Twin studies predict that within a given (Western) country, up to 80% of the variation in IQ is heritable. And yet finding genes for intelligence appears to be analogous to finding intelligent life on other planets. We suspect they’re out there given the massive number of places for them to hide, but detecting them is the hard part. So far, out of the billions of genetic variants in the human genome, about 2,411 IQ “genes” have been found (with only about 127 of them being causal) and these explain only about 10% of the IQ variation within a Western country (not 80% like twin studies promised).
But these numbers should greatly increase as we use better measures of IQ (so far the largest studies use education level as a proxy for IQ since administering a million people a hour IQ test is much harder than just asking them their highest degree) and as genetic measures improve (so far the largest studies have only looked at a small fraction of the human genome).
Correlations: Individual vs group level
Currently polygenic scores correlate about +0.3 with IQ in Western countries (about the same as the correlation between IQ and brain size). While this correlation is not large, small correlations among individuals can become huge correlations among groups. For example, while the correlation between IQ and brain size is only about +0.3, the correlation between the average IQ and the average brain size of the 10 “races” studies by Richard Lynn in his 2006 book clocks in at 0.83! The reason for this is that as you move from individual to group level data, all the individual exceptions to a given trend tend to cancel one another out, and the underlying relationship becomes much more stark.
Applying the same concept to IQ “genes”, Davide Piffer found that the average polygenic scores of different races correlate about 0.9 with the average IQ of said “races”. So even though we’re a long way from being able to guess the IQ of an individual from his DNA alone, we can already make very reliable guesses about the average IQ of entire populations, or at least what their IQs would be if they were reared in contemporary America.
I turned to table 5 of one of Piffer’s paper (see appendix below) and noted the PGS GWAS sig scores of Northwest Europeans (IQ 100) and African Americans (IQ 85). Since the IQ gap between these two groups is thought to be 100% genetic (Lynn 2006), I simply equated their polygenic scores to their IQs, and using linear extrapolation, crudely assigned assign IQs to other groups in table 5. For example, since the polygenic scores of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were both about a third as far above Northwest Europeans as Africans Americans are below, I assigned them IQs that were as a third as much higher than the White mean defined as 100, as Black Americans are below (105 vs 85 respectively).
But since Black Americans are 15 IQ points below whites but only 75% bantu genetically, I assigned the congoid race an IQ 20 points below the white mean (15/0.75 = 20) which is 80, since they’re virtually 100% bantu. Then using Figures 5 and 11, I assigned Yoruba an IQ of 80 (since they’re Congoid) and the French an IQ of 100 (since they’re white) and by equating the polygenic scores of these groups to their IQs, I could linearly extrapolate to Arabs (Palestinians), Native Americans (indigenous Columbians), pygmies (mbuti), Australoids (Papuans) and Capoids (San). This method often gave wildly disparate IQs for the same race depending on whether I used figure 5 or 11 (perhaps because unlike table 5, these samples are low coverage genomes and thus unreliable) so I increased reliability by averaging. For example Papuans had an IQ of 81 using figure 5 but only 58 using figure 11, so I split the difference and assigned them IQ 70.
The first thing we notice is that the three light skinned races (East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Whites) all have triple digit genetic IQs and the four dark skinned races (Pygmies, Congoids, Australoids and Capoids) all have genetic IQs below 90. The medium coloured races (South Asians, Arabs, Native Americans) are in between.
The next thing we notice is the geographically isolated races (Native Americans, Australoids, and Capoids) score lower than their skin color would predict while races that border a dark Caucasoid race (Arabs or South Asians) do not.
Conclusion
When modern humans first evolved a few hundred thousand years ago, we probably had (genetic) IQs around 70 (capoid level). Then when we finally left Africa about 70,000 years ago, IQ began to increase the further North we went, peaking at around 85 for those who reached Siberia (Native American level). Then sometime after the Native Americans colonized the New World about 15,000 years ago, there was a 10 to 20 point increase in IQ for everyone who bordered the Middle East or South Asia. This included the Congoids of sub-Sahara who jumped from 70 to 80 and the East Asians who jumped from 85 to 105. We don’t know specifically what selection pressures improved IQ by about 1 SD in the last 15,000 years but it looks like Native Americans (isolated in the New World), Australoids (isolated in Oceania) and Capoids (isolated on Africa’s Southern tip) were just too far away from the action, and that action was near the Middle East.
Whether it’s the birth of agriculture, the birth of civilization, or the start of Christianity and Islam, the Middle East has long been the contact place of different races and the land where history was written. Even today, wars in the Arab World, tensions over Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominate the news. It’s thus not surprising that our genetic history was written there too.
Appendix
From Divergent selection on height and cognitive ability: evidence from Fst and polygenic scores
Pumpkin Person 
“Twin studies predict that within a given (Western) country, up to 80% of the variation in IQ is heritable.”
False assumptions bias this up. The EEA is false. Since it’s false then we can’t interpret the conclusions genetically. Mae Wan Ho’s review of twin studies is apt.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23865113/
“with only about 127 of them being causal”
Source?
“Currently polygenic scores correlate about +0.3 with IQ in Western countries”
Can you answer the challenge I posed to you 3 years ago yet?
“(1) provide a valid deductive argument, in that the conclusion is the phenomena to be explained; (2) provide an explanans (the sentences adduced as the explanation for the phenomenon) that has one lawlike generalization; and (3) show the remaining premises which state the preceding conditions have to have empirical content and they have to be true.”
“Since the IQ gap between these two groups is thought to be 100% genetic (Lynn 2006)”
What a ridiculous claim. Do you have a quote? It’s an empirical fact that the gap has closed on some tests.
“I simply equated their polygenic scores to their IQs”
This has no basis in reality.
Yotr storytelling and attempted rationalizations at your “assignments of IQs” based on PGS are pretty funny. Even funnier is your storytelling about your fantasy “genetic IQs.”
By the way, Bird showed that Piffer’s application of between-family PGS to ancestry groups is faulty. And he showed no support for the hereditarian hypothesis.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216
Your genetic determinism wasn’t apt in the 70s and it isn’t apt today.
And the missing heritability problem is specifically due to the false assumptions paraded by twin researchers.
So your scientific method is basically trash the papers that imply blacks are dumb and agree with papers that imply blacks are smart.
And then when confronted with IQ test scores from 80% of tests say the results are false because IQ testing doesn’t exist. And when 1 IQ test says blacks are smart, agree wholeheartedly with that particular test.
You are a religious zealot. You should be banned from this comment section.
“because IQ testing doesn’t exist”
I never said this.
It’s an EMPIRICAL FACT that the gap has closed some. And Bird showed NO divergent selection between blacks and whites. God damn, I’ve never met someone so confident who is so damn ignorant.
Why don’t you respond to the comment of mine that you’re responding to? Santo too, for that matter. Point for point. You won’t because you’re ignorant.
Can you explain my view on this issue back to me? I’d love to hear what you think my view is.
“I never said this.”
A bald faced lie. You said IQ tests are middle class culture tests. You said the ‘g’ factor doesn’t exist. You straightforwardly said IQ tests don’t exist because the mind is mental and measurement apparatus can only measure the physical.
You are a liar.
Phill is right again.Touché.
Ignorant about your bullshit??
Absolutely.
“You said IQ tests are middle class culture tests”
Yup.
“You said the ‘g’ factor doesn’t exist.”
Yup.
“You straightforwardly said IQ tests don’t exist because the mind is mental and measurement apparatus can only measure the physical.”
Which doesn’t necessitate the claim you impute to me.
“Ignorant about your bullshit??”
Nothing I say is bullshit. Do you have a response to Mt and Y DNA analyses and admixture analyses yet you two?
My conclusion that the mental isn’t measurable and doesn’t necessitate your claim that you impute to me which is “IQ testing doesn’t exist.”
Stick to complaining about boogeymen and don’t talk about things that are above your head.
You are bullshit. Everything you write here and there is a self projection of your own INNATE excremency.
Retard think he is an absolute expert also on genetics.
Good lord!!!
What do you really want to claim??
That Brazilian Whites are genetically identical to Brazilian Blacks and Pardos??
Being a Man and not a rat one time in your life and say directly what you mean.
Why only one 2003 study??
The king of cringey quotations and numerous links have just one study in your personal collection about it??
“My conclusion is”
Narcisism ^^^
Nobody cares about your stupid opinions…
“You are bullshit. Everything you write here and there is a self projection of your own INNATE excremency.”
Haha.
“Retard think he is an absolute expert also on genetics.”
I don’t think this but I know a little something about genetics.
“What do you really want to claim??
That Brazilian Whites are genetically identical to Brazilian Blacks and Pardos??
Being a Man and not a rat one time in your life and say directly what you mean.”
You OK man? That’s not the claim. My ultimate claim is that “Brazilian whites” aren’t the same as “American whites.” That’s it.
“The king of cringey quotations and numerous links have just one study in your personal collection about it??”
The king of not explaining why autosomal analyses are better for this context compared to Mt and Y DNA analyses says what? You don’t know why links are used. Just admit that you’re ignorant. And your cringe quote on autosomal DNA from Wikipedia and when I asked you what it means you were silent.
Pill you are a sad man.
“Nothing I say is bullshit. Do you have a response to Mt and Y DNA analyses and admixture analyses yet you two?”
Yes, you definitely practice sophistry to some extent. Because not only do you have your specific a priori assumptions about what is inherited and what is not, but you specifically treat the data that you think supports you as showing your assumptions are correct.
Obviously PP and most of us will cite some data as showing our beliefs about hereditarianism to be true, but you try to weaponize academic authority by using citations as definitive while ignoring other ones or saying they were “disproven” even when they are simply in contention.
“You OK man? That’s not the claim. My ultimate claim is that “Brazilian whites” aren’t the same as “American whites.” That’s it.”
You’re pretending as if a European (racially White) diaspora doesn’t exist. I don’t remember any one claiming that Brazillian Whites are the same as American Whites.
So you don’t believe in IQ tests. You accepted that above. Now shut the fuck up and leave the blog.
” I don’t remember any one claiming that Brazillian Whites are the same as American Whites”
Exactly, Lurker.
This ugly rat want to claim that Brazilian Whites are only a social construct because extensive mixing race and then myself.
Insufferable levels of ignorance and arrogance.
“You ok man”
You are psycho, just like PP.
At least PP is happy. Oprah built her imoral wealth exactly in the same way, exploiting human madness.
Lurker,
I explained my reasoning on how what I cited is better for the context of the discussion. And I think those two studies are pretty clear on their implications for hereditarian assumptions regarding “European variants” in admixed people.
