Commenter RR cited a paper by Richardson and Norgate (2015) arguing that IQ is not as predictive of job performance as once thought. In table 1 (see below) they summarize the research, showing newer studies find much lower predictive coefficients than older studies. They list both the corrected and uncorrected correlations between IQ (or some close proxy there of) and job performance. These correlations have to be corrected for range restriction because jobs sort people so efficiently by IQ that within a given job, IQ differences are too small to predict much. In addition, measures of job performance can be unreliable because one year you can make $1000 in commission and the next year you make $10,000 in commission, so correcting for good and bad luck can make the correlation more meaningful.
Now looking at the five older meta-analyses, the mean corrected correlation is about 0.5. The mean correlation correlation of the five newer meta-analyses is 0.2. No idea why there’s such a huge discrepancy between the old and new studies. Perhaps it could be that in an era of wokeness and snowflake culture, job performance is more about participation than about actually doing a good job, thus lowering its correlation with IQ. Or perhaps researchers have become more aware of the file drawer effect, and journals are demanding studies be pre-registered to avoid selective publication of only high correlations. Or maybe wokeness has caused a bias in favor of publishing low correlations.
I decided to look at studies that approached the question from a different angle. Instead of just calculating the corrected correlation between IQ and job performance among regular employees, one study asked what happens when a bunch of brilliant people are hired to do a job normally performed by average people.
Smart cops
From the book A Question of Intelligence by Daniel Seligman (a great read for anyone new to the IQ debate):
We begin with a cautionary tale from the files of New York City’s police department. The time is April 1939. The long depression is still very much in place, and good jobs are hard to get. Any jobs are hard to get. So there is a huge turnout when the department announces civil service exams that will result in the hiring of several hundred policemen. More than 29,000 men take the written exam, which is essentially just an intelligence test.
By normal police standards, a sizable number of the testees are absurdly “overqualified.” In the circumstances, the NYPD set its standards high. It announced that the physical exam for cops would be administered only to the top 3,700 scorers on the written test. After the physical tests, there was more winnowing: It resulted in a new list of the top 1,400 prospects (whose rankings reflected a 70 percent weighting for written scores and 30 percent for physical scores). Going down this list, the department next offered patrolmen’s jobs to 350 or so of the top candidates. In the end, 300 of them—roughly 1 per¬ cent of those who had been competing for the jobs—ended up in the class of 1940.
The 300 were plainly smart cops. If you assume that the initial 29,000 test takers were roughly representative of the country’s overall IQ distribution, then you could estimate that the average IQ of the 300 was something like 130.
Fifty years later, a group of Harvard psychologists— Prof. Richard J. Herrnstein and two graduate students, Terry Belke and James Taylor—went back to the NYPD records to see what had become of the brainy class of 1940. Questionnaires were sent to the 192 men then still alive, and more than three-quarters of them responded. Analysis of the survey data demonstrate yet again that high-IQ people do well in the world. The group had on average stayed with the police department for 24.7 years and rose high in the ranks: 43 percent reached the rank of lieutenant or captain, and 18 percent became inspectors of one kind or another. The class of 1940 also produced one police commissioner, four police chiefs, four deputy commissioners, one chief inspector, two chiefs of personnel, one director of the city’s Waterfront Commission, one chief assistant district attorney, one director of the New York State Identification and Intelligence System, and one director of the New York Regional Office of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
At first I was really excited about this study but then I remembered that the NYPD is a huge testocracy, so of course people who did well on written tests got promoted, since you have to take another one every time you apply for promotion(at least below the captain level). Did Hernstein not know this, or was he hoping we wouldn’t know or was it less of a testocracy in the 1940s? I doubt it since that was the peak testing era.
Now it’s very likely these smart cops still would have done well even if tests were not used to promote them since life itself is an IQ test, but I’m pretty sure they were so this promotion rates are uninformative. It would be like hiring 300 black cops and then claiming many got promoted because melanin enhances productivity, without telling your readers there was an affirmative action policy to promote black cops. That study would never have past muster with Hernstein or Seligman so they should have applied their same skepticism here, though in fairness, I can’t find Hernstein’s original paper so maybe he had a rebuttal or maybe the study included other less circular data .
Project 100,000
Perhaps the single biggest experiment ever done on IQ and job performance was Project 100,000. Normally the U.S. military avoids recruiting anyone with AFQT score below the 30th percentile (IQ 92; U.S. norms) and is prohibited from recruiting anyone below the 10th percentile (IQ 81; U.S. norms) however the need for more men during the Vietnam war combined with President Johnson’s desire to lift the poor into the middle class resulted in over 300,000 New Standard Men (IQ 82 to 92) being recruited from October 1966 to December 1971.
Sadly, the New Standard Men (NSM) died in war at three times the rate of the regular recruits. Of the NSM entering basic training, 41.6% remained after 23 months vs 68.8% of regular recruits (see figure below from Gottfredson, 2005). By subtracting these numbers from 100%, we see that just keeping your job put you at only the 31.2 percentile for normal recruits, but it put you at the 58.4 percentile for NSM.
On the bell curve, the difference between these two percentiles is 0.66 standard deviations, suggesting that the job performance curve of the NSM was 0.66 SD to the left of regular recruits. Now assuming the regular recruits average IQ 108 (the approximate average IQ of Americans above IQ 92) and the NSM average IQ 88 (the approximate average IQ of Americans ranging from IQ 81 to 92), the IQ gap between them is 1.33 SD (20 IQ points).
This suggests that if all American young men had been recruited by the army, the line of best fit on a scatter plot predicting normalized productivity from normalized AFQT scores would have a slope of 0.66/1.33 = 0.50. Assuming a bivariate normal distribution, the slope of the standardized regression line equals the correlation.
And note 0.5 might even be an underestimate because the denominator is likely too high and the numerator is likely too low. The true IQ gap is slightly less than 20 points because (1) some NSM likely faked their low scores to try to evade military service making the true average IQ of NSM likely higher than 88, and (2) the true IQ of the regular recruits was likely lower than 108 because it did not include the disproportionately high IQ men who got academic deferments or had powerful parents pulling strings. There also would have been considerable pressure on the military to make the NSM succeed, thus deflating the numerator.
But taking the numbers at face value, and assuming the military is representative of U.S. jobs, at least as recently as the 1960s, the correlation between IQ and job performance was 0.5, consistent with the older studies in table 1. The fact that my novel and indirect calculations confirm the traditional calculations bodes well. When wildly different approaches using massive datasets converge on the same result, you know you’re on the right path.
Pumpkin Person 
PP, sorry man. None of this—at all—refutes the best evidence we have on this matter, as of this year (2023). Richardson and Norgate’s argument has been confirmed.
“First, in the domain of cognitive ability, Griebe et al. (Reference Griebie, Bazian, Demeke, Priest, Sackett and Kuncel2022) noted that the data used as the basis for the Schmidt and Hunter (Reference Schmidt and Hunter1998) estimate of validity for general cognitive ability was based exclusively on studies at least 50 years old. They conducted a meta-analysis of 113 validity studies of the general cognitive ability – overall job performance relationship conducted in the 21st century, and find lower mean validity than the .31 estimate reported by Sackett et al. (Reference Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens2022), namely a mean observed validity of .16, and a mean corrected for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction of .23. Using this value drops cognitive ability’s rank among the set of predictors examined from 5th to 12th. Griebe et al. hypothesize that the lower validity reflects the reduced role of manufacturing jobs (which dominated the Schmidt and Hunter data) in the 21st century economy and the growing role of team structures in work. These changes result in a broader conceptualization of job performance than the quantity and quality of task performance measures used in the past for manufacturing jobs, incorporating less cognitively loaded interpersonal aspects of work, such as citizenship and teamwork, thus resulting in cognitive ability accounting for a smaller portion of this broader performance space.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology/article/revisiting-the-design-of-selection-systems-in-light-of-new-findings-regarding-the-validity-of-widely-used-predictors/A20984B138319E3D432E643978BF026D
Griebe et al. hypothesize that the lower validity reflects the reduced role of manufacturing jobs (which dominated the Schmidt and Hunter data) in the 21st century economy and the growing role of team structures in work.
