Back in 2022 I estimated Elon Musk’s IQ,
At the time I wrote that I had no idea Musk had taken the SAT (since it’s not required in Canada) but it turns out he did as revealed by the Walter Isaacson biography released this month:
If all American 17-year-olds had taken the SAT in the 1980s, it would have had an estimated a mean and standard deviation of 787 and 220 respectively, so Musk’s combined score of 1400 equated to +2.79 SD or IQ 142 (U.S. norms) or about 140 if you like round numbers.
140 makes sense. Smart enough to launch rockets and become the World’s richest man, but still dumb enough to get fleeced out of tens of billions of dollars when buying twitter.
Even though it’s generally a bad idea to try to guess someone’s IQ from their wealth alone, in Elon’s case it made perfect sense because my intuition told me he was smarter than half the Americans who reached his level of wealth (i.e. Sam Walton) but dumber than the other half (i.e. Bill Gates).
Pumpkin Person 
140 would be about 15 items in working memory at the same time.
Since working memory is about relationships, he would be able to compare all items with all other items and themselves at the same time.
15^2 = 225 relationships.
He would very easily be able to break down problems into segments. And after seeing all the corollary possibilities, make decisions on what to do next. Elon was really into computers so it takes a certain amount of mental calculation to understand how to get them to do what you want because they need exact instructions to function in the correct order of operations.
Also with that amount of working memory, you can try new things faster by porting huge chunks in and out of long-term memory (what worked and what did not work).
RaceRelist will never give a clear conceptualization of intelligence.
NEVER.
I don’t NEED to. It’s up to the IQ-ist to do what I stated in a previous comment, NOT me.
Anyway, I’ll write something about it this week on how intelligence isn’t a fixed but dynamic, ever-changing process that has no relevance to IQ testing (the only relevance is how the tests are constructed based on a narrow view of culturally-biased items, but I’ve written more than enough about that), drawing on Vygotsky’s and Richardson’s works. Then you can finally shut up about this and answer the challenge poised in my other comment.
Here’s a taste. You could have inferred this from my writings against the g factor and in my writing on my DEC framework.
Intelligence is the dynamic capacity of individuals to engage effectively with their sociocultural environment, utilizing a diverse range of cognitive abilities (psychological tools), cultural tools, and social interactions. Richardson’s perspective emphasizes that intelligence is multifaceted and not reducible to a single numerical score, acknowledging the limits of IQ testing. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory underscores that intelligence is deeply shaped by cultural context, social interactions, and the use of cultural tools for problem solving and learning. So a comprehensive definition of intelligence in my view—informed by Richardson and Vygotsky—is that if a socially embedded cognitive capacity that encompasses diverse abilities and is continually shaped by an individual’s cultural and social interactions.
AK will NEVER answer my questions on a theory and definition of IQ and how it’s likened to IQ tests and will NEVER articulate the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for IQ. He will NEVER admit that IQ has a very small relationship to job performance, since his whole worldview will collapse. Sad.
RR when a test directly measures the ability to remember and compute information: “this has nothing to do with intelligence because black people don’t have thesauruses in their houses.”
Teffec P. seemingly doesn’t understand what I said and I guess he hasn’t read my arguments on the issue.
If you don’t believe in absolute truth/meaning (for example, logic and mathematics) how do you even know your existence is true? Is your existence contextual as well? Do you have a manbun or not?
Do you actually exist? Was Mugabe right that everyone is PP’s alter ego? Except that would imply something actually exists in an absolute context (in fact, “absolute” meaning is implied by existence… it must be something absolute as existence must be based on a cause that is ultimately inviolable by anything that would stop its nonexistence… since it actually exists).
“I don’t NEED to. It’s up to the IQ-ist to do what I stated in a previous comment, NOT me.”
I gave a definition of the magnitude of intelligence… which was the amount of distinctions one can process (experience and/or act on i.e. manipulate and logically infer from).
Clearly this is what IQ tests are measuring. It is the only quantifiable element (because I literally defined it as the quantifiability of repeatable information).
“intelligence isn’t a fixed but dynamic, ever-changing process that has no relevance to IQ testing ”
yea but it has a coherent definition, which means it is not dynamic in all respects.
IQ tests are “measuring” (used loosely) one’s cultural distance from the middle class since that’s the structure of the items found on the test.
It does have a definition, but the concept is a psychological trait that is socially and culturally dynamic and influenced. I’ll elaborate in my piece.
“Intelligence is the dynamic capacity of individuals to engage effectively with their sociocultural environment, utilizing a diverse range of cognitive abilities (psychological tools), cultural tools, and social interactions. ”
So what sociocultural environment does this definition of “intelligence” exist in? How do we know it is even true? Surely the laws of logic apply to it, as you would state… so in other words, logical inference and adherence to noncontradiction is an absolute component of intelligence and cognizing. So that aspect is not sociocultural but absolute.
“Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory underscores that intelligence is deeply shaped by cultural context, social interactions, and the use of cultural tools for problem solving and learning.”
“Deeply” is kind of the problem here. At what point are we actually reaching shared context? At what point are the definitions of intelligence and knowledge actually mutually compatible? How do we even know that these things are even the same across different nations, let alone different people, given you think the very concepts we hold in our heads of intelligence are based on our own context?
The definition of intelligence I provided recognizes the interplay between cognitive universals and sociocultural influences. The “deeply” part is merely about the universals in how intelligence is shaped by MKOs, private speech and the ZPD.
fine then don’t spew your bullshit at me about “intelligence” ever again if you won’t even answer simple questions.