Of course there is a diaspora. There’s a diaspora of Africans around the world, not only those that have emigrated a generation ago, and they’re not the same as their parent population, unlike European immigrants to America. Although they are mixed in regard to their parent population, they are still of the same race, according to the study I cited yesterday.
TP, you don’t understand what I said then.
I do understand. I caught you out. You said the black white gap is closing, but then you accepted that IQ tests aren’t valid. So there is a contradiction.
Haha that’s not a contradiction and you didn’t “catch” anything. The gap is closing and they’re not construct valid. They show one’s “distance” from the cultural tools on the test. There is no contradiction inherent between the two claims.
What are you really stupid? This is basic formal logic. If you say the gap is closing, you basically assume that IQ tests are demonstrating something. But if you also say IQ tests don’t demonstrate anything then why even mention the gap is closing. Your official JIDF talking point should be ‘there is no such thing as IQ tests or indeed any gaps’.
You don’t even understand formal logic. What it’s “showing” is acculturation to the cultural tools. See Helms’ (1992: 1098) prediction:
Acculturation and assimilation to White Euro-American culture should enhance one’s performance on currently existing cognitive ability tests – Prediction confirmed by Dickens and Flynn
There ARE IQ gaps, that’s an empirical fact. But “IQ” isn’t a biological property. Your official ignorant position should be to stop talking about things you don’t know about.
And people here still believe Phill is dumb…
This is a knockout!! Bravo, Phill!!
This blog is a living dead. I will reduce my presence here because this is a RR person blog. Just watching the madness…
Because it’s very difficult trying to debate with someone who use the most sophisticated academic sophistry, so called “studies”, and also use the same sophistry tricks to extend debates and confuse people at the max. It’s like being a boxxer who respect the rules of sport but fighting someone who use the most dishonest fighting tactics and even forbidden ones…
RR thinks IQ tests measure middle class aptitude, so he thinks blacks have become more middle class (in White people terms).
Even if that were true, it would mean nothing because no HBDer would care whether you could train someone to think more like a middle class person for a test to “bridge the gap” if their overall intelligence was the same.
“This is a knockout!! Bravo, Phill!!”
Haha no it’s not. I provided Helms’ prediction and it was then verified 14 years later. The so-called “philosopher” (who doesn’t understand formal notation and never talks about philosophy) doesn’t understand my position.
“no HBDer would care whether you could train someone to think more like a middle class person for a test to “bridge the gap” if their overall intelligence was the same.”
What do you mean by this? It’s clear that Helms’ prediction came true. Not only have they become more acculturated, they have become more assimilated in the culture that the cognitive tools derive from; this is clear from Dickens and Flynn.
It means that just because you can train someone to think more like a middle class White person (even though that is always changing) or doing moderately better on a specific IQ test does not show that one’s actual intelligence has increased in the first place.
Haha what? Dickens and Flynn even showed the “g” gap closed as well.
“It means that just because you can train someone to think more like a middle class White person”
Lurker, it’s not even a thing.
“It means that just because you can train someone to think more like a middle class White person”
“We can train” just like more than a half of East Asians…
“Haha what? Dickens and Flynn even showed the “g” gap closed as well.”
How can a gap close if G doesn’t exist you moron?
You are stating all tests of G are just middle class tests or some other domain specific test.
Again, intelligence has a magnitude, because informational complexity is real, and it doesn’t matter whether you can show a tiny increase in some highly selected sample.
““We can train” just like more than a half of East Asians…”
Yeah it literally doesn’t make any sense because why would highly selected groups from East Asia be BETTER than random middle class White people at answering as a middle class White person? Wouldn’t they be upper class? Or completely different because culture is completely subjective and knowledge is contextual as RR states? It’s just pick-and-choose buffet for RR.
“How can a gap close if G doesn’t exist you moron?”
Idiot, it’s from their paper. You know just fucking read it? And yea it doesn’t exist but… If you were to read the paper you’d see what I meant. But PP commenters are too dumb to read it seems.
Prove that the sample was “highly selective”. You won’t do it because you can’t because you won’t read the paper, and even if you did you can prove the claim because your claim is false.
“why would highly selected groups from East Asia be BETTER than random middle class White people at answering as a middle class White person? Wouldn’t they be upper class?”
Doesn’t understand the process of hyper-selectivity.
The process of hyper-selectivity leads to the propagation of cultural norms institutions and practices unique to the Middle class which encompass a stringent notion of achievement and an auxiliary educational system geared towards the success of the second generation within this cultural context.
Right the very first trolling comment and PeePee is totally passive to it. She likes it…
This is a RR person blog.
The fourteen (hundred) words…
RR says he knows more than me lol. If both Melo and RR went together against me at trivial pursuit, I guarantee I would beat them both.
We’re talking about a carpenter and fitness trainer who are simply out of their depth on a high IQ blog.
Although it might be that RR is a jew and pretending to be an idiot and so his real IQ is about 50 points higher.
Haha I command at least 100 dollars an hour. More for group classes and more complex things. Because my knowledge, skills and ability command that price. And I don’t lose my jobs all the time and I take showers and take care of myself.
>I command at least 100 dollars an hour.
Yes, so like I have $5.7 an hour.
But you believe no correlation between intelligence and income exists?
I have built up a skill set and knowledge over the years to command such a price.
This creature is happy and happy because earn more than others including possibly the majority of Black people…
Wouldn’t you be happy if you made good money doing what you love to do?
Apparently what you love to do is comment here, to the point where I don’t see when you have time to work at all, let alone make a high income
I do enjoy commenting here. Most times I’m working 3 days a week. I have downtime in my day and I have people working for me.
rr is the highest paid fitness trainer in the world other than richard simmons you clown!
and that’s a lot more than physical therapists make, and rr said he was going to physical therapy school. why would you do that to make half as much money? you wouldn’t.
so he’s lying as usual.
what a clown.
Not like I can’t have people working for me. What a clown.
Frankly, hes not a ‘fitness trainer’. No fitness trainer in human history reads these types of papers in this quantity.
Most personal trainers are guys I went to school with – jocks. There is a zero % chance they would even know with MtDNA is, yet alone read 1 paper about it. This clown claims to read nearly 100 scientific papers a year.
Its obvious….
JIDF.
This guy. What a joke.
Do you make 200K a year? What the hell do you do? Don’t you live in Jersey?
No I make less than that since I choose to work 3 to 4 days a week since I have the ability to especially since I have a new baby.
rr makes $100 an hour pimping other fitness trainers. what a clown.
Do Neanderthals!
I asked Davide Piffer to report polygenic scores for Neanderthals years ago but apparently he lacks funds. If he ever does I’ll apply my crude method to that data too. I predict Neanderthals had IQs around the same as Capoids because it wasn’t until the Out of Africa exodus that modern humans surpassed Neanderthals technologically.
Lame. Ask him how much money he needs.
If the jews were particularly craven and evil, it would make sense to pay for all the hbd blogs and secretly replace the bloggers with JIDF agents and pretend everything was business as usual. Every now and then casually slip in weird bullshit about jews eating children and climate change being a chinese conspiracy and make the alt right look deranged.
You overestimate the degree to which Jews oppose HBD. While some Jews deny HBD to encourage diversity & folks like Franz Boas, Jared Diamond and Stephen Jay Gould largely created the anti-HBD movement, other Jews are like me and just care about the science or even see HBD as good for Jews because if people know Jewish IQ > white IQ > Arab IQ, they’d be less likely to blame the Jewish dominance in both the West and the Middle East on sinister conspiracy theories.
Some of the biggest HBDers have been Jewish: Richard Herrnstein co-author of The Bell Curve, Daniel Seligman, Michael Hart, Stephen Pinker, Ron Unz, Peter Frost, Lion of the Blogosphere, even the greatest HBDer of all, Arthur Jensen was half-Jewish.
And many gentile HBDers are very pro-Israel.
Wouldn’t it be in the Jew’s best interests to deny the relationship anyways because game theory presupposes that ethnocentric groups beat out humanitarian groups and selfish groups, and the criticism directed against jews is that they are a mercantile group that is highly specialized in social parasitism by taking advantageous of altruistic groups of people and its in-grained into their verbal aptitude which translates to political dominance and overrepresentation in financial/law fields which is also known to correlate with sociopathy and psychopathy where lying/misrepresentation of facts/changing of perception enables one with higher IQ to make stupider people play smart phone games with their lifespan while inflation eats the raw purchasing power away or the spirit of law is reinterpretated to benefit only the ethnocentric group’s interest, which would justify the elimination of groups by genetic common interests because of the anti-social behavior that is masked due to the selective pressures creating this highly specialized psycho-social behavioral genetic architecture or at least that is the what the presiding indictment against this group of people is given as, an account, on general blogs I’ve read.
South Asian IQ is like 85 at best.
Peter Frost is a jew? I don’t think so. Lion is basically a neocon. And Pinker doesn’t acknowledge HBD openly. He’s extremely mainstream.
Its 100% against jewish interests to ever acknowledge race differences period. Very few non autistic people would accept a racial dominance hierarchy just based on IQ. The vast majority of third world people suspect whites are smarter than them and rejected their colonial empires.
Stephen Pinker has openly supported Cochran’s theory that Jews are genetically smarter. Pretty sure frost is Jewish
I don’t think Cochran has ever commented on Ferguson’s demolition of his theory, showing that his predictions don’t hold.
racial differences in IQ are irrelevant if Dunning Kruger exists
The value of understanding group differences in IQ lies in avoiding attempts to ameliorate group differences in success via methods that assume no such differences exist, thereby avoiding material harm. Individuals should always be treated as individuals. Institutional policy will continue to see race for as long as it is reified in terms of privilege or original sin. Individual communities that do not have proper resource access should be provided educational materials for their children, but race itself should never be a deciding factor for authorities’ decisions re individual outcomes.
Eugenics and being aware of HBD are enough 2 do everything that you outlined in a much more succinct way.
i think your optimism and certainty on the matters need better reflection but it can be sorted out in a more appropriate time period.
self awareness on the part of the individual is much more important than anything else because even with the stupidity of racially unaware people the individual can realize what theyre abilities prejudices whatever are.
anyways try 2 think outside the box 4 more ways 2 adapt to our current climate because right now nothing is working from anyone.
I mean there are differences but they’re not explained by genes.
oh shut up RR.
your blog is so repetitive from posts 2 comments it has no originality. theres been no changes 2 IQ in terms of race 4 years.
what is the point of all this lmao.
Can you re-ban this guy or just limit him to 2 comments per week? He’s another troll we have here.
youre an idiot. we should ban you. you serve no purpose on this blog except being a prick. a useless prick!
when have you ever said anything anybody actually wanted 2 discuss on here that others couldnt bring up themselves.
youre just a pawn man no one cares about you! you are the definition of a retardate.