Translation: People are working in teams so you can no longer tell who is doing a good job, thus spuriously lowering the correlation between IQ and job performance in modern studies, relative to the more accurate older studies.
Nice cope PP! So do you accept the best available evidence we have on this issue or will you continue to grandstand? The S and H data are obviously wrong and Sackett et al and Richardson and Norgate quite convincingly argued that the correlation was way inflated—something you haven’t given an argument against trying to argue that they were wrong.
Nice cope PP! So do you accept the best available evidence
The best available study is Project 100,000. By the far biggest, most rigorous and most expensive IQ and job performance study ever done. And it confirms the 0.5 correlation.
The S and H data are obviously wrong and Sackett et al and Richardson and Norgate quite convincingly argued that the correlation was way inflated—something you haven’t given an argument against trying to argue that they were wrong.
They argued that there were flaws in the studies but these flaws likely underestimate not overestimate the predictive validity of IQ. This is because flaws in the data (poor IQ tests, poor performance measures etc) create noise in the data that hides the signal.
Haha what? The best available evidence is Sackett et al and Richardson and Norgate. You’re just choosing the 50 year old evidence since it fits with your conclusion.
What are you smoking? Both of those studies argued that the correlations were seriously inflated and way overestimated. Look PP, you can irrationally accept 50 year old data for your already-held conclusion, or you can accept the newer evidence which shows a way lower correlation and update your belief system to this century and this decade. The choice is yours. It’s irrational to not accept the newest most comprehensive data we have on an issue.
It’s irrational to reject the largest and most comprehensive study ever done just because it’s 50 years old. Data doesn’t have an expiry date.
We have data from this century, this decade, and this year showing that it’s nowhere near what IO psychologists argue. Why can’t you just admit that the correlation is inflated and that the IO psychologists were wrong? This isn’t the hill for you to die in PP—accept the conclusion from Sackett et al and Richardson and Norgate, it’s not the end of the world (it may be the end of your worldview, though). And Richardson and Norgate showed .28 correlation in “high complexity” jobs, which was substantially lower than H and S.
Face the facts— R and N and S et al were right while H and E were wrong. Hopefully people who read these conversations will be convinced by the best current available evidence.
So whatever the newest study says must be true? Your own source admitted that the correlation fell because the new studies focused on team work which is obviously less correlated with IQ than individual work where you have to pull your own weight.
Look—it’s been shown exhaustively that the correlation is inflated. It’s not only that the H and S data had a certain type of job thsg dominated the data—it’s the EMPIRICAL FACT that the correlations were inflated. The table from Richardson and Norgate is valid, and shows conclusively that it’s not as high as you think it is.
LOL! The empirical fact is that the new correlations are lower than the older ones. The question is why? Your own source said it was because new jobs are all about team work not individual merit. If there’s another explanation explaining the discrepancy then provide it, but merely calling the old data inflated is just an accusation not an argument.
“In the late 1970s, however, there were two massive errors in the calibration of the ASVAB. Due to these inadvertent miscalibrations, more than 200,000 recruits with aptitude scores that ordinarily would have rendered them ineligible for military service were admitted. This occurred without their supervisor’s knowledge that they actually had very low aptitude scores. Stitch (1991) reported that these individuals performed slightly worse than higher aptitude recruits on paper-and-pencil tests of job knowledge but that they performed comparably to their peers when supervisor ratings, rates of reenlistment, attrition, and job complexity were used as dependent measures, prompting the Defense Department’s Director of Accession to conclude:
Upon looking at their performance, we learned that a surprisingly large number of them became successful members of the military. If the enlistment standards were working properly, those young people should have been marginal performers at best. As it turned out, not only did they not have marginal performance, many of them performed considerably above that level. … So, the question was not that training grades were somehow flawed, but that a quarter of a million people who did not meet the enlistment standards and should not have been able to do the job did in fact do it pretty well. (Sellman, 1987, p. 420, cited in Stitch, 1991)”
And fhe ASVAB shows… The cultural knowledge one was exposed to. Think about the implications of that fact for the outcomes for the data in TBC.
I’m not arguing the correlation is perfect; only that it’s around 0.5 like the old studies said. 0.5 is only a medium correlation so we should expect to see some low IQ people do well at their job and some high IQ people do poorly, but in most cases high IQ people will do better than low IQ people.
All IQ tests measure exposure to cultural knowledge to some degree, but far more important is you brain’s ability to absorb and apply that knowledge.
The empirical fact is that the older studies are inflated, as R and N argued. That the new correlations are lower then the old correlations is the same as saying that the old ones were inflated. So the 0.5 correlation is due to corrections that weren’t justified.
What do you mean “to some degree”? You mean “to all degrees”, because that’s merely what an “IQ” test is—a cultural knowledge test. And since the ASVAB is merely a test of cultural knowledge, and TBC used it AFQT) along with of course the military, then what’s the implication?
So the 0.5 correlation is due to corrections that weren’t justified.
Name one correction that wasn’t justified and explain, in your own words, without quoting N and R, why it’s not justified.
What do you mean “to some degree”? You mean “to all degrees”, because that’s merely what an “IQ” test is—a cultural knowledge test.
That’s just your opinion RR. Others would argue that the knowledge sampled by culture reduced IQ tests is so universal, especially within America, that your ability to apply the knowledge is far more important. Indeed one psychologist went so far as to define intelligence as what you use when you don’t know what to do.
And since the ASVAB is merely a test of cultural knowledge,
Even if that’s true, why do some people have more cultural knowledge than others?
“Name one correction”
If the results were collated from as many studies as were available and the variance due to sampling error in the reported correlations was estimated, then the mean of the observed correlations should have been computed and corrected for measurement unreliability in the criterion (i.e., job performance) and for restriction of range in predictor and criterion measures. The mean of the observed correlations was not computed and corrected for measurement unreliability in the criterion and for restriction of range in predictor and criterion measures. Therefore, the results were not collated from as many studies as were available, and the variance due to sampling error in the reported correlations was not estimated.
“That’s just your opinion”
Not really. “Culture fair/free tests” are an impossibility—since all tests are culturally-bound.
“why do some people have more cultural knowledge than others”?
Because they’re exposed to more knowledge and their experiences with said knowledge. As I argued here.
If the results were collated from as many studies as were available and the variance due to sampling error in the reported correlations was estimated, then the mean of the observed correlations should have been computed and corrected for measurement unreliability in the criterion (i.e., job performance) and for restriction of range in predictor and criterion measures. The mean of the observed correlations was not computed and corrected for measurement unreliability in the criterion and for restriction of range in predictor and criterion measures. Therefore, the results were not collated from as many studies as were available, and the variance due to sampling error in the reported correlations was not estimated.
You’re not being clear, RR.Are you saying they should not correct for range restriction and unreliability?