>He will NEVER admit that IQ has a very small relationship to job performance, since his whole worldview will collapse
Your are such a bullshit artist, my “worldview” is not based on “IQ”.
your the one who cannot conceptualize intelligence or how job performance relates to the “dynamic capacity of individuals to engage effectively with their sociocultural environment”.
Haha I just gave a comprehensive definition. Keep up here, my guy.
By the way, do you accept the best-available evidence on IQ and job performance yet or not? If not, why?
yeah it seems like RR is basically saying this is all a simulation and everything is stardust and a lot of other stuff that cannot be refuted or confirmed with our current technological capabilities or even our minds!
sometimes i doubt the existence of everything even myself. i sometimes think this is all a dream im having or something like that.
ive had alcohol poisoning before and sometimes i think im in a coma continuing where i left off with the hallucinations in the trauma unit as i lay there like a vegetable.
the mind is a very unstable thing. its very sad.
RR are you a nihilist in any way? in any way i mean….since not believing in an after life is also a form of nihilism i indulge in at times!
i dunno this whole thing we call reality is very fickle if you ask me its very tweaky yet unwavering i dunno.
“The definition of intelligence I provided recognizes the interplay between cognitive universals and sociocultural influences.”
You have no definition of intelligence because you have no absolute context to any concept you define, as you admit. It might as well be gobbedlygook until you admit there are some invariant attributes to the concept known as “intelligence”.
“The “deeply” part is merely about the universals in how intelligence is shaped by MKOs, private speech and the ZPD.”
This does little to actually show what is contextual about knowledge and what isn’t. Hereditarians already admit that one’s viewpoint is shaped by culture to some degree.
“Haha I just gave a comprehensive definition. Keep up here, my guy.”
Your definition can’t be comprehensive because it has no context to rely on. It certainly doesn’t seem to define intelligence in a way that is mathematical and reliant on information in the most abstract sense, like my definition does.
PP post this one not the other.
It’s not “gobbledygook”, it’s clear and defines the term clearly. The contextual aspects are socially embedded (different social contexts can shape the application and content of knowledge), culturally influenced (cultural norms, practices, and values influence what is termed “knowledge” for a cultural group), and it’s continually shaped (the “dynamic” part). And what isn’t contextual is intentionality and logical reasoning aren’t contextual knowledge (though when it comes to logical reasoning—as evidenced here on this blog—it’s clearly contextual and experience-dependent but that’s for another day).
And my definition is comprehensive in the sense that it captures important aspects that narrow so-called “definitions” (eg Gottfredson’s, the most-cited one) miss. My definition is comprehensive in the sense that it provides a comprehensive understanding of intelligence in the framework I’ve presented and am working on.
>By the way, do you accept the best-available evidence on IQ and job performance yet or not? If not, why?
The correlation is either 0.5 like Pupkin said or it is 0.2
I do not understand fully but as I said the meta-study could be measuring performance wrong.
>I just gave a comprehensive definition. Keep up here, my guy.
ok, what relation between it and job performance exists?
Before you correct for stuff like range restriction, the old studies and the new studies both agree that the correlation between IQ and job performance is low, which is understandable because jobs sort people so efficiently by IQ that there’s not enough left-over IQ variance to predict much performance within jobs. But if you correct for that lack of variation (small SD within jobs) and for unreliability in the measures, the correlation approaches 0.5 and the old studies fully did this (the new ones only partly did it). However this is more of theoretical interest. From the practical perspective of an employer deciding whether or not to use IQ tests to screen people, what matters is the predictive power among the people actually applying for the job, not what the predictive power would be if everyone were recruited, so it’s probably true that IQ is a piss-poor predictor for most jobs, but it’s only because people have already been pre-screened for IQ before they even get the chance to apply.
The meta is the best available evidence we have and PP’s grandstanding is irrelevant. And cultural fit, problem solving, sociocultural competence, and other things matter—you know, basic things you’d be cognizant of if you knew anything about being competent at a job and performing well.
The meta is the best available evidence we have and PP’s grandstanding is irrelevant.
LOL! You missed the point, but that’s okay.
What point did I miss? For the record, I’m responding to comments through the Jetpack application so if you said something else about it in this chain, I didn’t see it.
RR, you haven’t shown how intelligence works without culture. If everything is culturally embedded, and intelligence is just defined by our ability to effectively engage with the environment, this implies that cognition does not exist outside human culture that has the concept of “intelligence”, which is obviously false as the capacity for cognition must precede the transmission of culture.
If your argument is instead that what others think of as “intelligence” is what appears to be someone working effectively in their environment due to their cognition, then yes, that’s obviously true, but all you are doing in this case is taking the standard definitions of intelligence such as “ability to problem solve” or “ability to arrive at logical conclusions” and stating that all logical conclusions are contextual, while relying on logic to prove noncontexually that problem-solving is contextual.
You are leaving out the pre-existing structure necessary for transmission and application of culture and calling that a rigorous definition. Because minds do more than “receive culture”, they actively manipulate the cultural conceptions they receive, and this capacity to manipulate must exist prior to the culture it is manipulating.
I really don’t understand how you don’t understand this. It’s all so, so simple for everyone else here.