I think Ron Unz might be the only honest jew in the history of the internet.
It’s because you dont read his comments about latino IQ in USA… He is very disappointing and suspicious. His platform is a madhouse. Any blog or site that support anti vaxx idiocy or Russia psychopathic “diplomacy” is threating its whole moral and intellectual integrity.
Where’s the error in his analysis?
Also are you talking about his crime articles? And don’t forget about the Holocaust denial.
You white trash are always saying the stupidest things repeating things and letting them become a part of the system.
i hope the white trash of the world get caught up in a riptide or a flood of sorts.
Pill you come from an intellectually disadvantaged family 4 a reason. stay that way!
Was feeling autistic, so I decided to tweak the arguments I made to RR about IQ being a measurement:
Argument 1: Modus Ponens
P1) If X has a high correlation to IQ, changes in X accurately predict changes in IQ
P2) X has a high correlation to IQ
C1: Changes in X accurately predict changes in IQ
Argument 2: Modus Ponens
P1) If X accurately predicts IQ, X is an IQ test.
P2) C1
C2: X is an IQ test
Argument 3: Reductio Ad Absurdum
P1) Assume IQ tests can’t be measurements
P2) If IQ tests can’t be measurements and X is a measurement, then X is not an IQ test
P4) C2
C3: IQ tests can be measurements
I decided to be even more pretentious and formalize the 3rd argument with fancy symbols.
P1) ~M
P2) (~M & P) -> ~Q
P3) Q
C3: M
What do you think RR? (Please, notice me, Senpai)
Race Realist does not believe that humans can retain and manipulate information in the mind melo. And information is both a quantity in space and in time. He believes you need to be taught everything spoonfed, people are not able to learn by themselves based on the bandwidth of information going in or circulating inside themselves.
Simply melo he rejects higher-order control theory.
There are people who can rotate 16 complex objects in their heads at the same time. I cannot even do one object but at least I acknowledge that a quantity exists in people. I do not know what Race Realist has against the quantities of information people can do in their heads. Perhaps he has never heard of the snowball effect. The slope of the hill the snowball rolls down will determine the acceleration rate of the accumulated mass. The slope is akin to the bandwidth at which we take in information and combine information together.
The claim is that people learn from society and the people around them in their lives—more knowledgeable others. I think everyone has similar potential but that it crystallizes differently due to motivation and differences in experience.
RR do you believe the quadrupling in brain size as humans evolved from apes has anything to do with us being smarter than apes?
By “smarter” do you intend ability to intend? I think that what separates humans from other animals is language and ability to intend. I think the quadrupling was possibly necessary, though. I’ll think more about this and get back to you.
Yes, intention is a key part of most definitions of intelligence. I’m not fussy about you define it but clearly there are huge mental and behavioral differences between humans and the apes and it seems hard to deny such a massive increase brain size payed a major role.
Yea I could see how brain size would be necessary but what became sufficient was our evolution as a social species, which is why I think Vygotsky’s theory has much to say about our development of mind and intelligence.
“By “smarter” do you intend ability to intend? I think that what separates humans from other animals is language and ability to intend. I think the quadrupling was possibly necessary, though. I’ll think more about this and get back to you.”
Are you fucking kidding? This should be literally something you’ve thought about 1000 times already. This is one of the basic contentions of HBDism (that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence) and evolution of human intelligence (from our smaller brain ancestors).
“Yea I could see how brain size would be necessary”
Literally makes no sense according to your view. Brains are physical and minds are nonphysical.
Unless you’re starting to realize that mental phenomena actually need spacetime extension so that they can be said to exist in some place and some time and hence actually correspond with the physical world. Probably not though because you never mention anything like that.
>I think everyone has similar potential but that it crystallizes differently due to motivation and differences in experience.
A crystal has a shape to it.
Are you saying that different forms of cognition exist?
If so cannot some people use memory more efficiently in different forms? That is they can use fluid memory to do more than others overall. That they can take in more and put more together in tremendously more powerful ways?
“This is one of the basic contentions of HBDism (that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence)”
0.24 correlation isn’t a “heavy correlation.”
“and evolution of human intelligence (from our smaller brain ancestors)”
Taken care of with the “necessary” part.
“Are you saying that different forms of cognition exist?”
I don’t see how I can be any more clear than I already was.
If people learn from society and the people around them in their lives, then they have similar potential, but it crystallizes differently due to motivation and differences in experience. People learn from society and the people around them in their lives. Thus, they have similar potential but it crystallizes differently due to motivation and differences in experience.
0.24 correlation isn’t a “heavy correlation.
A 2017 meta-analysis put the correlation at 0.4.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318191089_Brain_volume_and_intelligence_The_moderating_role_of_intelligence_measurement_quality
The truth is probably somewhere in between
I think the argument I mounted here shows—once again—the dishonesty of Rushton.
>I don’t see how I can be any more clear than I already was.
I do not believe everyone has the same potential.
answer me:
Can some people take in more and put more together in tremendously more powerful ways?
yes or no?
If I recall correctly, one of the current hypotheses about brain size is that the advantages in functional connectivity may equal or even exceed those of simply tacking on additional neurons, ceteris paribus. By analogy, the optimal ways to pack spheres in three-dimensional space are all planar stackings with about 74% space-filling efficiency. If the neurite density in some cortical regions decreases, there will be a greater number of potential relative configurations for neurons to occupy.
Post this one PP.
“I do not believe everyone has the same potential.
answer me:
Can some people take in more and put more together in tremendously more powerful ways?”
What does “tremendously more powerful ways” mean here? This doesn’t address the argument that was given to you. It’s valid and I hold it to be sound. The cultural argument I’ve given is strong enough to take down your simple claim.
“A 2017 meta-analysis put the correlation at 0.4.”
This 2019 study found 0.19 for TBV and “fluid intelligence” and 0.12 for TBV and edu.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797618808470
Even then, using “X explains Y percent” from correlations I think needs to be pulled back a lot.
That study found a low correlation because they “systematically controlled for sex, age, height, socioeconomic status, and population structure”. SES is a proxy for IQ so by controlling for it, you limit any correlation with IQ.
And a 2015 study found brain volume correlates 0.31 with IQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4518535/table/t0005/
The whole “SES is a proxy for IQ” thing doesn’t mean anything to me because the IQ-income relationship is mediated by family background and schooling, not IQ. Why should we accept Ritchie et al over Pietschnig et al?
The whole “SES is a proxy for IQ” thing doesn’t mean anything to me because the IQ-income relationship is mediated by family background and schooling, not IQ.
But IQ causes schooling and IQ genes cause family background, and even when you look at brothers, who have the same family background, a 15 point IQ gap in adolescence causes a 14% earning gap in adulthood.
See A QUESTION OF INTELLIGENCE by Daniel Seligman, page 139:
https://archive.org/details/AQuestionOfIntelligenceDanielSeligman/page/n157/mode/2up
Why should we accept Ritchie et al over Pietschnig et al?
Because Pietschnig’s analysis included a lot of bad studies where IQ was measured using very poor measures. Gignac and Bates showed that hwne you adjust for test quality, the correlation is 0.4.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-41361-004
I wouldn’t go that far. I think the true correlation is between Pietsching’s 0.24 and Gignac & Bates’s 0.4. Decades before MRI studies were possible it Van Valen (1974) predicted just based on head size studies that if brain size could ever be directly measured, a correlation of 0.31 would be found and I think that prediction was probably right.
“IQ causes schooling and IQ genes cause family background”
Can you justify this? Because both Ceci and Ritchie showed that education causes IQ.
How did they adjust for test quality? I would agree with your “true correlation” claim with one caveat—it’s probably between 0.24 and 0.31.
“even when you look at brothers”
Contra JayMan, birth order does have an effect on education and labor market outcomes.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/684445
Can some people take in more and put more together in tremendously more powerful ways?”
What does “tremendously more powerful ways” mean here? This doesn’t address the argument that was given to you. It’s valid and I hold it to be sound. The cultural argument I’ve given is strong enough to take down your simple claim.
Notice the way the JIDF agent gets flustered and weasels out when pinned into a corner
>The cultural argument I’ve given is strong enough to take down your simple claim.
Your claim is that everyone is capable of the same levels of performance in any task. That everyone has the potential for any level of intelligence.
fine, you can believe this but I don’t.
“The Philosopher” (why call yourself that when you’re completely ignorant of formal logic?) is a delusional clown. And AK I stated my claim above and gave an argument for it.
>I stated my claim above and gave an argument for it.
you cannot acknowledge that some people can do more than others with their intelligence.
What is my view? I clearly state my views, others here do not.
Retards talking to each other in sign language lol
Doesn’t understand formal notation lol
>RaceRealist
does not believe people differ in intelligence
believes he is the most intelligent
>AK
>Doesn’t understand my view
RR just believes he has put the most effort to become the most rational, even though he has no idea how that would work because subjective things like rationality cannot be transformed into objective things like measurements of effort.
RR = hypocrite
Sure thing bro. Fact is, so-called “philosopher” doesn’t understand formal notation. Then AK comes, not reading the room, and says something completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I think I’m pretty rational but I don’t make those claims, lurker.
Right, of course you don’t make those claims because you don’t even know what that would look like.
Right, I never made the claim. I make claims I can back.
I think that it doesn’t need to be shown that people are ranked according to performance since it’s self-evident, but the IQ-ist needs to show that they are ranked by a REAL property that is revealed by the performance. Of course the IQ-ist would try to say that it’s measuring g. And Jensen in his 1969 paper contradicted himself saying that we must not reify g but then 10 pages later he said that g is a biological property. Seems logic wasn’t his strong point.
Regarding A1, the IQ-ist needs to show that changes in X aren’t confounded by another variable (like a difference in experience). But IQ tests are experience-dependent, even the so-called “culture free tests) (as I showed yesterday). So I don’t think there’s anywhere for the IQ-ist to go. I think the best thing we can say is that it tracks one’s experience with the cultural tools that are embedded on the test.
Suppose M and P are both false, and Q is true. Then, P1) ~M is true, P2) (~M and P) -> ~Q is true (since the antecedent is false), and P3) Q is true. But, C3: M is false. So the argument isn’t valid.
“the IQ-ist needs to show that changes in X aren’t confounded by another variable (like a difference in experience). But IQ tests are experience-dependent, even the so-called “culture free tests) (as I showed yesterday). ”
I don’t know what an “IQ-ist” is, but the culture/experience dependency of brain/mental properties is a bad example as it has no bearing on whether the tests we use to measure them are adequate in doing so. This might suffice if I believed that IQ tests and brain properties were independent of experience, but I don’t; that argument hinges on a strawman. This is especially true if X is some hypothetical bonafide measurement of a brain property.