What’s not clear about my clearly valid argument? If the goal of the research is to assess the real-world application of predictor variables without accounting for measurement unreliability and restriction of range, then correcting for these factors may distort the practical relevance of the findings. If the research aims to understand the impact of measurement unreliability and range restriction on real-world scenarios, then correcting for these factors might obscure their effects. So, in cases where the goal is to directly assess real-world applicability or understand the effects of unreliability and range restriction, not correcting for these factors may be a valid approach.
And in any case, of course, the table from Richardson and Norgate is valid and shows… The exact opposite of what you assume.
If the goal of the research is to assess the real-world application of predictor variables without accounting for measurement unreliability and restriction of range, then correcting for these factors may distort the practical relevance of the findings.
This is not entirely wrong. If you want to know whether to use IQ tests to select workers, then you want to know the correlation among your actual job applicants, not the full range of the population. However if you want to know in theory how important IQ is to that job, then it’s useful to estimate what the correlation would have been had the applicants not been pre-selected or self-selected for IQ. It’s only the latter figure that I claim is around 0.5. Perhaps a bit less if you don’t correct for reliability, but you should correct for reliability because there’s practical relevance in knowing what the correlation would be if you used more reliable measures of IQ and job performance.
Yea this assumes that IQ is a cause and not an outcome and I don’t see how it could be a cause. It’s clearly an outcome of experience.
Because they’re exposed to more knowledge and their experiences with said knowledge.
This theory was debunked by the Milwaukee project. They exposed at risk babies to the most culturally rich environments imaginable, and while their IQ scores did go up, the gains were hollow with respect to g, so the kids flunked in school just as much as the control group
g isn’t a thing, as I’ve shown you (Spearman’s g was falsified), so what you said is nonsense. What do you know about Vygotsky’s theory? If you know about it, can you explain it’s relevance to this discussion?
g isn’t a thing
Then why is it the most heritable component of IQ scores?
Kan et al showed the more heritable the subtest, the most culturally loaded it is. Why can’t you respond to the fact that Spearman’s g is falsified, making it not a thing?
Kan et al showed the more heritable the subtest, the most culturally loaded it is.
This is known as the heritability paradox and is explained by the fact that cultural loaded items sample more cognitive processes than culture reduced ones because cultural knowledge is acquired over a lifetime while on-the-spot problem solving takes place in a few observable minutes.
Why can’t you respond to the fact that Spearman’s g is falsified, making it not a thing?
Because it’s just an assertion. You haven’t explicitly explained what was debunked about it. People have been falsely claiming to debunk g since the concept was discovered 120-years-ago.
The fact is, the cultural loading clearly matters – and I claim that all subtests are culturally loaded due to the nature of how tests are constructed.
Spearman’s g is false since he predicted that the tetrad differences would be 0 and it was found that they weren’t; he posited g as a mental energy, which is nonsense; and he believed that human psychology is quantitative, assuming that since you can assign numerals and (related to the previous point) he was guilty of the psychometrician’s fallacy. You can just rest the cited paper, it should take no less than 7 minutes since it’s only 8 pages long.
What does any of this have to do with the key fact that all cognitive abilities are positively correlated? You can’t deny it and your objections are vacuous.
It’s an empirical fact and it’s due to test construction. The explanation I gave isn’t vacuous at all—it’s an alternative explanation that doesn’t rely on the reified hypothetical latent construct g.
And Spearman saw what he wanted to see in the data he collated and he—like Jensen—commiyted reification. You asked me to explain how Spearman’s g is falsified and then you jump to a completely unrelated thing? Makes sense.
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA98315576&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00332933&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=nysl_oweb&isGeoAuthType=true&aty=geo
And by the way, Spearman’s 2-factor theory was falsified a few years after he posited it and Jensen’s is unfalsifiable and tautological. So what does “g theory” have left? Nothing at all.
And by the way, Spearman’s 2-factor theory was falsified a few years after he posited it
Which is why it was abandoned 100 years ago. Where you been RR?
and Jensen’s is unfalsifiable and tautological.
Kind of like your claim that all IQ tests only measure cultural knowledge. How do we falsify that exactly?
“Which is why it was abandoned 100 years ago.”
And Jensen revived it, and he failed and spectacularly so. If you know it was abandoned, why didn’t you say anything at all all day throughout our discussion each time I claimed it was falsified?
Falsification is irrelevant to the argument because it’s a priori.
If IQ tests assess a person’s capacity to apply knowledge effectively, and if knowledge is culture-specific, then any test assessing an individual’s capacity to apply knowledge effectively will incorporate a cultural component. IQ tests assess an individual’s capacity to apply knowledge effectively. So IQ tests incorporate a cultural component—because all IQ tests are culture-bound.
So Spearman’s g is false and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology. Glad we could clear that up today.
And Jensen revived it, and he failed and spectacularly so.
Jensen revived some of Spearman’s theory but not the 2 factor model which claims that all tests consist of just g and test specificity. There are intermediate factors like verbal, spatial, memory that are not as specific as test specificity but not as general as g. Jensen has written extensively about these.
Falsification is irrelevant to the argument because it’s a priori.
Except it’s not.
If IQ tests assess a person’s capacity to apply knowledge effectively, and if knowledge is culture-specific, then any test assessing an individual’s capacity to apply knowledge effectively will incorporate a cultural component.
But how big is that cultural component? You assume it’s 100% when on many tests is close to 0%. And not all knowledge is culture specific. In all cultures the sun rises in the East, a dog has four legs, 1 + 1 = 2, the moon comes out at night, and two triangles make a square.
So Spearman’s g is false and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology.
There’s nothing tautological about Jensen’s view of g. It’s a fact that all mental abilities are positvely correlated with PC1 and the more a test loads on PC1, the more it positively correlates with brain size, heritability and race and the more it negatively correlates with inbreeding depression. Of course correlations don’t prove causation but they are suggestive.
When I said “Jensen revived it”, I meant he revived g in the psychological literature, even though it was falsified like 10 years after Spearman proposed it.
“Except it’s not.”
Yes it is. Empirical evidence is irrelevant to conceptual, a priori arguments.
“how big is the cultural component?”
The type of knowledge on IQ tests are, and IQ tests being tests of cultural, class-specific knowledge shows I’m right. That there is no such thing as a “culture-free” test shows I’m right. Look into Cole’s West African Binet argument.
“There’s nothing tautological about Jensen’s g”
I walked you through the steps. Further, any set correlated tests will have a factor that explains a large amount of the variance, even in the presence of an absence of a unique underlying strong factor, as Schonemann showed. Fact is, factor indeterminacy was never solved which is why PC1 was renamed. Schonemann took care of Jensen’s reified, unfalsifiable tautology. (Remember my comment to the other guy yesterday about Jensen’s contradiction in his 1969 paper?)
Click to access 83.pdf
Reference is Ceci (1994), “Education, Achievement, and General Intelligence: What Ever Happened to the “Psycho” in “Psychometrics?”
So while it’s not really about “McNamara’s morons”, the whole story is of course not as simple regarding the AFQT/ASVAB. That, then, calls into question your conclusion.
People change the criteria for job performance all the time so of course the new metastudies will be inaccurate because the “measurements” will not look at performance in the same way across studies.
That does not mean people can perform all jobs requiring intelligence with the same levels of performance. Forest Gump will never be a neurosurgeon.
^^^ More IQ-ist cope. Can’t just accept the data, they have to twist themselves into pretzels while doing the most complex mental gymnastics I’ve ever seen in order to deny the true relationship between IQ and job performance.
Do job performance studies take into account Simpson’s Paradox or whatever?