It’s obvious that cognition is a prerequisite for the development and transmission of culture. However, intelligence is created by socio-cultural tools and influences, feedbacking off each other (that is cognition and culture). Cognition is a fundamental human capacity, and my framework highlights that the development of intelligence is intricately linked to culture and social interactions. HOW the capacity for cognition is expressed and applied is influenced by social and cultural factors and contexts.
Look at newborn babies. Look at cases of feral children. Neither are rational nor are they intelligent. In the case of newborns, they need to be enriched in human social and cultural contexts to become rational, gain minds and become intelligent. In the case of feral children, this shows that not interacting with human culture after a certain critical point is detrimental to the gaining of mind, rationality and intelligence.
Humans aren’t merely passive recipients of culture, but we actively shape, adapt and create cultural knowledge through cognitive processes. The active engagement demonstrates the dynamic nature of intelligence.
And to be clear, the definition I proposed was just a quick, off-the-cuff definition, and I will develop my thoughts on it in the future.
Lurker he does understand it. Everyone does. Hes an extreme ideological warrior. He won’t admit intelligence is somewhat genetic because that would imply certain races are dumber.
When are you going to answer my questions and back your claims you clown?
PP, mind explaining how anything you wrote refutes what Richardson and Norgate wrote about the issues with corrections that inflated the correlation? Genuinely interested in your thoughts on that.
I agree with R & N that the actual correlation is pretty small in most jobs, I just argue it would be around 0.5 if the full range of U.S. IQs were employed in every job & performance measures were as reliable as they are in the military. R & N don’t necessarily disagree with me, they just think what’s relevant is the actual correlation, not what it would have been in a less stratified society with more reliable measures.
Well yea, the actual correlation is what matters not the correlation that arises after tenuous and tortuous corrections. And most of the H and S studies were done between 1920 and 1970. Richardson also cites a report in his 2017 book:
“In 1989, a committee set up by the U.S. National Acad emy of Sciences commissioned new meta- analyses on more recent studies than those of Schmidt and Hunter. These analyses found much lower correlations than those reported above. As report authors John Hartigan and Alexandra Wignor (themselves leading statisticians) noted in their report, “The most striking finding . . . is a distinct diminution of validities [i.e., IQ-job performance correlations] in the newer, post 1972 set.” The corrected correlations came out to be around 0.25, rather than the widely cited 0.50 from the corrected correlations of Schmidt and Hunter.”
And the reason is that the larger samples in the newer studies had lower sampling error and range restriction. So yea, there’s absolutely no reason to cite Hunter and Schmidt anymore.
“Look at newborn babies. Look at cases of feral children. Neither are rational nor are they intelligent. In the case of newborns, they need to be enriched in human social and cultural contexts to become rational, gain minds and become intelligent. In the case of feral children, this shows that not interacting with human culture after a certain critical point is detrimental to the gaining of mind, rationality and intelligence.”
But if we raise human infants around people, they will become like other people, whereas if we raise dogs or chimps around people, they will never behave like people, even if they do change their behavior a lot more.
Culture and human interaction obviously shapes the way people approach others socially (what is socially acceptable) as well as instills specific morals, but there is also the wealth of well-understood knowledge gained from society and language. and Instead of learning that, the feral child actually learns things that are actively detrimental to behaving and interacting in modern society.
Regardless this does not address the innate (pre-existing) capacity of children to receive and manipulate culture.
“Humans aren’t merely passive recipients of culture, but we actively shape, adapt and create cultural knowledge through cognitive processes. The active engagement demonstrates the dynamic nature of intelligence.”
Yes but we shape culture based on what? Other culture? Where does the regress end?
That’s why I’m saying you need a more rigorous definition, and I include information itself as the quantity/substance that is being manipulated. Stating that people manipulate knowledge based on culture does not show how the capacity may differ, as it clearly does between humans and other animals.
According to your preliminary definition, humans receive culture, and then manipulate culture based on their pre-existing (but dynamically changing) knowledge, but if the manipulation and reception of culture is only mediated by what they’ve already gained through culture, you have an infinite regress.
So you need to assert that humans have a built in information-processing capacity, but that poses another problem, which is that information must already take some form compatible with the information processor (hence why animals generally do not respond to language but respond to other sounds). This is true not simply for “physical” information, but mental as well, which is what we are arguing about.
How can physical information alter the structure of the mind? The mind already exists and must have a form to take mental information in (transform physical signals into mental ones in the case of culture). It seems the structure of the mind is altered by physical signals through culture, and the mind creates culture, but where does the initial structure of the mind come from? Given this causal chain there is no other option but that we are born intelligent, and hence, there is a context-independent and cultureless aspect to intelligence.
If we instead claim that intelligence comes packed with a cultural viewpoint, we are contradicting the premise that intelligence is completely shaped by culture, since the pre-existing culture would be shaping the processing of any further cultural information coming its way.
“And to be clear, the definition I proposed was just a quick, off-the-cuff definition, and I will develop my thoughts on it in the future.”
Fair enough but I don’t see this defeating hereditarianism, because of the fact that the capacity for intelligence comes before the cultural learning.
“It’s obvious that cognition is a prerequisite for the development and transmission of culture. However, intelligence is created by socio-cultural tools and influences, feedbacking off each other (that is cognition and culture). Cognition is a fundamental human capacity, and my framework highlights that the development of intelligence is intricately linked to culture and social interactions.”
Stating that cognition is fundamental while stating that all knowledge is cultural is contradictory. Our thoughts cannot both be based on something fundamental and completely developed by culture.