“Suppose M and P are both false, and Q is true. Then, P1) ~M is true, P2) (~M and P) -> ~Q is true (since the antecedent is false), and P3) Q is true. But, C3: M is false. So the argument isn’t valid.”
So, assuming P is false, then Q would be true, meaning all of the premises would be true, but the conclusion would be false, so it’s not a valid argument?
So, just to be clear, even if P was not false, the fact that P could be false means the argument is invalid?
Ok then,
P1) X is a measurement
P2) C2
C3: IQ tests can be measurements
or
P1) If X is a measurement and an IQ test, then IQ tests can be measurements
P2) X is a measurement and an IQ test
C: IQ tests can be measurements
LOL
So whag X do you have in mind?
“So, assuming P is false, then Q would be true, meaning all of the premises would be true, but the conclusion would be false, so it’s not a valid argument?
So, just to be clear, even if P was not false, the fact that P could be false means the argument is invalid?”
Even if P is not false, the fact that P could be false while all the premises are true means that the argument is invalid.
” If X is a measurement and an IQ test, then IQ tests can be measurements.
X is a measurement and an IQ test.
IQ tests can be measurements.”
Go ahead and defend these premises. Surely you know my criteria for measurement.
LOL two retards trying to talk logically. Hahaha. They can’t even do that in plain english.
“So whag X do you have in mind?”
I don’t know. Pumpkin did mention some physical tests correlated highly with IQ. Maybe he could enlighten you.
“Go ahead and defend these premises. Surely, you know my criteria for measurement.”
Well, first, X is just a hypothetical measurement. It fulfills the argument’s requirement if it exists and has a high correlation to IQ. However, it doesn’t really matter to me because I have two solutions to your criticism. A skeptical one, and a straight one. This is the straight one. It just straight-up refutes your contention. But, assuming we never find an X that suffices the criteria, then the skeptical one will be more than enough. I’ve already explained that one.
Because IQ tests succeed in contrasting mental abilities, it is practically indistinguishable from “bonafide” measurements. If we both took an Anthropology exam, you’d score good, but I’d score higher. If we took a Philosophy exam, I’d score well. You’d score higher. If we took the CCNA, I would pass with flying colors. You’d blow your brains out from confusion. It’d be the inverse result if we had to take some exam in Microbiology/Physiology.
The simple fact that we can compare our results in the same way that I can take a ruler and then compare our heights is sufficient in establishing the utility of IQ tests.
I don’t know. Pumpkin did mention some physical tests correlated highly with IQ. Maybe he could enlighten you.
I’m not following this debate but in a literal sense, all IQ tests are physical tests because the tester isn’t psychic. You have to respond to each item by interacting with the physical world.
But in a broader sense, chronometric tests of the speed and consistency of complex reaction time could be considered physical tests and these correlate 0.7+ with IQ.
“LOL two retards trying to talk logically. Hahaha. They can’t even do that in plain English.”
To be fair, I’ve tried having this conversation with RR in plain English, but he does have some issues not understanding arguments when they aren’t in the form of syllogisms.
Notice, he probably wouldn’t have even addressed this argument had I not reformatted it into something valid, despite the fact that both arguments, valid or not, were saying the same thing.
Syllogisms and formal notation are good when clarifying complex topics, but sometimes they oversimplify things.
He won’t ‘understand’ the arguments because deep down he wants all human beings to be the exact same and it doesn’t matter what the evidence is. He has stacked so many lies on top of lies, that the whole mountain is absurd and stupid, even to mainstream people.
The way to beat someone like RR in a debate isn’t to argue the ‘science’. You need to interrogate his priors…in plain english…you need to ask why he feels this way about blacks so much.
“chronometric tests of the speed and consistency of complex reaction time could be considered physical tests and these correlate 0.7+ with IQ.”
Do you have any sources I can read?
Read chapter 8 of Jensen 1998: Information Processing and g:
Click to access The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959354302012003012
Melo,
“Because IQ tests succeed in contrasting mental abilities, it is practically indistinguishable from “bonafide” measurements. If we both took an Anthropology exam, you’d score good, but I’d score higher. If we took a Philosophy exam, I’d score well. You’d score higher. If we took the CCNA, I would pass with flying colors. You’d blow your brains out from confusion. It’d be the inverse result if we had to take some exam in Microbiology/Physiology.
The simple fact that we can compare our results in the same way that I can take a ruler and then compare our heights is sufficient in establishing the utility of IQ tests.”
The issue with this is that just because there are numbers that come out from taking a test doesn’t mean that measurement has taken place. I agree with your contentions there, I just deny that actual measurement has taken place due to the measurement issues that psychometrics has (and haven’t been addressed in the psychometric literature).
And I think it’s important to provide valid arguments, which is why I point them out whenever I notice them (not only when they’re formalized).
PP,
“But in a broader sense, chronometric tests of the speed and consistency of complex reaction time could be considered physical tests and these correlate 0.7+ with IQ.”
The raw correlations are around 0.3, and people with low IQ produce RTs equal to those of people with high IQs but with less consistency across trials, which is due to the socio-cognitive affective nexus, meaning that test anxiety, and poor self-confidence explain the correlation.
“philosopher”
“you need to ask why he feels this way about blacks so much.”
Because I’m well-read on this subject on both hereditarian literature and the criticisms that surround it and was convinced by the anti-hereditarian literature over time? It wasn’t a quick change either, it was a slow burn. I “feel this way” because of what I’ve read over the years.
Now a better question is—why do YOU feel the way you do about blacks so much?
You admitted your views are extreme even for liberals. If it was a slow burn from HBD to blank slate, your views wouldn’t be so comically extreme.
You feel that way about blacks because jews control your mind. You’ve never actually lived in a majority black area or country…then the darkness will come. And you will see a low IQ version of evil.
“If it was a slow burn from HBD to blank slate”
I’m not a “blank slatist.” Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” and explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”? Prediction: You won’t.
“You feel that way about blacks because jews control your mind.”
Now a better question is—why do YOU feel the way you do about blacks so much?
“I’m not a “blank slatist.” Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” and explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”? Prediction: You won’t.”
Explain how you aren’t a blank slatist and why the differences between you and a blank slatist are actually meaningful to an HBDer or hereditarian.
Go ahead and name 3 of them, quote them, and explain how the quotes are blank slatist.
Rushton and Jensen (2005) stated:
“For example, if gene–environment interactions make it impossible to disentangle causality and apportion variance, for pragmatic purposes that view is indistinguishable from the 100% culture-only program because it denies any potency to the genetic component proposed by hereditarians.”
This is straight nonsense. The articulated view is one that completely devestates the hereditarian programme. That’s the DST view they articulated, and the GxE interactions DO make it untenable and impossible to apportion variance.
Why would I? Blank slatism defines “a human being regarded as having been born with no innate ideas or characteristics and being formed only by experiences.”
I don’t know how your position differs from a blank slatist in any functional manner. The only difference is you will say the “whole environment is inherited” but you still assume that the baby is only formed by experiences and all babies have equal cognitive capacities from birth.
“Why would I?”
Because it’s a legit question?
““a human being regarded as having been born with no innate ideas or characteristics and being formed only by experiences.””
I don’t believe that “innate” traits are a thing because so-called “innate” traits have been shown to be experience-dependent. Again, there is no mind without experience.
“The only difference is you will say the “whole environment is inherited””
This is correct.
“but you still assume that the baby is only formed by experiences and all babies have equal cognitive capacities from birth.”
I don’t see any reason to not believe this view is true because Vygotsky’s theory is valid. And people inherit their environment in virtue of being born into sociocultural-linguistic environments.
Also recall the experiment on fish that showed that even in clonal fish teared in the same environment that behavioral individuality still arose showing that it’s an inevitable and unpredictable outcome of development, showing that “later-in-life individuality can be strongly shaped by factors pre-dating birth like maternal provisioning, epigenetics and pre-birth developmental stochasticity.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34113-y
This is directly at-ends with a hereditarian viewpoint.
How is your theory different from blank slatism?
Answer: it’s not.
“This is straight nonsense. The articulated view is one that completely devestates the hereditarian programme. That’s the DST view they articulated, and the GxE interactions DO make it untenable and impossible to apportion variance.”
Uh that’s what I said. You just use the gaps to claim that nothing is inherited that can be said to be environmentally independent and gene dependent because the whole organism develops with the environment. Even though clearly development depends on specific genotype. What’s your point? Functionally there is no difference to blank slatism.
Development “depends on” the specific genotype only insofar that the genotype is necessary for the development of the organism—the genotype is a dependency condition. Every aspect of the organism is inherited (including the environment), and there is no context-dependent information in genes. Oyama showed that “information” is constructed through the irreducible interactions between the developmental system. So-called “innate” traits are experience-dependent (environment-dependent), so, what’s left? So the numerous confounds between genes and behavior (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1162/biot.2007.2.4.387), the context-dependence of genes (http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~dmoore/publications/2018_moore_gxe-interaction_.pdf) undercut core hereditarian claims, making hereditarianism untenable due to the confounds and inability to disentangle G and E.
(1) Suppose that there can be no environmental effect without a biological organism to act on. (2) Suppose there can be no organism outside of its context (like the organism-environment system). (3) Suppose the organism cannot exist without the environment. (4) Suppose the environment has certain descriptive properties if and only if it is connected to the organism. Now here is the argument.
P1: If there can be no environmental effect without a biological organism to act on, and if the organism cannot exist without the environment, then the organism and environment are interdependent.
P2: If the organism and environment are interdependent, and if the environment has certain descriptive properties if and only if it is connected to the organism, then nature and nurture are inseparable.
C: Thus, nature and nurture are inseparable.
So if nature and nurture are inseparable, then hereditarianism fails.
“The raw correlations are around 0.3”
Why would you use the raw correlations?
“So if nature and nurture are inseparable, then hereditarianism fails.”
Have you read the Stanford article on heritability?
Corrections are dubious in most cases and artificially inflate the correlation. Looking at the raw correlations gives us a better understanding and view of the relationship between two variables. And the fact that the relationship is so low means that there are other sources of variation that explain the relationship. Nonetheless, we know that RT involves more than simple response efficiency and that individual variation can be caused by numerous non-cognitive factors (like what I brought up before).
I haven’t read the SEP article on heritability in a while, what did you have in mind?