Like if a lower IQ guy does become a neurosurgeon he’s probably fanatically hard working, and vice versa with a high IQ guy doing dead end jobs.
^^^ More low verbal intelligence by RR
If IQ is not actual intelligence,
Then what is the effect of actual intelligence on job performance?
@Some
Homer’s IQ is actually 160 but he has a crayon in his brain that makes him 55.
I think it is funny that his potential exactly matches his job status. So it could be his social judgment was not affected by what happened to him, his personality characteristics remained intact.
I think that by where the crayon was placed he lost impulse control and has ADD. His intelligence was compensated for in the back of his brain.
Logan Paul Brain scan.
“low verbal intelligence” yet I’m the only one here who can string together valid arguments. OK man, sure. Your question is a mere nonsense one. You don’t need to talk about “actual intelligence” to talk about job performance. It’s clear to me that you’ve never really worked together with people in your life if you’re talking about things like this.
AK can’t just say “I accept the best available evidence from Sackett et al and Richardson and Norgate”, because his whole worldview will collapse. Sad.
>his whole worldview will collapse.
what is intelligence rr, simple question.
>It’s clear to me that you’ve never really worked together with people in your life if you’re talking about things like this.
normal people understand intelligence.
you never worked with normal people.
Pathological level of dellusion.
From what you’re said, I can tell you’ve never worked with people at all.
Santo you can’t even formulate a valid argument.
in my shithole of a city over here in North Texas (theres only one major one but a lot of suburbs here) you can barely find any work in the white collar sector without A LOT Of experience.
only jobs available are sales and thats what im going 2 do 4 awhile until i can finish an MBA or go somewhere else like returning back 2 the NE where jobs in finance are abundant.
Pill had it easy because finance is more serious of a profession in Europe and Europe actually serves as a meritocratic system in certain sectors despite what they say…..here in America finance jobs are all about favoritism etc.
its sad because they really could use a fresh graduate with a grasp of the newer skills like myself but these demented old Boomer fucks keep clogging up the job market!
and not only that but their diversity hires fucking suck 2.
sad 😦
Life is not a TEST.
Ok. But what was the QUALITY of this “brainy cops group”??
Even thought i dont deny IQ and job performance is positively correlated. I just dont believe is just IQ.
IQ as a single factor only for IQ tests.
IQ as a single factor only for IQ tests.
No IQ measures g, the factor common to ALL mental abilities, not just those on an IQ test.
ALL????
“IQ MEASURES G”
IQ found G, doesnt “measure” statistical concordance as “heritability” does.
g is defined as the factor common to ALL mental abilities. No one has been able to invent a test of mental ability that doesn’t positively correlate with g.
”ALL mental abilities”
Very vague. A priori, the G factor is just a statistical concordance found among tests in the majority of population who has been analyzed.
If the g factor is a statistical concordance found mainly in IQ tests then it is impossible for it to correlate with all human mental abilities.
I’ve already commented on this before.
Any construction: social, organic, etc., has a G factor.
I do not disagree that there is this tendency towards this concordance, especially because we are evolutionarily more inclined towards symmetry. But the way many of you interpret this level of symmetry seems hyperbolic, as if most people have extremely similar levels in all their abilities.
Reality shows us that this is not exactly the case.
The positive manifold is built into the test by keeping subtests that correlate and throwing out subtests that don’t. This is also how the bell curve is created. This is how the “greater male variance” is observed. This is how blacks score lower than whites on the SAT.
g is nothing but a mere statistical abstraction that’s been refuted (Spearman’s) and shown to be tautologous (Jensen’s). PP—nor AK—has no response to these facts. I have receipts, too, if they want them.
whats wrong with people like RR is that they think getting the last word is the correct way 2 actually achieve truth. its not.
they also think might is right where if you can speak more etc. you get the win.
this is also a faulty way coming 2 a conclusion of the truth.
a lot of these people are deluded.
RaceRealist’s ego is so big he thinks AK has read every blog post RR has ever made.
RaceRealist says IQ is a statistical abstraction yet he will never define what actual intelligence actually is.
I only expect you to read what I link to you. That’s it
You see, loaded, the fact of the matter is, PP hasn’t even responded to the FACT that Spearman’s g has been falsified.
g is just the positive intercorrelation of cognitive subtests. If you want to debunk it create a valid cognitive test with no g loading. Can’t be done
You don’t need to do that to debunk it. You’re just grandstanding since you clearly have no response to the research I cited showing that Spearman’s g has been falsified. Sad.
By definition, you do need to do that to debunk it. The intercorrelation between literally every test that requires brains suggests that there’s a higher order factor involved, which is dubbed g. It may or may not be fully innate and biological, and you can argue its applicability to real-world “intelligent” behavior, but in order to undermine what it claims to be (a construct representing cognitive tests’ intercorrelation), you need to produce a legitimate cognitive test negatively correlated with other cognitive tests.
“Innate” traits are experience-dependent. Jensen reified g, and in his (in)famous 1969 paper he says on p 9 that ““We should not reify g as an entity, of course, since it is only a hypothetical construct intended to explain covariation am ong tests. It is a hypothetical source of variance (individual differences) in test scores.” But then 10 pages later on pages 19-20 he completely contradicts himself, writing that g is “a biological reality and not just a figment of social conventions.”” Seems like logic wasn’t his strong point.
The fact that the positive manifold is built into the test by keeping subtests that correlate and removing those that don’t shows that it’s built into the test. Thus, one merely needs another explanation to explain the intercorrelations, which I did here.
The two of you are clowns. RR because he is stupid and low IQ. Puppy because he wasted his time reading all these papers when common sense tells you that intelligence effects work productivity in almost any profession.
The fact that people even bother to study this stupid ‘question’ blows my mind. What a waste of money.
What a clown. You’re the low IQ one because you make claims you can’t back and you’re a stupid racist.
SO REVEALING!!!!1
Philosopher is right here… this is mostly a waste of time unless you really like reading papers or are heavily invested in IQ studies, which PP and RR are.
You don’t need empirical studies to show that IQ is correlated with job performance. Just like you don’t need a study to show that 99.9% of four-year olds can’t bench press as much weight as an average adult.
“You’re the low IQ one because you make claims you can’t back and you’re a stupid racist.”
As opposed to smart racists like the Japanese?
“You don’t need empirical studies to show that IQ is correlated with job performance”
See, there’s a difference between anecdote and what one BELIEVES to be true and what the actual data shows.
Actual data shows that Africa is a shithole though, and that they have only made it as far as they even have thanks largely to first world aid and technology and being employed in cobalt mines by their kind slave drivers.
The actual data shows that there is a very very weak relationship between IQ and job performance, so your belief that “you don’t need empirical studies to show that IQ is correlated with job performance” is clear false.
RR does not understand what the WAIS 4 is.
3 of 4 of the indexes cannot be just knowledge tests.
RR thinks the whole thing is a knowledge test and that is stupid on his part.
Cats Summary:
Processing speed: scan and match symbols
Working memory: hold a number of items in the mind in a short time period.
Verbal: know the meaning of words and sentences, and use them in social settings to get an effect.
Spatial: place 2D and 3D objects so as to get the desired result, and recognize what shapes go together.
What? You think that just because a subtest isn’t a direct test of knowledge means that it isn’t a knowledge test? The Raven must not be a knowledge test either, it’s just shapes right?
ravens is not the only subtest rr
you never even mention the others.
Before I answer, do you think just because a test doesn’t have language on it that it’s not class-biased?
why would class bias affect processing speed and working memory?