Cognition is simply intelligence but without any specific value attached to it. Any time you cognize something you are “knowing” that thing. So you cannot cognize without having knowledge of something. So obviously if cognition is fundamental, and all knowledge is cultural, culture exists as soon as cognition exists, thereby contradicting the idea that cognition is a fundamental culture-free capacity, and lending credence to the hereditarian claim that mental patterns are inherited just as much as they are learned.
“But if we raise human infants around people, they will become like other people, whereas if we raise dogs or chimps around people, they will never behave like people, even if they do change their behavior a lot more.”
Well yea, because dogs or chimps lack human brains and so lack the capacity for mind, and language. And the feral child, obviously not being around human culture, learns skills that are conducive to surviving where ever they find themselves. Of course their behaviors and interactions in modern society would be detrimental, but this shows two things: (1) There is a critical window of when and how a child can be receptive to human culture and (2) this then means that there is also a critical window for when a human infant/toddler can gain a mind, language, intelligence and rationality.
And so-called “innate” traits are experience-dependent. Of course there is *something* about humans that allow us to be receptive to cultural and social contexts to form mind, language, rationality and intelligence. But I wouldn’t call it “innate.” Thus, so-called “innate” traits need certain environmental contexts to be able to manifest themselves. Are you arguing a kind of preformationism?
So while humans actively adapt, shape, and create cultural knowledge through cultural processes, knowledge acquisition isn’t solely mediated by culture. Individual experiences matter, as do interactions with the environment along with the accumulation of knowledge from various cultural contexts. So human cognitive capacity isn’t entirely a product of culture, and human cognition allows for critical thinking, creative problem solving, along with the ability to adapt cultural knowledge which then mitigates your concern of infinite regress.
Finally, knowledge acquisition is cumulative. Because as individuals acquire knowledge from their cultural contexts, individual experiences etc, this knowledge then becomes internalized in their cognitive framework. They can then build on thus existing knowledge to further adapt and shape culture.
“The mind already exists and must have a form to take mental information in (transform physical signals into mental ones in the case of culture). It seems the structure of the mind is altered by physical signals through culture, and the mind creates culture, but where does the initial structure of the mind come from? Given this causal chain there is no other option but that we are born intelligent, and hence, there is a context-independent and cultureless aspect to intelligence.”
How are you defining “mind” here, in that it already exists? In my view, the brain is necessary for the mind, and if you want to get into the physiology of vision then we can do that as well because that matters too. I think it’s ridiculous to claim that we are “born intelligent.” Look at humans babies, they aren’t intelligent in any sense of the word, since they have to learn and interact with their environment and be guided through their ZPD by MKOs and then eventually internalize everything they’ve seen once they start talking, thinking and acquiring private speech.
When I say “cognition is fundamental”, I mean that it is necessary or essential. So cognition refers to the capacity for mental processes while knowledge is the information or understanding that is acquired through cognitive processes. So while cognition is fundamental (necessary, or essential), knowledge is shaped or enriched by cultural influences. So cognitive processes have a foundational, necessary role (just like the role of the brain), they are then deeply influenced and enriched by cultural and social experiences. So I don’t think that this “lends credence go the hereditarian claim”, since the hereditarian claim here is completely different.
“Well yea, because dogs or chimps lack human brains and so lack the capacity for mind, and language. And the feral child, obviously not being around human culture, learns skills that are conducive to surviving where ever they find themselves. Of course their behaviors and interactions in modern society would be detrimental, but this shows two things: (1) There is a critical window of when and how a child can be receptive to human culture and (2) this then means that there is also a critical window for when a human infant/toddler can gain a mind, language, intelligence and rationality.”
Right but again, you are ignoring what the capacity must be. Simply stating “there is a capacity” that dogs lack, such as language, does not tell us how people use language to process the world in a way chimps cannot, and why that means intelligence is culturally derived and not inherited.
“And so-called “innate” traits are experience-dependent. Of course there is *something* about humans that allow us to be receptive to cultural and social contexts to form mind, language, rationality and intelligence. But I wouldn’t call it “innate.” Thus, so-called “innate” traits need certain environmental contexts to be able to manifest themselves. Are you arguing a kind of preformationism?”
But the mind cannot be “caused” by physical processes, which is how culture interacts to form the mind. Therefore the mind must exist in a form capable of learning culture without having any particular culture, which contradicts the claim that we mentally interpret everything through culture.
“So while humans actively adapt, shape, and create cultural knowledge through cultural processes, knowledge acquisition isn’t solely mediated by culture. Individual experiences matter, as do interactions with the environment along with the accumulation of knowledge from various cultural contexts. ”
Do they interpret their experiences through a cultural lens or not? Do they interpret their interactions with the environment through a cultural lens? If we can gain knowledge without cultural interpretation, all knowledge is not cultural. Do you not see the point?
“So human cognitive capacity isn’t entirely a product of culture, and human cognition allows for critical thinking, creative problem solving, along with the ability to adapt cultural knowledge which then mitigates your concern of infinite regress.”
No it doesn’t, because your model states that all knowledge is cultural or context-dependent. The leads to an infinite regress. If you admit that critical thinking and creative problem solving are not culturally-dependent, you’ve already admitted that the mind that can perform functions in any context, which opens the door for quantititative differences in these abilities. How do you not understand this?
“Finally, knowledge acquisition is cumulative.”
How does knowledge accumulate, yet the capacity does not?