Corrections are dubious in most cases and artificially inflate the correlation. Looking at the raw correlations gives us a better understanding and view of the relationship between two variables.
LOL! The only thing they correct for is range restriction (studies are typically done on cognitively homogeneous college students which depresses the correlation) and reliability (if the chronometric test is too short, error wont cancel out; same for IQ tests). Nonetheless, even BEFORE making these reasonable corrections, the correlation approaches a potent 0.7 when multiple chronometric measures are aggregated. Jensen writes on page 229 of THE g FACTOR:
Jensen said that people with high IQs have more consistent RTs, so by implication, people with low IQs have less consistent RTs. We also know that high test anxiety produces more of a response variation. We also know the numerous non-cognitive factors that influence RT like familiarity, motivation and motor (muscle) action to name 3.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-98619-005
Motor speed can affect it which makes it all the more remarkable that we get 0.7+ correlations with IQ despite this huge non-cognitive confound.
Familiarity can affect it but this can be mitigated by giving everyone extensive practice to level the playing field.
Not sure how much anxiety and motivation can affect it because RTs take place at the level below conscious awareness. Jensen writes:
Anxiety also affects motor performance. Of course anxiety and motivation would affect performance on RT, since you need to react to the stimulus while doing the test. Test anxiety relates to self-esteem; we know it causes poor performance. So these variables that influence RT are of course class-based, and the implication I stated earlier is valid in explaining the correlation.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543058001047
Anxiety also affects motor performance.
Only if it occurs above the level of consciousness. You can’t feel anxious until you’re conscious.
Physiological changes impact motor skills like miracle tension, increased heart rate and altered coordination, so it would impair motor performance.
anxiety can only affect tasks that are consciously done.
If anxiety can affect physiological responses, then it can influence unconscious tasks. If unconscious tasks rely on physiological processes, then changes in these processes can impact those tasks. Anxiety can cause alterations in physiological responses. So anxiety can impact unconscious tasks.
Or
If anxiety has the potential to influence physiological responses, then it can impact unconscious tasks. If anxiety can impact unconscious tasks, then it could affect motor performance, even at a subconscious level. So if anxiety has the potential to influence physiological responses, then it could affect performance, even at the subconscious level.
Miracle=muscle
I agree with P1, and I’m not sure what you mean by P2, but the main claim by hereditarians is organisms will generally either develop poorly if the environment is not suitable, or will grow healthily but with rapidly diminishing returns if the environment is made suitable to their genetic potential. This basically gels with the fact that evolution is an extremely long process, and hence, organisms are structured to develop in mostly specific ways, with great variations either not encoded in the structure of the organism through its development cycle based on environmental changes or the variations being wildly dysgenic (because of the very complex nature of the genotype and phenotype).
P2 merely means that G and E are interdependent and cannot be understood in isolation when it comes to an organism’s traits and development. Of course an organism will develop poorly in a non-suitable environment but I’m not sure how that lends credence to hereditarianism. And there is no variation encoded in genes, they’re inert molecules and the variation arises through interactions during development.
“Corrections are dubious in most cases and artificially inflate the correlation. Looking at the raw correlations gives us a better understanding and view of the relationship between two variables.”
This is just statistical malpractice. You should stay in your lane, lol.
“what did you have in mind?”
I was just reminded of these quotes from Lewontin that the article cites:
The point of the (1974) paper was to explain why the statistical partitioning of observed variation in phenotype into variance associated with variation in genetic relationship as opposed to variance assigned to environmental dissimilarities does not, in fact, separate genetic and environmental causes in development” (2006, 536). He adds that advances in molecular genetics now make it “possible to provide a detailed molecular analysis of the chain of causation between nucleotide substitution and cell development and function
Scientists are quite frequently able to equalize certain factors and see the “independent” effects of one versus the other. That, of course, doesn’t contradict a developmental view of Phenotypic expression. However, problems seem to arise when we’re discussing complex cognitive traits for obvious reasons.
Well yea, biological systems are non-additive and non-linear, and G and E are non-dichotomous processes (see Rose’s 2006 article in the same issue as Lewontin’s). So what do you think the error in my argument is, then? Like I said in my argument, and as Lewontin stated in the foreward to Oyama’s Ontogeny:
“There are no “gene actions” outside environments, and no “environmental actions” can occur in the absence of genes. … Without organisms there may be a physical world, but there are no environments. In like manner no organisms exist in the abstract without environments, although there may be naked DNA molecules lying in the dust.”
I think that, combined with my other premises, guarantees the conclusion they nature and nurture are inseparable regarding development.
Can you give me a few examples of scientists showing “independent” effects and how other factors AREN’T interacting with the so-called isolated, independent factor? What do you think the obvious reasons are when it comes it comes to the discussion of cognitive traits.
try to get it published, since it certainly is a novel view of mind-body interaction.
^^^DEULUSIONAL NARCISSISM^^^
rr writes “papers”. none have been published or ever will be published.
…as Lewontin stated in the foreward to Oyama’s Ontogeny:…
^^^TOTALLY OBVIOUS AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT^^^
… are inseparable regarding development….
^^^TOTALLY OBVIOUS AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT^^^
rr: you just proved that X, but you didn’t prove that totally irrelevant Y,, therefore you didn’t prove X. i can’t do logic because low IQ man-bun clown.
Not irrelevant and if it were “obvious” then the last few decades of “variance partitioning” and claims of being able to separate G and E wouldn’t have happened. “Totally irrelevant Y”—it’s not irrelevant, because that’s giving causal privilege to G which isn’t tenable.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
Did you actually read what I quoted you?
“Can you give me a few examples of scientists showing “independent” effects and how other factors AREN’T interacting with the so-called isolated, independent factor?”
No examples exist because it’s impossible to separate G & E in development. However, I can take two plants with two different genetic codes and raise them in the same environment, then showcase that the differences in Phenotype A are due to differences in Genotype X in Environment Y. I can then take Plants with Genotype X and selectively breed them with other genotypes that produce the same phenotype in the same environment.
This doesn’t work for complex cognitive traits because the environment is infinitely more difficult to equalize. I think it may one day be possible, though.
There would still be stochastic variation but I would agree with that since we can establish and fully control the environment for them. The clonal fish studies from Laskowski demonstrate this fact (about stochastic variation from development along with uterine and epigenetic effects). I don’t think a true account of “genetic causation” is possible due to the inherent tangling all of the interactants have with each other.
And yea of course we can’t equalize environments for humans like we can for nonhuman animals and plants. This doesn’t stop the usual suspects from churning out h2 studies as if they mean anything.
“There would still be stochastic variation”
Of course. I briefly mentioned this in my Neural Properties of the Mind article. But there is some level of consistency in development, otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to breed animals selectively, and organisms wouldn’t have gone under millions of years of evolution due to things like Natural Selection. Convergent Evolution wouldn’t be a thing.
Stochastic variation along with directed mutation, and there’s also evidence of directed mutation in plants as well. We can breed animals because we can truly control their environments and select for traits. But this isn’t the case for humans for obvious reasons. There are mechanisms that allow the system to “fix” disruptions to it as well. And I did agree with your statement with one caveat. Nonetheless, I think my argument I gave above truly discounts the ability to tease out traits, especially with “heritability.”
Do we know the average IQ of the Igbo tribe in Nigeria?
no
PP have you seen “Us” yet? Just researched it today. So damn good. Can you give me a good horror movie to watch that has a decent story?
Us looks good but I haven’t seem any Jordan peele movies yet.
If you get tubi (which is free) I recommend Bury The Bride (2023) and if you get Amazon Prime I recommend Knock at the Cabin (2023).
And of course I always recommend the original Friday the 13th (1980)
I’ll check those out. Get Out was good (Peele movie) but I think Us is a masterpiece. I’ve heard good things about The Witch but I’ve not seen it yet.
Get Out is good until the ending. The ending is pretty bad.
Yea I didn’t like the ending. But the premise of the story was cool.
Get Out was persecution complex anti-White propaganda from a racially insecure overrated director.
Get Out was peak Obama era negro worship. The Obama years were some of the bleakest years in terms of social development in the western civilisation.
Lurker you need 2 get an attitude check!
Your estimates are generally consistent, except for the pygmies, I don’t understand how they can be more intelligent than the Congoids.
They are clearly reputed to be clearly less intelligent than the Congoides who used them in slavery… They still do it today.
Their IQ is closer to the Capoids, right? That would be more reasonable…
If you look at figure 5, pygmies have among the lowest polygenic scores but if you look at figure 11, they score almost as high as the French! Given the inconsistency in the data, the best I could do was split the difference which surprisingly gave them the highest IQ of any Negroid race.
But given this is the average of two very different numbers, it’s probably not that reliable and they may indeed be every bit as low as you say, but in their defense, they may have needed extra intelligence to compensate for their small bodies & survive in the rain forest (a different environment than the open savannas where humans evolved). Also, the fact that they were forced into slavery might be explained by their physical inferiority as opposed to low IQ.
You should not just be averaging those numbers directly. Bayesian estimation or compositing within population statistics for Subsaharan Africa would be more accurate. To illustrate my point, recall Bayes’ rule states that
P(A | B) = P(B | A)*P(A)/P(B)
If the mean for a sufficiently small population grouping containing Pygmies is reliably known, then the higher score is more likely to be an outlier than the lower one if that mean is closer to the lower score (which in this case, it certainly is).
Composite = Bayesian estimate = simple mean iff. the random variables in question are perfectly correlated.
i like the Pygmies! some can be cool.
LOADED that’s because you feel like a tall ubermensch amongst the Pygmies.
no its because i get away from fools and idiots like yourself when i am around them.
at least they have class and culture. get a life Lurker!
Pill is obviously a shit. a shit that cant be flushed away. is he white or not. if he isnt i think he may be the stupidest person in the planets history without a doubt because why would any sane man be cuckolded enough 2 support whitey the way he does it!
he is probably some irish traveller trash who shouldnt even be on this blog. im surprised this neanderthal knows how 2 work a computer.
Pill needs 2 be flushed away!
There are two things I’m curious about with regard to the Wilson effect: firstly, is there a differential impact on CHC narrow abilities; secondly, does the Wilson effect differ by population?