I scored 75 on PS and 75 on WM. how would “bias” make that happen? In my case class bias should make those numbers 125 not 75 because I went to good schools.
“Why would class bias affect processing speed and working memory?”
Stress, anxiety, education, nutrition, health and other variables. Social classes are effectively different cultures in America.
processing speed is the least correlated with social class then. people with high processing speed are reflex based because they are action orientated and spend little time in reflexive thought. they play fast videogames that require no contemplative problem solving. simple input output System 1 thinking
If access to quality education and resources positively impacts processing speed and if individuals from higher social classes generally have greater access to quality education and resources then if individuals from higher social classes generally have greater access to quality education and resources, then they are more likely to exhibit better processing speed. Things like HTA (high test anxiety) are paramount here, since those from lower classes are more likely to experience test anxiety. This also shows the necessariness and sufficientness for the relevant psychological and cultural tools which are imperative for scoring highly on these tests, which is why Vygotsky’s theory is valid in these discussions.
where does knowledge even come from RR?
is that how you define actual intelligence?
are you saying that memorization is what intelligence actually is?
if so knowledge new knowledge could never exist because intelligence is about generating new things but to do so you would need more than memorization, you would need to mentally combine things and some people have more capacity to mentally combine than others which you deny is possible.
“Where does knowledge come from”
It comes from culture and experience. Are you familiar with Vygotsky’s socio-historical theory of learning and development?
And that’s an invalid argument.
I do not understand.
are you saying that learning potential = memorization ability = intelligence
what is intelligence rr?
why are some people more or less intelligent than others?
Are you saying that IQ tests are tests of learning potential? I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about my comment. Do you understand Vygotsky’s theory and how it’s relevant here?
If you are saying rr that learning potential is memorization and that memorization is intelligence then i would have to disagree.
intelligence is the ability to understand and do new things recursively abstractly spatially and cognitive empathic verbally. nothing new can come from just “learning/memorization” thus it cannot be “intelligence”.
for new things to arise you need to mentally combine what exists in the world and in your head. and you need to do so in such a way as to understand what those new things can do. People have to some extent more bandwidth in what they can combine than others. They have bigger ideas recursively abstractly spatially and cognitive empathic verbally.
Ravens is a language acquisition test like ive written on your blog RR.
“Where does knowledge come from”
“It comes from culture and experience. Are you familiar with Vygotsky’s socio-historical theory of learning and development?”
You need a medium (an information processor with the same structure as the information being relayed) before the information can be processed. You need a knower before you get knowledge, or at least simultaneously, and that knower must be capable of knowing knowledge of that type (which includes quality and quantity).
Yea the “knower” is the immaterial self, “I.” Are you saying brains or kinda are computational devices or something to that effect?
Let’s not forget that this was empirically shown by Fagan and Holland:
Click to access fagan-holland-2007.pdf
for once i agree with Lurker!
“Yea the “knower” is the immaterial self, “I.” Are you saying brains or kinda are computational devices or something to that effect?”
I’m saying that the knower shapes the knowledge as much as the knowledge shapes the knower. It is a two-way street (structure of mind, and that which the mind places inside it).
So it is as correct to state that experience comes from knowledge… as knowledge comes from experience. People experience things differently because of different pre-existing structures.
Obviously we know this to be the case with tests themselves, as people who have the knowledge required for the test experience the questions differently than those without it.
It’s a simple question—are you saying that IQ tests are tests of learning potential? OR are they tests of what one HAS learned?
“intelligence is the ability to understand and do new things recursively abstractly spatially and cognitive empathic verbally. nothing new can come from just “learning/memorization” thus it cannot be “intelligence”.”
“for new things to arise you need to mentally combine what exists in the world and in your head. and you need to do so in such a way as to understand what those new things can do. People have to some extent more bandwidth in what they can combine than others. They have bigger ideas recursively abstractly spatially and cognitive empathic verbally.”
These are invalid too. Why is it so hard for people to provide valid arguments for their beliefs and assertions?
And this isn’t even touching on the fact that education is causally efficacious for IQ… Hmm wonder why that is?
“So it is as correct to state that experience comes from knowledge… as knowledge comes from experience. People experience things differently because of different pre-existing structures.
Obviously we know this to be the case with tests themselves, as people who have the knowledge required for the test experience the questions differently”
What “pre-existing structures” may these be? Like being around MKOs (more knowledgeable others), differential access to psychological and cultural tools which then explains differences in test performance, and one’s zone of proximal development? And yea of course, to answer a question correctly one has to have… Experience with the structure and logic of the question. They’re ALL culture-bound, and this means that they’re class-specific.
>are you saying that IQ tests are tests of learning potential?
I do not care RaceRealist if it is or is not. memorization i.e. learning potential is not actual intelligence as far as I know.
>These are invalid too. Why is it so hard for people to provide valid arguments for their beliefs and assertions?
you only think it is invalid because of your low verbal ability. What I said can be perfectly understood by regular people. people in general who can hold bigger more complex ideas have more intelligence.
Why is it so hard to answer questions and form valid arguments? I know it’s invalid because I’m well-versed in logic, something you’re clearly not versed in.
What do you know about psychological and cultural tools and the relevance to this discussion?
logic is what computers do RR and computers are not intelligent. they do not understand just like you.
Humans can formally think, which is what logic is. Computers can’t.
>What do you know about psychological and cultural tools and the relevance to this discussion?
some people have higher capacity to use mental tools than others. that means inside a person’s head they can do more than others with the tools they have.
And what explains that ability is… Exposure to the relevant psychological and cultural tools, which is a product of experience.
what “experience” did i have rr that made me stupid. what “experience” made you smarter?
I don’t know anything about your life. I’m just a voracious reader.
“They’re ALL culture-bound, and this means that they’re class-specific.”
If no knowledge is context-free, then that means knowledge that “knowledge is not context-free” is context-based, meaning that it is not absolutely true, which defeats its own premise. So we can safely say some knowledge is context-free.
Regardless you are just ignoring the main problem with your idea that “all knowledge is cultural or environmental” position again, which is that just because experiences differ does not mean quantities of experiences cannot also differ. Whatever you want to name (knowledge, experience, information) we can quantify it. In fact, by naming it and distinguishing a quality you are separating it from everything else and hence making it a countable quantity.
“If no knowledge is context-free, then that means knowledge that “knowledge is not context-free” is context-based, meaning that it is not absolutely true, which defeats its own premise. So we can safely say some knowledge is context-free.”
What a surprise. An invalid argument.
If your argument is valid, then your conclusion (“we can safely say some knowledge is context-free”) is true. We know that “some knowledge is context-free” is not true because knowledge depends on context for interpretation and application. So your argument isn’t valid because your conclusion isn’t true. With a fallacy of composition thrown in your argument.
“What a surprise. An invalid argument.
If your argument is valid, then your conclusion (“we can safely say some knowledge is context-free”) is true. We know that “some knowledge is context-free” is not true because knowledge depends on context for interpretation and application. So your argument isn’t valid because your conclusion isn’t true. With a fallacy of composition thrown in your argument.”
You are stupid.
If all knowledge depends on context for interpretation and application, we can never know absolutely whether all knowledge depends on context for interpretation and application. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Again this goes back to you being a post-modernist when it suits you and a apriori logical absolute truthist when it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t expect a male with a manbun to understand that though.
What inference rule are you applying?
The inference rule that states that if you make a analytical statement that knowledge is context-dependent, and that analytical statements are themselves knowledge, that you can never actually support your own statement of knowledge analytically because you can never know whether what you are saying is actually true outside of your own context?