Doesn’t that show absolute quantifiability (given you refer to “knowledge” without qualifiers)?
“Because as individuals acquire knowledge from their cultural contexts, individual experiences etc, this knowledge then becomes internalized in their cognitive framework.”
How does one acquire knowledge without being able to interpret it? How does one internalize an experience without having a raw interpretation of that experience?
“They can then build on thus existing knowledge to further adapt and shape culture.”
How can one build on something that is immeasurable?
I can agree obviously but this doesn’t explain the origin of
“The mind already exists and must have a form to take mental information in (transform physical signals into mental ones in the case of culture). It seems the structure of the mind is altered by physical signals through culture, and the mind creates culture, but where does the initial structure of the mind come from? Given this causal chain there is no other option but that we are born intelligent, and hence, there is a context-independent and cultureless aspect to intelligence.”
“How are you defining “mind” here, in that it already exists?”
How else would we “internalize” or “experience” something unless there was somewhere to internalize it?
“In my view, the brain is necessary for the mind, and if you want to get into the physiology of vision then we can do that as well because that matters too.”
Whether or not the brain is necessary is irrelevant to whether a mind is necessary before it can learn culture.
“I think it’s ridiculous to claim that we are “born intelligent.””
Well, do babies not process information and experience things? Do they not interpret their experiences? Yes they do.
“Look at humans babies, they aren’t intelligent in any sense of the word, since they have to learn and interact with their environment and be guided through their ZPD by MKOs and then eventually internalize everything they’ve seen once they start talking, thinking and acquiring private speech.”
Yeah but they would never be able to learn or “internalize” something if there was no where to internalize it.
“When I say “cognition is fundamental”, I mean that it is necessary or essential.”
Except that you are speaking of a process, namely learning/internalizing, which is a temporal state change, to explain how people go from unknowledgeable to knowledgeable. Therefore, cognition must not be simply necessary structurally, but must be pre-existing before the mind’s state can transition between “not knowing” and “knowing”.
“So cognition refers to the capacity for mental processes while knowledge is the information or understanding that is acquired through cognitive processes.”
Cognition is a process though. The capacity for “running” requires a surface, just as an act of cognition requires something to be thought about.
“So while cognition is fundamental (necessary, or essential), knowledge is shaped or enriched by cultural influences.”
Shaped and enriched are two different things. One implies holistic change and one implies accumulation.
“So cognitive processes have a foundational, necessary role (just like the role of the brain), they are then deeply influenced and enriched by cultural and social experiences.”
Enriched is not a technical word here.
You can’t cognize without knowing. They are synonymous (your experience is your raw knowledge and understanding of whatever you are experiencing). Therefore everything you cognize is already “shaped”.
Do you have thoughts with absolutely no structure? How do you even know they were thoughts then? Obviously you wouldn’t, because you wouldn’t even be thinking about anything. To cognize is to actually have something in your mind, meaning there has to be some bare minimum of structure.
“So I don’t think that this “lends credence go the hereditarian claim”, since the hereditarian claim here is completely different.”
If you believe culture is necessary for interpretation of all cognition, then it lends credence to hereditarianism.
“you are ignoring what the capacity must be”
The cognitive capacity is a unique, cognitive one that only humans possess. It enables humans to engage in symbolic thought, abstract reasoning, and then when language develops, to use language as a tool for communication and problem solving.
“which contradicts the claim that we interpret everything through culture.”
No, it doesn’t. The feral children example is apt, since they don’t have minds since they were brought up in the wild, they missed the critical window to be exposed to human culture and language and so they didn’t develop the capacity, nor can they.
“Do they interpret their experiences through a cultural lens or not? Do they interpret their interactions with the environment through a cultural lens? If we can gain knowledge without cultural interpretation, all knowledge is not cultural. Do you not see the point?”
Individuals do interpret their experiences through a cultural lense, since culture provides the framework for understanding, categorizing, and making sense of experiences. But as I said previously, I do recognize the role of individual experiences and personal interpretations. So while cultural lenses may shape initial perceptions, people can also think critically and reflect on their interpretations over time.
Fundamental necessary aspects of knowledge like sensory perception are also pivotal. The cultural mediation of knowledge then becomes more apparent when dealing with complex, abstract or context-dependent information. In these cases, then, cultural frameworks play a pivotal role in how knowledge is acquired, interpreted, and applied. The thing is, as knowledge becomes more context-dependent, the influence of culture in shaping interpretations and applications then becomes more pronounced.
“If you admit that critical thinking and creative problem solving are not culturally-dependent”
Going back to the example of feral children, if the critical window is missed, then they don’t become rational, they don’t develop minds, and they don’t become intelligent. Language is important for thought. These people are raised outside of human culture and they clearly can’t reason and can’t think critically which proves my point.
“infinite regress”
If humans possess foundational cognitive capacities that aren’t entirely culturally determined or influenced, and culture serves as a mediator in shaping how these capacities are expressed and applied, then it follows that culture influences cognitive development while cognitive abilities provide the foundation for being able to learn at all, as well as being able to speak and to internalize the culture and language they are exposed to. So if culture interacts dynamically with cognitive capacities, and crucial periods exist during which cultural learning is particularly influential (cases of feral children), then it follows that early cultural exposure and socialization are critical. So it follows that my framework acknowledges both cognitive capacities and cultural influences in shaping human cognition and intelligence.
The capacity is there already when humans are born.