I’ve seen some studies suggesting that VCI curiously tends to show smaller heritability jumps with maturation than (measured) Gf, which could either reflect a limitation on the linkage between test results and a latent factor (i.e. rambunctious children will have less representative performance when it comes to on-the-spot processing) or expression of genes at puberty. Personally, my test results were all over the place as a kid — I got a 94 (SAS, not percentile) on the CogAT with severe school anxiety, 164 VCI with extended norms on the WISC, and average PRI after throwing the block design cubes at my proctor — but then about 150 on another nonverbal test given very shortly after. Since then my results have been much more stable, but in particular I now test higher on nonverbal than verbal ability. On untimed tests that seem half-decent (SLSE 48, SLSE I, SLSE II, LS36, LS24, LS60, Hoeflin Power, JCCES/CCAT, IAW, etc.) my “spatial” scores are estimated in the 175-180 SD15 range with current norms — verbal and numerical both average closer to 165. Of course, I am dubious of most of these norms, and I suspect my real IQ is no higher than 170. I’ve put “spatial” in quotation marks since it’s unclear whether these specific tests primarily measure visuo-spatial ability or visually-mediated broad fluid reasoning. I’ve also taken some standardized tests (albeit not under direct invigilation) courtesy of r/cognitivetesting. 1600 on a 1980 SAT form, 172/190 raw CMT-A, 518 scaled MAT, 2600 on an extrapolated GRE (860 Q/840 V/900 A), >170 FSIQ on the r/cognitivetesting extrapolated WAIS clone (CAIT, with estimated 174 PRI), 160 Raven’s 2, and 88/90 raw on the dental admissions PAT (which is certainly VSI specifically). Back when the TAVIS first opened (although I was and remain thoroughly unimpressed by that test), I obtained 19.
It is possible that I simply learned strategies for taking NV tests by studying mathematics, but that explanation isn’t wholly satisfactory. I feel like a moron most of the time, so my gut instinct is to assume the lowest scores are the most accurate. Then I remember I started grad courses at 15 and I’m not so sure. I used to be in special classes for autistic children and was never placed in a gifted program in elementary school, but then taught myself calculus for fun as an 11yo.
Sorry for bloviating so long about myself, but I wanted to provide background for asking how much of the Wilson effect’s stability is likely due to gene expression as opposed to simple measurement error. I still can’t tell if I’m stupid, honestly, except that I’m probably stupid for asking.
Entirely independent of my other comment, I have a gripe about how IRT is used (or rather how it isn’t). Once we extract factors/principal components, usually item characteristic curves are a smoothed logistic fit of the probability of item success when regressed against the inferred trait from item loadings. I’m a probability theorist, so it’s obvious to me that the fairest way to derive standard scores is to use a maximum likelihood estimate for the traits those scores purport to represent. Instead, virtually every standard test norms the raw score directly. This introduces error based upon item-level variability, while the confidence interval of a true IRT score should be tighter given a sufficiently large corpus of norming data. Do we not apply MLE to score-strings with item-level discrimination because the items themselves are chosen to minimize the difference (which itself is wasted effort), or because clinicians are too lazy to find the conditional distribution where each item is a 1-dimensional correlated marginal?
With other results (disintegration of measure à la von Neumann-Tulcea, Wasserstein gradient flow along geodesics, etc.) we have all the tools we need for exploring the best ways to smooth data and move back and forth between these different pictures.
“This method often gave wildly disparate IQs for the same race depending on whether I used figure 5 or 11 ”
Since these are both HGDP samples using a PGS derived from the same study perhaps you should ask the author why?
Also, nice job sneaking East Asians in at the top even though the Jewish PGS was slightly higher 🙂
Not trying to spam, but I’m curious what the thoughts are here on ancient Greece. Galton claimed Athenians in antiquity would likely have averaged 115-125 on a modern scale, extrapolated from rates of eminence. Some GWAS suggest that rates of many SNPs associated with cognition may have peaked before the Hellenistic period before going into decline, so it’s not entirely out of the question, but Galton’s methodology is highly suspect. Note that the Flynn effect doesn’t appear to be on g.
Nonetheless, I think Archimedes is one of the most intelligent people in recorded history. Aristotle not so much.
ive heard the Mycenaeans were pretty smart b4 the decline of their civilization.
the Victorians were a lot smarter than us 2. theres been plenty of evidence 4 dysgenics in our society and one that will contribute 2 collapse of the modern day peoples!
Assigning IQ levels to ancient civs or even the Victorians is basically crypto history.
no its not youre an idiot.
There’s a Russian mathematician who tried to find an inverse model for looking backwards at genetic drift. Essentially Fleming-Viot in reverse. He gave up after ten years or so.
But there’s a difference between trying to reconstruct ancient data purely based on modern data and using actual information from the relevant period to estimate individual traits.
yeah IQ is a modern invention so we if we look back in time we may find more plausible ways of identifying intelligence anyways!
the brilliance of the old ways will reign supreme over the stupidity of the Boomers!
the Boomers do everything in their power 2 limit change but i will not stand 4 it. we will revert!
IQ is a modern invention. Mathematics and (other, writing) language are not.
Yea it’s pseudo”science”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909003675
Wicherts is like a dog with a bone. He just wont give it up.
IDK about Greeks, but I remember seeing a polygenic graph regarding Italy and it put Republic era Romans higher than any other Italian group in history including modern Italians. However it used education related alleles as proxy for IQ so it might be showing stuff that isn’t just genetic IQ.
we dont need 2 be more intelligent we just need 2 learn 2 be more competent understanding and open minded 🙂
So if you type the word ‘gay’ into google. The number 1 prompt is ‘gay sauna london’.
The problem with race realists’ view, that people do not differ in intelligence, is that you can blame people in his view for not being able to learn/understand new things as fast as himself.
That is what he does all the time, blame people for being stupid/having different opinions. Because everyone all has the same potential so they don’t have excuses for being stupid/agreeing with him.
It is a backward view.
You cannot blame people for having low potential.
I’m not blaming anyone—people don’t have control over their nurturing environments when they’re infants and young children.
So you are saying people do differ in intelligence?
I said that those differences are about what people can and cannot do. But your hypocrisy cannot acknowledge that. You cannot agree that some people can do more than others.
Can you repeat my view back to me?
>Can you repeat my view back to me?
The more development you have from interacting with a more knowledgeable other the more you can do with intelligence.
That makes no sense because I met a 170 guy once and he can do more than me by 10 times without being taught. It was natural to him that he could take in information and manipulate it at least 10 times more than I could. his mother was abusive so he should be less intelligent than that but he is more intelligent than I am.
That’s not quite my view. It’s that intelligence develops through interacting in culture with people who are engrossed in the culture and learning from MKOs.
Can more culture and an MKO make me at the level of the 170 guy I met where I would be able to take in and manipulate information 10 times more than what I can do right now like him?
I don’t care about your anecdote.
You are saying everyone absorbs culture at the same rate that no one can do it faster and that no one mentally manipulates more than others.
I’m saying that people are/were exposed to different things due to their culture which influenced their cognition.
>I don’t care about your anecdote.
either people differ in amounts of intelligence or they do not RR.
cognition in people differs so mental manipulation of information can be more or less.
Your anecdote is irrelevant to the argument I’ve made. I don’t care about your anecdote.
Propel differ in what they can do due to what they’re exposed to. That’s it. People differ in IQ due to their exposure to the cultural tools on the test. Your anecdote is irrelevant. You haven’t refuted my argument.
I don’t care about “IQ”.
People either can do more or less with intelligence. It does not matter why.
Your argument is irrelevant to this fact.
Yea the argument IS relevant, because they do differently in virtue of their experiences.
Most of your bullshit is anedoctal but “passing” as scientifical.
Nope. You don’t even know why you’re wrong regarding autosomal DNA. Sad.
You call it “bullshit” because you disagree with you disagree with it but your not knowledgeable on most anything I talk about.
Animekitty,
You are right that RR doesn’t explain himself. He uses spatial (physical) language to describe the differences between minds and how minds learn. I.e. accumulate, crystallize, transform, etc.
That’s because any way you frame information (whatever format you want to put it in), you can always add something to it, and this implies spatial separation (or temporal separation which is another spatias essl axis, and physical obviously).
If you have one thought, and add another thought to it, the only way to consider those as “separate” thoughts is that they are physically separate. That’s why the word “separate” is used. If you can’t separate the two, then they have no distinct place to be (or time to be).
This gets back to the discussion about “actualized knowledge”. Any particular thought, in order to be actualized, needs a specific place and time to be. You can argue that its essence is timeless and spaceless, but its actualization needs a spatiotemporal context. So all knowledge is both contextual in practice and noncontextual in the absolute sense (because when you take the complete context surrounding that knowledge, it is obviously absolute for itself).
Anyway, the point being that any bit of information, which is a thought, idea, inference, property, quality, etc. can be quantified by the act of taking that and adding something to it. Whether this quantification is actually useful depends on the context, as RR states. But given that it is absolutely true that separate identifiable elements need spatiotemporal separation in order to be actualized and experienced according to the full complexity of their meaning, greater spatial complexity and hence greater quantification lead to more meaning by definition.
There’s no use in arguing with RR about this now because his ability to intuit what intelligence is limited to anti-HBD papers and he will never understand that information or mind has a spatial element except for his lame admission that “brains are necessary”, without giving an explicit reason as to WHY they are necessary.
Why is some physical aspect necessary for mind even though it is not sufficient? Because spatial separation is necessary for any form of identifiable or experienced complexity.
But for RR, he probably thinks brain size is correlated with IQ because people with larger or average-sized brains fit into the “middle class” more because having an average-sized brain makes you treated more average by other middle-classed people and helps you learn middle-class knowledge… even though no one can see your brain, having a larger brain wastes energy, and that wouldn’t explain why larger brains were better at being middle class.
But basically, because the mind is subjective (as qualities are immeasurable by themselves, which every thought or idea corresponds to), stating that intentions “cause” physical processes is nesting objectivity in subjectivity, and hence, unless one admits that the mind is capable of ascertaining the objective world in an objective way, there can be no correspondence between the mind’s intentionality and physical causes such as action potentials. And in order for something subjective to be able to ascertain something objective, it must be based on something objective itself. For example, mind must be objectively real, and objectively thinking about something that at least in some context, is objectively identifiable.
Actually, identifying the physical world already requires these things to be true and taken for granted. So basically, we have the subjective needed for any observation and recognition of identifiable differences or measurement, and the subjective also has to be objectively true and have the same objective structure that make subjective observations objectively true.
None of this makes RR 100 dollars an hour though so it will go through one side of his head and out his manbun.
“without giving an explicit reason as to WHY they are necessary.” “Why is some physical aspect necessary for mind even though it is not sufficient?”
Is this a serious question? I’ve stated the sufficient causes. Think about why the brain would be necessary for a second and tell me what you come up with.
“having a larger brain wastes energy”
There is no evidence that having a larger brain in the normal range uses more kcal than smaller brains in the normal range.