I think the issue here, Lurker, is that RR doesn’t actually care about this debate.
He could’ve just addressed your argument like a normal person instead of asking you for an inference rule (it’s modus ponens, by the way.)
Also, didn’t Swank show, a long time ago, that social class and IQ have a spurious correlation?
Lurker,
OK so (1) define “analytical statement” as a statement that can be evaluated for truth or falsehood based on the meanings of its terms and logical reasoning. (2) Define “knowledge” as the assertion that the interpretation and application of knowledge often rely on the context in which it is acquired or used. (3) Define “analytical statements are themselves knowledge” as the statement that analytical statements are a subset of knowledge. (4) Analytical statements can be evaluated based on their meanings and logical reasoning. (5) If “analytical statements are themselves knowledge” is true, then we can evaluate the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” analytically. (6) So the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” can be evaluated analytically by examining the definitions and logical implications. (7) So it is possible to support the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” analytically. (8) Thus, contrary to your assertion, the conclusion is that I can support the statement “knowledge is context-dependent “analytically, as demonstrated by the previous premise (7).
(1)-(3) are the definitions of the key terms provided. (4) and (5) establish the possibility of evaluating analytical statements and that analytical statements are a subset of knowledge. (6) establishes how the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” can be evaluated analytically. And then the analytic conclusion (8) refutes the assertion that I cannot support the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” analytically.
RR, all I’m saying is that if you say knowledge is context-dependent you can’t know that that very statement is true within all contexts, which either shows that you can’t prove your statement that knowledge is context-dependent (in every context, which is what the blanket phrase “knowledge is context-dependent” implies) or that some knowledge isn’t context-dependent.
You cannot prove that knowledge is context-dependent through experience (a posteriori) because that would require induction about all knowledge because it is an absolute claim about all knowledge, and you can’t evaluate all knowledge to make such a claim.
So the statement is actually an absolute claim about knowledge, which means it must be analytic and deductive rather than inductive. Yet that requires you to *know* something absolutely, which applies among *all contexts*, thereby directly contradicting the statement.
“(5) If “analytical statements are themselves knowledge” is true, then we can evaluate the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” analytically. ”
Yes, I guess we can, and it is clearly false because it contradicts its own definition.
It’s implying absolute knowledge (context-independence) about the lack of absoluteness (context-dependence) of all knowledge.
“I think the issue here, Lurker, is that RR doesn’t actually care about this debate.”
Yeah I kind of understand that because he just glosses over arguments unless they are in a “study” that agrees with his ideas.
Regardless, the point is to show that any argumentation he makes implies belief in the words he’s saying and their absoluteness so as to convince others, which betrays the fact that we might share aspects of our mental states… and (gasp!) that might mean not every thought is some ineffable thing that exists completely in its own context and some aspects of the mind might actually be repeatable and… measurable.
Sad.
Steps 5, 6, and 7 in my argument refute that.
What context can I know that what you’re saying is true for all contexts though? Why would I believe you?
What context can I know that what you’re saying is true for all contexts though? Why would I believe you?
Where’s the error in my reasoning?
g: the ability to assign, remember, and manipulate values. What can distinguish IQ-smart people from effectively smart people is on what such a faculty is deployed.
A network’s dynamics and its corresponding understand and effect on reality.
Vigotsky profound bullshit, lord……..
The most g loaded test is linguistic IQ//vocabulary because language is the most important aspect of human intelligence and also because verbal IQ is not just vocab but math (language) too.
One of the very first thing a human toddler starts to learn is to speak and this capacity or potential is INNATE, it’s hardwired. It doesnt mean he learn without other people interacting with him. Innateness is not always instinctive.
Without any previous perceived capacity, none is capable to learn any given knowledge.
I can’t learn any advanced mathematical knowledge basically because my brain developed in uneleven way, way more on some specific abilities generally related with verbal linguistic intelligence and probably more on (rational) reasoning and divergent thinking than on mathematics and visuo spatial intelligence.
Non instinctive knowledge doesnt come from nowhere but fundamentally by (evolving) human intelligence learning from PERCEPTION and experience, and culture has been the most important way to pass it intergenerationally. So called common sense.
IQ doesnt reflects only a specific culture learning, particularly “western” one, but a more essential aspects of human culture (verbal and numerical languages, spatial abilities..) found in almost human cultures in more or less developed form. If IQ is only reflective of White Western Middle Class values, Chinese, Japanese and others East Asians never would score higher than westerners. Also, Australian Aboriginals and Inuits never would score higher than White Europeans in some visuo spatial intelligence tests. And Monkeys would never score higher than Humans on this memory test, Monkey ladder.
The only thing I don’t like about this text is its overgeneralization.
“It has been suggested that the reason Black people have a tendency to indolence is that they evolved in conditions where little effort was needed to survive.”
What is this bullshit? Yea it’s so easy to survive in Africa. Go try it and see if you return to say how “little effort was needed to survive.” #justsostories
“What is this bullshit? Yea it’s so easy to survive in Africa. Go try it and see if you return to say how “little effort was needed to survive.””
You’ve never heard of South Africa, or colonialism in Africa in general, about how a bunch white people went there and easily created more real wealth than had been there since humanity started, while also being able to kill any African that stood in their way?
But I do agree that it’s easier to survive in Europe or Asia with a majority population of Europeans and Asians than in Africa with a population of Africans.
“The differences in cellphone use are insane once you notice them. Whenever I hire a nonwhite locksmith, IKEA assemblyman, Uber driver, etc. 30-40% of the time they’ll spend the entire assignment on phone calls with their friends and extended family. I sometimes even see this with cashiers.
Not that this really matters, but it’s remarkable how foreign this kind of behavior is to whites. I’m mortified whenever my boss catches me using my phone to look something up, let alone calling someone.”
Great point, I feel the same. There are a million of these little differences that you can see if you actually pay attention, like general manners and levels of loudness or caring for details, but woke tards seem to block them all out (or forgive them because of muh generational instutitional historical systemic systems).
Naive liberals would be surprised at how different our thought processes are. When you see ten different people following a rule, some will not follow it when others are not looking, and their reasons for following it will differ (avoidance of punishment, understanding the point of the rule in a mechanical way, following because of obedience to hierarchy, following out of compassion, or simple self-indignant narcissism).
yes black people are REALLY dumb but whites are actually irrational. they are self consumed narcissists 2!
whites always defend themselves from criticism that is actually true like who does this…..only a retard would think whites are faultless and unfortunately thats ninety percent of white people!
The differences in cellphone use are insane once you notice them. Whenever I hire a nonwhite locksmith, IKEA assemblyman, Uber driver, etc. 30-40% of the time they’ll spend the entire assignment on phone calls with their friends and extended family. I sometimes even see this with cashiers.
Not that this really matters, but it’s remarkable how foreign this kind of behavior is to whites. I’m mortified whenever my boss catches me using my phone to look something up, let alone calling someone.
white women do this whats your point like RR would say.
I highly recommend the 2018 sci-fi movie “Upgrade”. It flew under the radar but is worth watching.
A positive manifold simply means the item has less randomness.
If those items were contained in the test this would make the noise greater and the correlations less predictive.
In statistics, you need to sample many many things to reduce noise. Adding uncorrelated items would be like adding coinflips to a person’s score corrupting the accuracy.
This is also why the adoption studies make no sense. The effect size was too low to understand what happens when one group is adopted and the other group is not adopted.
Black adopted < 21
Black non adopted < ?