The cognitive capacity is foundational.
It’s a qualitative accumulation.
One can only acquire knowledge and interpret it and one can only iynwrnkize an experience without having an interrogation if that experience only when they gain the ability to speak and gain the ability for private speech. And when I said “building on existing knowledge”, I’m referring to a qualitative process. What this means is that individuals can deepen their cultural understanding, refine their problem solving skills, and enhance their cultural contributions based on the qualitative foundation that is provided by their cognitive capacities.
We “internalize” through private speech and this only comes with language. Remember that newborns aren’t rational, intelligent beings, they *become rational, intelligent beings*, and they develop and become so *only* through being exposed to human culture and language.
To be able to interpret experiences, you need to be rational and have the ability—not only the capacity for (which babies have)—private speech. And without that, which doesn’t come until later, they can’t be said to be intelligent in any sense.
They are not “internalizing” yet, under my conception of “internalizing”, but they are experiencing things that eventually lead to the formation of mind.
“not knowing and knowing”
Cognition is foundational since it is necessary for all of this to happen in the first place. It’s necessary for the transition from “not knowing” to “knowing.” Learning and internalization are tempotsl processes that occur over time, and they are underpinned by cognition, since it is necessary for that to occur.
“Cognition is a process though”
Yea I know and I’m using it in the basic philosophical parlance. Cognition is a capacity but it’s not a passive one. Cognition serves as the basis for the dynamic and active cognitive processes through which individuals acquire and make sense of knowledge. Thus, in this sense, cognition isn’t a mere surface that enables the “running” of cognitive processes, leading to the acquisition of knowledge within a socio-cultural context. Of course when one cognizes, they are thinking, and they are thinking of the contents of their thoughts.
“Shaped and enriched are two different things.”
The cognitive capacity provides individuals with the ability to engage with their environment, and think, reason, and acquire knowledge. When I say that knowledge is “shaped” by cultural influences, I’m highlighting the dynamic and interactive nature of the process. Knowledge isn’t merely accumulated passively: it’s actively adapted, influenced, and molded by one’s cultural context, as individuals interact with their cultural context. This shaping not only involves accumulation but also adaptation and transformation. While the term “enriched” refers to the fact that cultural influences contribute to the depth and breadth of an individual’s knowledge. Cultural experiences, interactions, and (cultural) tools provide the context in which knowledge is acquired, and this enrichment adds layers of understanding and perspective to one’s knowledge base.
“You can’t cognize without knowing. They are synonymous (your experience is your raw knowledge and understanding of whatever you are experiencing). Therefore everything you cognize is already “shaped”. Do you have thoughts with absolutely no structure? How do you even know they were thoughts then? Obviously you wouldn’t, because you wouldn’t even be thinking about anything. To cognize is to actually have something in your mind, meaning there has to be some bare minimum of structure.”
The framework posits that cognitive processes play a necessary role in human cognition, just as the brain plays a necessary physical substrate for these processes. While cognition and knowledge are intertwined, they’re not synonymous. To cognize is to actively think about something that you want to, meaning it is an action. And yea, there is a minimal structure and it’s accounted for by cognition, like pattern recognition, categorization, sequential processing, sensory integration, associative memory and selective attention. And these processes are necessary, they are inherent in “cognition” and they set the stage for more complex mental abilities, which is what Vygotsky was getting at with the social formation of mind with his theory.
“If you believe culture is necessary for interpretation of all cognition, then it lends credence to hereditarianism.”
My view here doesn’t support hereditarianism at all—where hereditarianism is the claim that genetic influence is the major contributor to behavior. My view, as I’ve been arguing, recognizes the dynamic interplay between cognitive capacity and cultural context in the social formation of mind and intelligence. My view is distinct from hereditarianism, since hereditarianism is inherently reductionist while my view is holist.
I’ll get back to this later, but I’ll respond to this:
“The framework posits that cognitive processes play a necessary role in human cognition, just as the brain plays a necessary physical substrate for these processes. ”
You haven’t explained why these things are necessary, just that empirically they are, which we all already know.
“While cognition and knowledge are intertwined, they’re not synonymous. ”
Yes they are, because any object of cognition amounts to knowing that object of cognition. Just because a baby doesn’t have object permanence, doesn’t mean they are not seeing the same thing. The experience didn’t change, the interpretation did. The knowledge difference is not in what was sensed, but in understanding a model of how things exist even when not sensed.
“To cognize is to actively think about something that you want to, meaning it is an action. ”
Yes it is an action, but it doesn’t have to do with something you want to do. It can be passive. Otherwise, if you have to actively have something you want to do to think, you would need to intend to think, which makes no sense, since intention is a type of thought.
“And yea, there is a minimal structure and it’s accounted for by cognition, like pattern recognition, categorization, sequential processing, sensory integration, associative memory and selective attention. ”
So what you’re saying is that one’s cultural knowledge is based on a bunch of necessary and objective cognitive processes that pre-cultural, yet for some reason, we should consider intelligence cultural and knowledge purely contextual?
Why are you ignoring the objective aspects of knowledge, such as categorization and sensory integration, simply because knowledge has contextual aspects?
“And these processes are necessary, they are inherent in “cognition” and they set the stage for more complex mental abilities, which is what Vygotsky was getting at with the social formation of mind with his theory.”
So basically, there are objective factors underlying all cognition, yet you want to concentrate on the aspects that are unnecessary and differ from culture to culture and use that to claim that intelligence has no underlying basis outside of culture, even though your model of cognition requires noncultural aspects such as information gathering and logical reasoning?
