming]: because…because…error! error! error!…because i have a low IQ.
mugabe: sad.
——————————-
mugabe: rr! comrade! could we speak in the arnhem land aboriginal language of Ndjébbana?
rr: what? i don’t speak that language.
mugabe: but i thought the mind was immeasurable?
rr: what do you mean?
mugabe: what do you mean what do i mean?
rr: racism! equity! hulk hogan! arnold!
mugabe: you need to be in kolyma.
what it’s all about:
it’s too much pain. i have to be super drunk just to deal with pipo like rr and his retinue.
petrosian was like the peak of human chess vs computers. that is, his style of play was the MOST anti-computer by accident…and he was NOT a great calculator…
he understood…
Mug of Pee told RR:
it’s TRUE to say that the increase in brain size over time among man’s relatives in the fossil record is a CAUSE of man’s uniqueness behaviorally. because SIZE of effect.
whether this holds among AMHs is NOT clear or even expected.
Why wouldn’t it be expected? It’s like saying giraffe neck length tripled over millions of years so they could reach high hanging food, but there’s no reason to expect modern giraffes with the longest necks to reach he most food
Jensen and Rushton: If you inject the semen of a bull into a human woman (like in Mugabe’s fantasies), the woman will not give birth to a human.
Steven Gay Gould and Jared (((I’m genetically predisposed to loving))) Diamond(((s))): Actually, you can see how Jensen, Rushton, and other IQists are racist against bulls because they don’t believe bull semen can impregnate a women, just because of “incompatible” genetics. They made up IQ tests in order to show how the achievement gap between cows and humans is simply “genetic” and not a result of systemic anti-bovine bias.
RR: See guys, according to Gould and Diamond, IQ is just made up by genetic determinists for cowist reasons. Be sure to check my blog next week for a 6000-word article about it.
Mugabe: *posts black pornstar penises while calling others trashy*
Question of the day: Why are the ‘high-I.Q.’ so anti-intellectual?
Anyone who has spent more than a few weeks in ‘high-I.Q.’ fora cannot have failed to notice that participants therein are generally uncultured, unsophisticated, ignorant of history, and monoglot. They would rather read Asimov or Heinlein than Nabokov or Céline. They have no receptivity to high culture, but are too effeminate for manual labor, too shy to approach women, and too risk-averse to experiment with drugs.
I mean to say that they are both vapid and lacking in virility.
Cooijmans is a rare exception to this rule of philistinism. He speaks multiple languages, is a capable composer and master guitarist, and writes with laser-guided precision. Nietzsche remarked that Napoleon was as inhuman as he was superhuman, and I would say the same of Cooijmans. He towers over the sea of pretenders, but he is no superman.
Langan is at least a MAN, but his entire written output consists of a lukewarm Spinozism presented through a veil of terms pinched from a college freshman Algebra textbook.
Rosner is utterly repulsive.
etc. etc.
I suspect that Nassim Taleb is correct that I.Q. tests select for compliance, ‘prudence’, and bureaucratic tendencies. Does anyone believe that Goethe or Caesar would have endured a matrix reasoning test? They were too busy writing, getting laid, and shaping entire languages and civilizations to bother with some dweeb’s rat maze.
tl;dr – You’re all a bunch of fanooks*
celine is the intentional/self-aware opposite of high culture mein herr.
“he had good hair, a good penis, and a good income…all any woman could want.” — celine
but on the rest you’re right anf it would behoove peepee to promote this personality above the rr type personalities.
“celine is the intentional/self-aware opposite of high culture mein herr.”
Ernst Jünger swore that Céline asked him why the Germans (then occupying Paris) didn’t simply shoot the members of the International Financial Clique in the street. He thugmaxxed before thugmaxxing was a ‘thing’.
so yao ming has a bigger brain than shaq and jockic.
BUT…
shaq and jokic have bigger brains than 90+% of chinese. or that’s my guess.
and there seems to bu a yuge geographic variation within chinastan. the n chinese vs the s chinese, the maratime chinese vs the continental chinese.
i mean i’ve seen a lot of chinese whose heads are smaller than any wypipo’s.
Well
Shaq has such a large brain, and yet he still had to be taught by a Jewish man not to spend money so frivolously.
Although Shaq did grow up poor, so he has a little bit of an excuse.
Blacks have relatively poorly developed parietal and temporal lobs compared to other races. That is why they excel in studies less than others with the same brain size. My theory.