White adopted < 16
White non adopted < 101
and even if the sample was huge the confounding variables need to account for class adoption / non-adoption.
given this adoption study was done in the 70s when IQ tests sucked really really bad it cannot be used as an example of the heritability of intelligence.
Adoption studies make no sense for a whole host of of logical and empirical reasons. Nevermind the fact that Drew Thomas showed that black, white and Asian adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, and that this suggests that there is a minimal (I claim there CAN’T BE) role for genes in the role for this difference. (Also see Richardson and Norgate 2006 and Moore, 2006 re adoption.) The whole hereditarian/”HBD” ideology is built on the flimsiest house of cards I’ve ever seen.
what is intelligence rr?
It’s up to the IQ-ist to posit a definition and theory of “intelligence” and then liken it to IQ tests since that’s the ultimate claim here. And they then need to posit a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for IQ (so-called g, the reified construct).
Adoption studies make no sense for a whole host of of logical and empirical reasons.
They make a lot of sense, anti-HBDers like you just have to twist themselves into pretzels to deny them with desperate rationalizations.
Nevermind the fact that Drew Thomas showed that black, white and Asian adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs,
He showed nothing of the sort. He eliminated the black-white gap by arguing that the gap would have been smaller if the dumbest white kids had not left the study. No that’s not how statistical sampling works. You analyze the sample you have, not the one you wish you had. Any sample can be changed if you allow for counterfactuals.
1) Assignment is nonrandom. 2) They look for adoptive homes that reflect the social class of the biological mother. 3) This range restriction reduces the correlation estimates between adopted children and adopted parents. 4) Adoptive mothers come from a narrow social class. 5) Their average age at testing will be closet to their biological parents than adopted parents. 6) They experience the womb of their mothers. 7) Stress in the womb can alter gene expression. 8) Adoptive parents are given information about the birth family which may bias their treatment. 9) Biological mothers and adopted children show reduced self-esteem and are more vulnerable to changing environments which means they basically share environment. 10) Conscious or unconscious aspects of family treatment may make adopted children different from other adopted family members. 11) Adopted children also look more like their biological parents than their adoptive parents which means they’ll be treated accordingly.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28578422_A_Critical_Analysis_of_IQ_Studies_of_Adopted_Children
The fact of the matter is, there are numerous non-biological reasons why adoptive children will resemble their biological parents. This is of course, not even talking about the fact that the additivity assumption of h2 is false since it’s GxE all the way down.
Click to access 26_2006_moore_a-very-little.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7527377_The_equal_environment_assumption_of_classical_twin_studies_may_not_hold
“He showed nothing of the sort”
He definitely did. It’s not only the fact of attrition of the low IQ whites, but also that when corrected for Flynn effect, that the difference all but.m vanishes. Face the facts—the black-white IQ gap is explained by environment.
don’t be stupid rr, I am asking how you conceptualize intelligence, not IQ.
Nah, you don’t have to be silly. It’s not up to me to do the leg work for hereditarians. Hereditarians make specific claims that they NEVER back and just assume them as axioms, when they need to provide clear and conceptual definitions for what they are “studying.”
I remember hearing that many of McNamara’s Morons were sent to the front lines which might actually be why they had a higher casualty rate. Also, those high iq cops had statistically better outcomes than normal cops and you didn’t go over those percentages. Obviously, higher iq (more neurons, more gray matter, more stuff inside your head) will give you advantages throughout life. The only way I could see someone disagreeing is if they were observing an intellectual 20 y/o slacking off and coasting by while a dimmer peer worked harder and got ahead. Besides the early years, iq clearly puts the wind at your back in the race of life.
Puppy chose the exact wrong study to prove the point about intelligence and job performance. Being a police officer in a government bureacracy in a union job is the least likely scenario where someone smart would move up quickly. This study is basically trash because they promoted everyone based on IQ test scores in this particular case too.
But IQ is just 1 factor in job performance and frankly in many cases not the most important one. But I agree that it is a factor. There are some jobs where it is basically the major factor for success e.g. particle physicist at CERN, Max Planck scientist etc.
The entire comment section plus the blog post itself has become a flame war against RRs ideological extremism. RR says that human beings are exactly the same and only the environment changes them because the danes told him so and also because he wants to believe blacks are just as normal as whites for his baby’s sake.
Once you posit this falsehood, you have to stack a million lies on top of it to keep it ‘baked’. So we get this stupidity with job performance not being related to intelligence. The mind not existing, not being different by gender, IQ not existing, intelligence being a social construct, evolution not existing….I mean the lies get so massive, so outrageous its a wonder RR doesn’t just burst out laughing at it.
You are right pill. Science and ideology don’t mix. rr thinks just because I use regular words I can’t work with people. He is the stupid one because his big words do not have anything to do with what intelligence is. He thinks that word games can disprove what is commonly known. That more intelligent people can do more mentally in perception and working memory. Everyone I know understands this, it is his ideology of narrow semantic terminologies that makes him think everyone must agree with him or they are stupid and can’t work with people.
People cannot work with rr because he shuts them down in everything they say, he is a robot.
“Science and ideology don’t mix.”
Tell that to the hereditarians.
“He thinks that word games can disprove what is commonly known”
Funny, since the only response to the “word games” is Brand et al, and they failed in refuting the Berka-Nash measurement objection.
“can’t work with people.”
I said this for a specific reason.
your reason was because you think I am stupid when you are the one who can’t work with regular people saying regular things.
Actually, Science is an ideology. Nothing wrong with that, just “seek for objective truth” is also ideological, an ideal, a specific idea.
The true ideological neutrality doesnt exist for us, human beings. It’s our fundamental trap or abstract dimension.
Science, philosophy and religion are all ideologies.
Unlike our resident non-shower taker, I’ve never been fired and work with people regularly.
“RR says that human beings are exactly the same”
Quote me.
“only the environment changes them”
Genes are passive causes and biological relativity relativity is true so genes aren’t special, privileged causes—they’re mere passive causes—slaves, followers—to the physiological system.
“because he wants to believe blacks are just as normal as whites for his baby’s sake.”
You’re such an idiot because I had my views before I had a baby.
“So we get this stupidity with job performance not being related to intelligence.”
It’s what the best-available data we have shows. You have no response to it because you’re ignorant.
“The mind not existing”
Quote me saying this.
“not being different by gender”
Can you repeat my specific claim back to me, better yet, can you quote me?
“IQ not existing”
IQ is g to hereditarians and g doesn’t exist (Spearman’s is falsified and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology), so what’s the implication?
“evolution not existing”
Quote me saying this.
I know you won’t do any of these things, it’s just hilarious to watch you continously repeat this and then not back any of it up when I ask you to. Because you’re a clown.
Sometimes you need common sense more than empirical ‘evidence’. If a study says something obviously false or stupid it means the study is done wrong, not statistically significant or is plain jewish i.e. rigged.
You look at the pew surveys saying people support open borders and then look at Donald Trump polling at least 50% of the US population. The jewish lies are just so ridiculous. The polls are rigged.
In academia, quite frankly, I think the jews are even more blatant and just rig everything or only print things that support the blank slate. This is why RR has hundreds of garbage ‘studies’ to print which are basically just propaganda.
Yes, exactly. If 195 out of the top 200 “leading,” credentialed voices are all working feverishly on one side of an issue, and the 5 on the other side are scared to even raise their objections publicly, there is going to be more “support” for the politically correct side.
Certain things will be improperly overemphasized, other things will be improperly ignored, and valid objections will be dishonestly “answered” by the majority—and the consequent illusion of overwhelming objective proof is generally enough to garner public support.