Dymnamic =/= everchanging
good point nice one! i think Santo is a very bright guy even with English being his second language he does a good job of realizing things many very intelligent native speakers could never conceive of in terms of metaphysics and concrete things!
IQ and job performance correlation may vary depending the level of function plurality of given profession.
A profession generally has an internal diversity of functions or variability of complexity level like kidergarden versus university teacher.
Where 0,5 is a low correlation?
It’s a moderate correlation. Not high but not low either.
He didn’t get fleeced on his twitter purchase. It was a politically calculated move. Worth every penny.
thank the stars he will never be president of the united states though. he would probably sell his soul wholeheartedly 2 Russia or something just on ideology alone and think he was being smart about it.
he is a South African so he can never run 4 president of the U.S. and rightly so.
unlike me despite Pills protests and his delusions that im some form of illegal immigrant mexican or something….
i will rightfully run in 2032 like every great Ubermenschen should!
Who does it help politically?
The world dumbass. He did it to protect people like the rest of us to be allowed speak in public, even anonymously about our anti danish views.
It might be higher than this actually Puppy. You have to remember the SAT isn’t an IQ test, its about effort learning stuff and Musk might have been a lazy enough student like myself.
My guess is that he’s at least as smart as Mugabe. He founded 3 Fortune 500 corporations….jesus christ thats better than bill gates or buffet or any other businessman in history.
But you might be right that he has aspergers. First he keeps saying he has aspergers which means he was probably diagnosed by a psychologist. But if he has it, its very high functioning like Buffets.
You can’t compute IQ from wealth dumbass. 50% of the top 1% inherit their wealth. You yourself kept saying there is regression to the mean. You honestly think the Walton kids are as smart as the founder Sam? Maybe but the genetics of IQ are not well understood at this point in history.
No for inherited wealth, I estimate the IQ of the wealth creator and then regress the kids to the mean.
Fascistinating….
PP the IQ-gossiper
thank you Santo 4 defending me on the topic of East Asians. i despise them as well i dunno what it is but theyre just so mean and cruel 2 everything around them even themselves.
so thank you!
You are welcome. Your observation about white narcisism is also on point!
pp can you do an iq estimate for Sam Hyde
possibly
my ideal girl is a Latina i love latin american woman especially the Gen Z ones with lighter skin etc. i matched with one on Tinder when i opened my account yesterday theyre so beautiful and have such a feminine style of speaking 2 a man they really like!
i hope i end up with her i followed her on insta and we just started talking and i really like her.
she seems like shes down 4 me and stuff so im going 2 make the most of it!
But it was his second try..
well the great thing about the SAT is it’s pretty practice proof since students have been practicing for it (indirectly) their whole lives.
Asians are the most psychotic race. neurotic 4 sure but anyone ever see the videos of Chinese people in their homeland just being vile and stupid?
theyre creeps! there is plenty of evidence of their mental instabilities. half white half asian kids are the worst theyre mentally handicapped autistic and weird and thats me being nice!
i hope the chinese dont prosper because it would lead 2 a deficit in morality and stability in our world.
they have poor future orientation as evidenced by their lack of social skills and the many stupid things they do.
their economy is in a recession right now and the wages there are piss poor and just inconceivably unlivable!
a lot of them do a lot of crazy stuff like going 2 children schools and stabbing kids and other just inane stuff that could never happen in the West.
the Western peoples are a lot more superior than Asians.
blacks 2. Asians are misfits in this world.
they belong on another planet.
East Asians are by far the least psychotic most mentally stable most socially organized and intelligent race on Earth. They’re just misunderstood because they’re more evolved than we are. Just as you would seem stupid & psychotic and dumb to an ape, it’s hard to relate to those more advanced than we are.
PP is dogmatic as fuck…
East Asians copied almost everything from modern western civilization.
Before that their societies were less evolved than western ones in many aspects, from Archicteture to Science.
Only east society which reached and even surpassed (North)Western societies was the Japanese, until now, but not in everything.
South Korea is a neoliberal nightmare where majority of elderly people are living in poverty, with a pointless market competition and a low quality pop culture.
Singapore and Hong Kong are former British colonies, basically a micro states.
China itself is also far from being equivalent to Western Europe, British Oceania and Anglo Saxon America in all relevant societal topics.
But because PP is a typical hbd she (thinks) needs to worship Jews and East Asians to no appear a White Nationalist and or Supremacist.
PP can’t be nuanced, specially when it is necessary.
We can’t even compare East Asia and Western World with Rome and Greece, because the Rome surpassed the previous civilization it worshiped and copied, in terms of achievements.
Sadly irrationality wins again.
How define mental stability when East Asians have one of the biggest rates of suicide…?
Again, reducing complexity/multidimensionality to fit with your pet hbd-like narratives.
cmon PP you cant keep going with this delusional stream of thought that Asians are somehow better people or more advanced than any race because simply theyre not.
a lot of school shooters are asian not just in the West but a lot of crazy stuff are done by asians in their home countries.
even though its homogenized they still struggle with getting along with one another. theyre just clones of each other that is why they dont necessarily get in2 situations where things would difficult 4 any of them.
when they come to the West they become isolated secluded and only find comfort in their own community.
there is no relationship being created between other races and these Wuhan peoples.
i dont like them one bit theyre facetious and theyre not organized or intelligent its a facade their countries suck!