And this study showed no correlation between IQ and brain cells in the neocortex and a weak relationship with brain weight and also cited studies showing conflicting results regarding GMR.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727338/
“Is this a serious question? I’ve stated the sufficient causes. Think about why the brain would be necessary for a second and tell me what you come up with.”
I already know why the physical brain is necessary… I literally just said spatiotemporal extent is necessary for any identifiable property, which includes mental ones.
You on the other hand have no coherent model.
“There is no evidence that having a larger brain in the normal range uses more kcal than smaller brains in the normal range.”
So what you’re saying is that intelligence among brain sizes should be the same because energy use is the same? How does this help your case at all? You’re implying that if energy use was larger then intelligence would be greater and hence, physical measurements would correlate with the measures of the mind.
“And this study showed no correlation between IQ and brain cells in the neocortex and a weak relationship with brain weight and also cited studies showing conflicting results regarding GMR.”
You realize though that if smaller brains have more activity than larger brains so that they end up burning the same amount of kcal’s, that this is just implies that the smaller brains are just “larger” another physical dimension (time). None of this helps your argument that intelligence is not measurable.
None of these 50 person studies make your model noncontradictory.
None of them contradict what I said about all discrete information requiring spatial extent.
“I already know why the physical brain is necessary… I literally just said spatiotemporal extent is necessary for any identifiable property, which includes mental ones.”
Because the brain is connected to the whole nervous system, including of course the eyes and sight. I’ve already argued for what’s sufficient.
“So what you’re saying is that intelligence among brain sizes should be the same because energy use is the same?”
No? I’m saying that there’s no evidence that GMR is different between brains in the normal range, and the link I cited showed the contradictory evidence between GMR and RAPM. It also showed no relationship between IQ and brain cells in the neocortex and a low relationship between IQ and brain weight. I just don’t think that there is an appreciable difference in GMR between brains in the normal range, and the data backs that up. Anyway correlations don’t show causation, of course, but that low of a relationship and no relationship at all really speak against the claim you’re trying to argue.
“Because the brain is connected to the whole nervous system, including of course the eyes and sight. I’ve already argued for what’s sufficient.”
You’ve argued for it but not shown why anything physical is necessary for mental storage or mental processes at all. Literally nothing. You’ve just said that “action potentials are where intention is physically enacted” or something to that effect, which again does not explain why any particular physical organization of matter is necessary for something that is not spatial or physical in any way.
Are you following this conversation at all? Apparently not. Go back to doing deadlifts.
“I just don’t think that there is an appreciable difference in GMR between brains in the normal range, and the data backs that up. Anyway correlations don’t show causation, of course, but that low of a relationship and no relationship at all really speak against the claim you’re trying to argue.”
Which means nothing because nothing physically measurable has anything to do with the mind (according to you).
Stop saying “brains are necessary” and “human culture and intentionality is sufficient”. Get to the point: Why is physical ANYTHING necessary at all for intentionality to interface with the physical world? How would that even work in the first place if intentionality does not correspond to objective physical acts because they are dualistic?
Brains connected to the nervous system. So what? Minds don’t need a physical location in your view. Adding more brain matter should not be necessary for a mind that isn’t spatially located anywhere to sense the environment. Nonphysical phenomena should be able to nonlocally effect our bodies. Neurons should not have to fire in specific locations for the mind to effect anything. There is no need for a centralized nervous system unless there is a need for a physical storage or processor of information.
I won’t ask you to dispute the absolute fact that differentiable information needs spatial extent because obviously no Jew wrote about that. Sorry.
The physical interface is needed for the interaction. APs play a crucial role in this interface, and APs are electrochemical events that transmit signals, enabling communication between the mind and body. The mind can influence the initiation of APs through intentions and thoughts. APs are the means by which the mind interacts and interfaces with the body. The mind’s effects are mediated through the physical, which is why the physical is involved with this process. Intentionality and mental activity don’t correspond to physical locations or matter but they use physical processes as a medium to enact their influence. The brain and the body serve the purpose of facilitating the mind’s interaction with the world. They function as tools for the mind’s expression. Brains and nervous systems are dependence conditions.
@RR
The ” interface” matters.
If I am born a retardate I will not be able to do many things because the “interface” sucks.
But if my “interface” is the best possible then being born with the best “interface” makes it highly likely my intelligence will supersede everyone else because my intelligence is dependent on it. My intelligence would be higher no matter what culture I am born into because of my “interface”.
And to extrapolate what lurker is saying: any interface has a spatio-temporal shape that needs a location or does not exist in the universe.
My view doesn’t specify a “best interface”, it proposes that the mind’s interaction with the physical world occurs through action potentials and can adapt to various cultural and environmental contexts shaping ones intelligence over time while interacting with cultural/psychological tools and interacting with MKOs that push them in their ZPD. The mind interfaces with the physical world through the body and APs.
If you don’t understand my view, just don’t say anything.
“The physical interface is needed for the interaction. APs play a crucial role in this interface, and APs are electrochemical events that transmit signals, enabling communication between the mind and body. The mind can influence the initiation of APs through intentions and thoughts. APs are the means by which the mind interacts and interfaces with the body. The mind’s effects are mediated through the physical, which is why the physical is involved with this process. Intentionality and mental activity don’t correspond to physical locations or matter but they use physical processes as a medium to enact their influence. The brain and the body serve the purpose of facilitating the mind’s interaction with the world. They function as tools for the mind’s expression. Brains and nervous systems are dependence conditions.”
All of this is just repeating yourself. You’re once again just making a series of metaphysical statements while having no model through which any of this has any metaphysical explanation.
Obviously the brain and body facilitate the mind’s interaction with the world… that doesn’t explain why any localized physical body is necessary and why a mind suddenly pops up when a physical body starts growing.
“APs are the means by which the mind interacts and interfaces with the body”
Why does a mind need one body? Why does it need to grow with the body in time? Why can’t a mind simply effect changes around the world without being physically connected to the brain? Why would the mind be born and die with the brain? Why would something subjective and nonphysical need to interact with something objective and physical in a local manner? Why would the central
part of the nervous system be so large in humans (the brain) if spatial extension was unnecessary for the storage and processing of more information?
You’re just making it up as you go but you have no coherent model for what the physical vs. mental is.
“The mind can influence the initiation of APs through intentions and thoughts.”
You still haven’t explained how a subjective mind can be converted to an objective real world effect, unless you are finally admitting that mind must actually be objectively ascertaining reality to some extent.
RR: Brains needed to be large enough for human intelligence to develop. The nervous system needs to be complex and span a large enough extent to be a better interface for the mind to the physical world.
But brain size has nothing to do with intelligence! even though I just said that brain size has something to do with intelligence in different words.
I don’t practice sophistry though. Why? Because I think I’m saying something different, because I don’t actually have a coherent model of how intelligence works so since I use different words to describe the same things as other people, and because I don’t have a coherent model to check whether my ideas are correct, since the words are different they MUST be different conclusions and I can OWN the hereditarians! Pay me $100.
“And to extrapolate what lurker is saying: any interface has a spatio-temporal shape that needs a location or does not exist in the universe.”
I would agree, and the complexity of the information itself that needs to be spatially differentiated to the degree the complexity is experienced.
I.E. If I envision a yellow banana, to the degree I’m experiencing different elements of the banana, they all need to be identifiably separate. This automatically happens for us in our mind because we have different sensory “spaces” for colors, shapes, words, smells, etc. We can cleanly differentiate between all of those as individual units at different times. I can understand what yellow is separately from banana and vice versa. But I can also put the color and concept together in my mind, to form one coherent concept. The more mental effort I put into the image, the more individual separate elements I understand about the banana, or equivalently, the more complex the banana becomes in my mind.
Maybe a better way to explain it is to say it has multiple dimensions of complexity. You could consider a new dimension added with each element. Instead of spatial separation, it is dimensional stacking on the same space. So a dimension of color, shape, smell, taste, etc. down the list for every distinct quality.
But the point remains that information must be separable somehow given that it IS actually separated.
We could say that different qualities are wrapped up in tiny dimensions like string theory, but either way, if they are different qualities that somehow exist in the same location and time, they must be separated somehow… because otherwise how could they have a separate existence? Whether this shows up as extra space or neurons in the brain does not change that complexity, by definition, requires dimensionality (for the differences) or extension (for the similar instances that have a different context). Therefore, the idea that “mind is not reducible to the physical” is basically incoherent when you realize that the physical and mental are just different organizations of information, and obviously they are interdependent.
>the mind’s interaction with the physical world occurs through action potentials
how does this change the brain?
development requires change for intelligence to mature.
>and can adapt to various cultural and environmental contexts shaping ones intelligence over time while interacting with cultural/psychological tools
you mention a shape.
what shape is intelligence over time?
>and interacting with MKOs that push them in their ZPD.
mental manipulation of information can be more or less(ZPD).
what spatiotemporal brain shapes allow people to do more or less than others as they change?
>The mind interfaces with the physical world through the body and APs.
an interface is a spatiotemporal shape so some interfaces will be physiologically retardate and others will be super genius physiologically interfaces.
again what makes the brain change shape to develop and mature intelligence(mental manipulation of information)? What do the APs do in your analogy of intelligence ZPD?
“You’re once again just making a series of metaphysical statements while having no model through which any of this has any metaphysical explanation.”
It answers your questions.
“Why does a mind need one body? Why does it need to grow with the body in time? Why can’t a mind simply effect changes around the world without being physically connected to the brain? Why would the mind be born and die with the brain? Why would something subjective and nonphysical need to interact with something objective and physical in a local manner? Why would the central
part of the nervous system be so large in humans (the brain) if spatial extension was unnecessary for the storage and processing of more information?”
Already said this. Disembodied minds are a logical impossibility. Our bodies are used to carry out things in the world.
“you have no coherent model for what the physical vs. mental is.”
Yea i do. My CID.
“You still haven’t explained how a subjective mind can be converted to an objective real world effect, unless you are finally admitting that mind must actually be objectively ascertaining reality to some extent.”
What you’re responding to get at it. It’s a coherent model that gets at how the mind interacts with the body.
“because I don’t actually have a coherent model of how intelligence works so since I use different words to describe the same things as other people, and because I don’t have a coherent model”
My model is coherent, it explains the necessary and sufficient conditions. My definition is qualitative. Hereditarians are the ones who miss out on a ton which I’ve argued for for years. There’s no saving it.
“the idea that “mind is not reducible to the physical” is basically incoherent when you realize that the physical and mental are just different organizations of information, and obviously they are interdependent.”
They’re qualitatively different; they have different properties. The most important difference is that physicalism cannot explain intentionality.
“how does this change the brain?”
Stupid question. Every experience changes the brain especially new experiences.