You don’t even need anywhere near 195/200. If even 50 out of the 200 have a strong bias in the same direction, and the remaining 150 are neutral, then the biased people will dominate the agenda because there’s no one to counter them.
Broke: conservatives hate academia
Woke: academia hates conservatives
if Trump gets reelected welcome 2 our society collapsing in less than halfway during his presidency.
he is a total incompetent. he is also 2 old like Biden and is a complete idiot when it comes 2 making good decisions.
i plead with the general public not 2 elect an idiot like him again because we will see disastrous outcomes for the world!
the clown DeSantis will be debating the great Gavin Newsom of California at the end of November….it will be terrific 2 see the outcome since i think Newsom should be the Democratic candidate in the 2024 election if this is not just a foreboding of 2028!
think ahead folks!
(((Lev))) Vygotsky “theory” is basically blank slatism… he said nothing new (human children learn from their environment) and nothing great. His “theory” just forgot biology, not different to gender “theory” (faillry).
Of course, humans learn from their cultural environments but human cultures share lots of universal or basic aspects, one more than others, like the concepts of time, numeracy and written language.
But humans couldnt learn their cultural “heritage” if they dont have coevolved, particularly their brains, relatively big, significantly expensive, dense and or complex.
Biological DETERMINISM wins again…
That’s why parrots can’t learn or acquire human cultural “knowledge’ just by being exposured to it. Not because they dont have a supposedly abstract property like “mind” but because their brains are differently constituted than of bizarrely abnormal and unique human ones.
And this capacity to acquire human knowledge varies individually and collectively based on culturally co-evolutionary history of a given human population. That’s why some populations on avg can learn faster than others. Some human populations never invented a written language while other were or have been capable to produce advanced knowledge, i mean, specifically some of their more brilliant inhabitants.
Vygotsky recognized that infants age basics cognitive functions like attention and memory. His ZPD represents the gap between what a learner can do independently and what they can achieve with the guidance of a more knowledgeable other. The concept acknowledges that different people have different starting points, but humans are born into linguistic and cultural environments. But he – rightly – believed that humans learns and develop through socio-cultural interactions cultural tools and the language they’re exposed to. And the concept of scaffolding – which Vygotsky didn’t formulate but is based off of his writings and theory – proposed and recognizes that individuals build off their existing knowledge and skills. So it’s not blank slatist. Nice strawman and no understanding of the theory.
You know that writing was only independently invented in five places right? So what’s you’re point? You don’t have one.
So in age of empires 3 theres a strategy where you can ‘revolt’ and get access to a new set of units and cards and the base nations usually revolt to countries that actually revolted against them in real life. The french can even revolt twice into the Napoleonic revolution.
But sadly, the game designers won’t let the USA be allowed revolt into the confederate states of america even though that is a historically true revolt and would be fucking hilarious and cool. The reason they won’t put it in is ‘moral’ reasons and as a result this whole game about the colonial era does not mention slavery or even acknowledge its existence.
It would be the funniest thing ever to revolt to the CSA and research the Jim Crow laws first thing! Hahaha.
Do you play Civ? Years ago I used the Hitler mod on Civ V and got the Wehrmacht and Nazi Germany specific units and skills. The mods are real fun.
RR you are so anthropocentric in your beliefs! you know intelligence etc. can be qualified rationalized and attributed 2 the Universe nature reality etc. right?
crazy stuff but if youve seen what ive seen youd know 2.
You can actually play as african nations in AOE 3 even though I doubt its historically accurate. Blacks definitely had no gunpowder.
a friend today on a call from Japan (he is half Jap half Mex) told me he thought society was getting smarter…..
BULL FUCKING SHIT! society is getting so dumb. we are becoming faulty programmed sheep like a degenerate and stupid computer!
we are basically stupider than AI at this point socially we can barely comprehend a bigger picture collectively as a society a nation a globe!
these bastards wanna see us rot! and its not the Jews its the fucking gentiles aka whites asians and indians in Americuck that are beyond retarded!
they lack basic social awareness and try 2 get away with everything. and every generation is worse and worse than the previous.
this is all egregious. there are so many very stupid people on this Earth.
even the smartest like Bruno are walking NPCs who have no shred of remorse over their stupidities.
this is just blasphemous against nature and the Universe!
social collapse is on its way just watch. shitholes like Texas will be the first drop because of Indians and stupid Chinese motherfuckers.
and then the whitey will be left 2 endure pain and suffering!
i can make an argument 4 why God cant and doesnt exist….its because everything is self serving….when youre self serving why would you need something like a Creator 2 enhance your experiences in life.
its a fucking free 4 all. dont let these religious blokes fool you! we are all pawns in the Universal game of metaphysics!
The more I read up on Epiphenomenalism, the more I understand why it’s such a throrn-in-the-side of classical Dualists, which is funny because Phenomenalism is a form of Dualism.
I was reading the Epiphenomenalism and Mental Causation articles on Stanford Philosophy, and hilariously, they used nearly the same diagram I had thought of when referring to how mental causation works under Epiphenomenalism.
I think I’m going to read up more on Anomalous Monism. I and Donald Davidson had far more in common than I had initially thought.
I mean, epiphenomenalism is false, but I’ll return to that specific issue on my blog. I’m more interested in this now:
“I think I’m going to read up more on Anomalous Monism. I and Donald Davidson had far more in common than I had initially thought.”
Funny, because Kim’s CEA refutes the most forceful argument for naturalism about the mind by showing that the mental is epiphenomenal on token identity theory. Further, AM is inconsistent with the normativity of the mental. So epiphenomenalism is self-defeating since beliefs and desires rationalize actions. That is, reasons are causes for actions.
“Funny”
Lol, I don’t know why you’re mad at me.
“because Kim’s CEA refutes the most forceful argument for naturalism about the mind by showing that the mental is epiphenomenal on token identity theory.”
Like I said, I will research more on it because Davidson seems to believe that M is just another way to describe P. It’s unclear how the CEA refutes it, and, no offense, you’re not really helpful.
“Further, AM is inconsistent with the normativity of the mental.”
How so? From my understanding, there was nothing contradictory between AM and the normativity of the mind. Rather, it is simply difficult to reconcile the two.
“reasons are causes for actions.”
Yeah, that doesn’t circumvent the overdetermination problem. The necessity of P in explaining M will always rear its ugly head.
I remember you railing against AM years ago. Solid that you’re actually rethinking your thoughts on something you were vehemently against. Much respect.
I’ll wait until you gather your thoughts and research more on this so we can continue this conversation.
RaceRealist cannot answer simple questions:
What is intelligence?
Do some people have more than others?
And if people have more what relationship is there between it and job performance?
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088
Rather than wasting your time with fool big words, go directly to the source and see this garbage closely by yourself.
I helped a former partner to get PHD on this garbage blank slate “theory”. Interestingly, he just “study” this shit to increase his academic level and boorst his salary, of course.
The kind of “high IQ” clever silly who is abundant on academia.
I perfectly described how his theory isn’t “blank slatist.” You can go actually test Vygotsky’s work and that of Vygotsky scholars and see that you’re wrong in your “assessment” of his theory, but I know you won’t do that.
Why are insane white racists like “loaded” even allowed to post here? Their comments are consistently racist, unhinged, and wrong.
Here’s one of their comments from this post
“shitholes like Texas will be the first drop because of Indians and stupid Chinese motherfuckers. and then the whitey will be left 2 endure pain and suffering!”
“loaded”, please see a doctor and stay away from young children and adults.