Even their food is superior. Cashew chicken soo guy is to die for
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-47ad14787c24afc57bf25507fd4e83ae-lq
https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/110194951111624891
I agree with most of what he says here.
PP is not just delusional but unsophisticated too.
Japanese cousine is good but no comparable to Italian. Sorry, buddy.
Wait. Even about religion, Buddhism was “born” in India, right?
Not hate about East Asians just that it’s not true they are, in collective and evolutionary terms, totally superior to other human populations.
the asians are blatantly idiotic. they dont see the bigger picture theyre little picture thinkers!
i doubt their verbal even in America is higher than average. its sad and inconvenient truth.
they lack mental stability 2 very psychotic and weird.
i get so turned off by just being around them! theres 2 many in America and other places!
they do the most obvious stupid shit and then go on 2 deny it or take pride in stupidity!
how is that a superior or more evolved peoples? ive been saying 4 a long time that chinese people are devolved. they look more like apes than black people.
have you ever seen a chinese person irl? theyre basically Down Syndrome looking.
theyre pathetic and weak! feeble minded 2. what is it with people thinking that Asians actually can contribute 2 a better society!
they just cant…..its awful that they dont see the explanations 4 their actions being useless.
in the grand scheme of things Asians are the stupidest people ive ever encountered. and thats me being generous.
The SAT probably underestimates his IQ because it’s likely that his greatest strength is spatial reasoning. I would guess his WAIS score to be like 150.
Where’s the evidence that he’s good at spatial reasoning? I would think if anything the SAT would overestimate his IQ because it’s less sensitive to autism (which he claims to have) than the WAIS, especially the older versions of the WAIS.
Circumstantial evidence of his being an engineer and anecdotes about his having an impressively deep understanding of various processes related to his projects. Asked, “where is the whole world?” when he was a toddler.
Asperger’s didn’t stop him from wangling his way to a quarter of a trillion dollars. You think he’d have trouble with your comprehension test?
“What’s the evidence that a pitchman engineer worth a quarter of a trillion dollars has high social intelligence and visuospatial ability?”
pp,
can you post the first comment I made?
I’ve posted all your comments as far as I know.
The one about 140 working memory?
I cannot see it. can you see it?
still says needs approval?
Okay I found it and several other comments by you I apparently missed.
Gangs of NY is an excellent movie! it showcases the dynamic of different whites and other ethnic groups during the American Civil War!
excellent movie!
also does anyone know what is happening in Australia with the Yes or No vote? what is the division all about? is it like reparations 4 blacks here and what demographics side with what exactly?
I’ve never seen Gangs of NY but in his excellent podcast about American civil war, Spencer Wells said if you want to know what America is all about watch it.
https://insitome.libsyn.com/american-collapse-cultural-evolution-peter-turchin-and-the-return-of-history
Sadly I can’t even link to great podcasts because Mug of Pee gets jealous and pisses all over the comment section of whoever I praise.
Turchin is a genius – extremely intellectually honest and rigorous and displays constant humility – obviously liberal but is deadly honest about the effects of immigration, women in workforce, and offshoring on the average member of the US working class – secular cycles is an incredible book.
He is finally getting lots of coverage in fairly popular alternative media but mostly being dismissed in the mainstream like the Atlantic article about him and by the likes of phoneys like yglesias and noah smith. A lot like Mearsheimer really
im so lonely i think i need a girlfriend a solid beautiful woman like i said preferably a Latina. i may be getting an arranged marriage to a pakistani girl soon as many of you will be thrilled 2 hear!
i just wanna be like Elon and have at least 11 kids.
Unban my comments.
As Cat helped me realize, there were a bunch of comments that got unintentionally missed that I just now published.
He’s at least a standard deviation dumber than Gates, so this makes sense.
Musk seems like someone with an unbelievable amount of energy who can consistently function at a high level for 16-18 hours every day. If you want to run the world, being able to do that is just as important as high intelligence. Most people simply don’t have that capacity.
Hes not dumber than gates.
Yes he is dumber than Gates. Gates is both a centibillionaire and a super nerd. Musk is a centibillionaire but not a super nerd. Belonging to TWO largely independent high IQ groups shows more intelligence than belonging to only one.
Hes a hardcore nerd. Without doubt. You should read the new book about his life.
By nerd I means scrawny with glasses & into Star Trek
Look at photos of him before his surgeries. He paid a lot of money to look normal. He also considered doing a PHD in physics before setting up Paypal.
More proof that IQ =!= Rationality.
You have neither. Youre not rational, not moral, not intelligent and frankly, not even funny.
PP needs 2 stop cloutchasing he is closer 2 bidens age than mine wtf is he even trying 2 accomplish!
I would screw him!
It’s nowhere near 140 NOW. The Saturn V launches had V-ramps, sprayed with enormous amounts of water and still, there was 15 cm of concrete errosion after each launch.
He fired his Falcon 9 pad team for his fantasy of a flat concrete pad and didn’t reconsider it for 2 years (2 years of free time during the SS pause).
Clear mental ilness from chornic lack of sleep and severe drug use.
Also, RR links to blogs that claim adult heritability of IQ of 0.3 and IQ/income/job perfromance of 0.01 (R^2). This is total breach of everything. If it was me, I’d limit him severly.
It seems to me that his SAT scores seem way too rounded in order to sum to 1400 and given that Musk is a liar the actual scores may be lower.