“you mention a shape.
what shape is intelligence over time?”
Reread what I said. Stupid question.
“what spatiotemporal brain shapes allow people to do more or less than others as they change?”
This question is incoherent and doesn’t matter to my model.
“makes the brain change shape to develop and mature intelligence(mental manipulation of information)? What do the APs do in your analogy of intelligence ZPD?”
APs are the interface where the king and body meet.
What’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for intelligence?
Also keep in mind when I ask “what’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for intelligence?” the question is in relation to psychometrics. So only respond if you can cite psychometric literature that answers the question. I’ve been looking for an answer to the question literally for years. They’ve had 40 years to respond to Berka and 30 for Nash. And there is no satisfactory response.
Keep in mind that even king IQ-ist himself Richard Haier is forced to admit that there is no measurement unit for IQ like there is for height and weight. Also keep in mind that the attempted analogy of temperature doesn’t work either. Hereditarians have spectacularly failed for decades in answering these conceptual questions but they still go on with their stuff.
Also keep in mind, before a measurement unit is introduced, we must know what we’re measuring and if it can be measured at all.
Test scores, which have their own arbitrary scales, should map onto the hypothesized range of mathematics ability in the brain in a non decreasing functional relation (Vautier et al. (2012)). Such evidence has not been provided by test developers. Aside from studies that find that young infants possess fundamental cognitive capacities to differentiate auditory and
visual stimuli (G. Dehaene-Lambertz and Spelke (2015)), standardized tests aimed at “measuring” cognitive abilities use the verb measure in a metaphorical sense (Briggs (2013)).”
This is because psychometricians have their own special definition of “measurement” (Michell, 1997). Thing is, I want references from psychometrics research which talk about these clearly devestating issues. That I can’t find any that address these is very telling… Because psychometrics isn’t measurement.
“It answers your questions.”
Hey, maybe try reading. You answered by questions with unfounded assumptions that contradict your own arguments.
“Already said this. Disembodied minds are a logical impossibility. Our bodies are used to carry out things in the world.”
That’s a claim which contradicts the nature of mind according to you, which has no spatial extension and does not need a place to be in reality because it is not reducible to matter.
I’m so tired of your idiocy.
“you have no coherent model for what the physical vs. mental is.”
“Yea i do. My CID.”
That’s not a coherent model retard.
You don’t explain where consciousness came from and why it is of a different nature than the physical but the physical is necessary. In fact you don’t even have a coherent explanation of what the physical is.
“What you’re responding to get at it. It’s a coherent model that gets at how the mind interacts with the body.”
No it doesn’t. You don’t have any coheren model… because it is contradictory.
“My model is coherent, it explains the necessary and sufficient conditions. My definition is qualitative. Hereditarians are the ones who miss out on a ton which I’ve argued for for years. There’s no saving it.”
It explains nothing you weasel. It’s just a bunch of assumptions and they contradict each other or leave gaps open (which is why I asked those questions about why the mind needs to be attached to something physical, in a specific location, and be centralized, etc.) You have no coherent explanation for why the mind needs to follow the laws of physics sometimes but not others. You pick and choose.
Just because hereditarians are wrong or making assumptions as well does mean your argument is correct, and in fact there arguments at least explain things yours don’t, even though they don’t explain the physical or mental either and have problems yours doesn’t.
“the idea that “mind is not reducible to the physical” is basically incoherent when you realize that the physical and mental are just different organizations of information, and obviously they are interdependent.”
“They’re qualitatively different; they have different properties. The most important difference is that physicalism cannot explain intentionality.”
DURRR are you following at all? You can say anything you want but if you have no coherent model you are just spouting off bullshit that allows for minds that do not follow the laws of physics.
Do I need to dangle a dumbbell in front of you for you to actually understand the words I’m saying? Or a Jewish paper? Or a hundred dollah bill?
“how does this change the brain?”
“Stupid question. Every experience changes the brain especially new experiences.”
DURRR DIS WAT DUH SUPA SMART SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN DA RACIAL EQUALITY SAY BUT I DONT HAVE A MODEL DURRR
“Reread what I said. Stupid question.”
Stop insulting AK when
“what spatiotemporal brain shapes allow people to do more or less than others as they change?”
“This question is incoherent and doesn’t matter to my model.”
So what you’re saying is that shape and energy use don’t matter to intelligence but a certain brain size and structure is necessary for the mind to interface with physical.
Yeah that’s not contradictory at all.
Even though it literally leaves the way open for different structured brains being better interfaces.
“APs are the interface where the king and body meet.”
Metaphysical assumption with literally no explanation that contradicts your own idea that mind does not follow laws of physics.
“Also keep in mind when I ask “what’s the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for intelligence?” the question is in relation to psychometrics. So only respond if you can cite psychometric literature that answers the question. I’ve been looking for an answer to the question literally for years. They’ve had 40 years to respond to Berka and 30 for Nash. And there is no satisfactory response.”
Go fuck yourself. Even if someone gives you a coherent model of intelligence or points out the holes in yours, you want to prove that you’re “correct” by relying on biased citations.
I don’t give a shit about whether some psychometrician 40 years said something incorrect about intelligence.
“Keep in mind that even king IQ-ist himself Richard Haier is forced to admit that there is no measurement unit for IQ like there is for height and weight. Also keep in mind that the attempted analogy of temperature doesn’t work either. Hereditarians have spectacularly failed for decades in answering these conceptual questions but they still go on with their stuff.””
Keep in mind that if the mental is qualititatively different from the physical but must interact with the physical world in this exact way (because I said so) and must evolve through localistic transferrance of culture (because I said so) and that the cognitive capacities inherent in a young baby develop into a fully formed mind through culture but these cognitive capacities are exactly the same for all babies (because I said so) even though they are completely subjective and there is no way to compare them in the first place (because I said so) so that the idea that we could even say they were the same thing doesn’t make any sense except for the fact that they must be different from the physical, which is the only commonality they hold and every other feature they have I can decide on-the-fly.
Just keep that all in mind bro!
“Stop insulting AK when” you don’t have a better explanation of anything, simply more citations and degrees.
I meant to say something like that ^^^
“That’s a claim which contradicts the nature of mind according to you”
This isnt an entailment of my view.
“You don’t explain where consciousness came from and why it is of a different nature than the physical but the physical is necessary. In fact you don’t even have a coherent explanation of what the physical is.”
I don’t need to explain “where it came from”, I explain how it arises. I’ve explained “what the physical is.” P is necessary because there need to be P facts for there to be M facts.
“No it doesn’t. You don’t have any coheren model… because it is contradictory.”
There’s nothing contradictory in my CID. I coherently explain how M interacts with P through APs.
“You have no coherent explanation for why the mind needs to follow the laws of physics sometimes but not others.”
I gave an explanation and you said “nuh-uh” which isn’t an argument. Claims aren’t arguments.
“Just because hereditarians are wrong or making assumptions as well does mean your argument is correct, and in fact there arguments at least explain things yours don’t, even though they don’t explain the physical or mental either and have problems yours doesn’t.”
What is this nonsense? Why don’t you give me some citations and explanations for this ridiculous claim?
“You can say anything you want but if you have no coherent model you are just spouting off bullshit that allows for minds that do not follow the laws of physics.”
My model is coherent. I’ve explained how it’s consistent with physical laws. You’re just saying “nuh-uh” and making claims doesn’t refute any argument I’ve made.
“shape and energy use don’t matter to intelligence but a certain brain size and structure is necessary for the mind to interface with physical.”
It’s not a contradiction.
“Metaphysical assumption with literally no explanation that contradicts your own idea that mind does not follow laws of physics”
Not a contradiction.
“Go fuck yourself. Even if someone gives you a coherent model of intelligence or points out the holes in yours, you want to prove that you’re “correct” by relying on biased citations.
I don’t give a shit about whether some psychometrician 40 years said something incorrect about intelligence.”
Uh because the object of my attack all of these years is psychometrics and how they don’t do what they claim they’re doing? “biased citations” lol. I’ve been looking for years for answers to these questions and I haven’t found them. Isn’t that strange? I hold the views I do for a reason.
“Just keep that all in mind bro!”
Look—my model is coherent. M is qualitatively different from P, and interacts with the world though APs. It’s a sound argument. My qualitative model/definition of intelligence is also coherent.
At the end of the day, psychometrics doesn’t work at all and you nor anyone else has shown anything to the contrary in the literature. That’s what I really want to see. But, that I haven’t seen any citations to the contrary just strengthen my point. All of this aside lurker, I don’t care about this argument I just want some citations to the psychometrics literature that address the points I make, and if they don’t exist then that’s very telling.
The brain’s role as an interface doesn’t impose strict limitations on the mind’s metaphysical aspects but rather provides a necessary connection to the purely physical world. The mind’s intelligence and operation transcend purely physical aspects allowing for a comprehensive interaction between M and P, as proposed by my CID. So the statements reflect the dualistic nature of my framework and they’re not contradictory.
And standardized tests aren’t on an interval scale.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920303512
“The brain’s role as an interface doesn’t impose strict limitations on the mind’s metaphysical aspects but rather provides a necessary connection to the purely physical world.”
There is no need for a specific local interface for the physical world if brain is not physical. I’ve explained this a million times. You have to show another apriori reason why the mind must be centrally located in some physical space to interface with the physical… and basically that would lead to you having to admit that physicality and spatiotemporal locality matter for the mind to have its specific types of effects on the world… which is what HBDers already believe.
Again RR, the problem with your ideas is that they seem to contradict themselves (proposing nonphysicality and then claiming it is tied to physicality, proclaiming that mind is immeasurable and then stating that all infants have basically the same cognitive abilities pre-cultural attainment, etc.) but also that I could follow your apriori reasoning and arrive at a conclusion that intelligence is absolutely measurable and can differ in context-free meaningful ways. Such as showing that informational complexity is the same as qualitative complexity, and that is what the mind processes (qualities/properties/information).
“There is no evidence that having a larger brain in the normal range uses more kcal than smaller brains in the normal range.”
It does mean that, though. Having more neurons necessarily means you have a higher GMR. Herculano showed that in her studies.
That said, I still wouldn’t expect the number of neurons to have a significant correlation to intelligence for the same reason that a factory with twice as many workers would not necessarily translate to higher production output.
And I think I may have to agree with Lurker here, at least in spirit. Your AP hypothesis has no predictive power as the neural correlates that underpin M can just as easily explain P effects. It’s somewhat similar to Fodor’s critique of NS. It’s definitely an interesting theory, but it’s just impossible to prove and pretty redundant.
Lurker,
My interface argument doesn’t imply that the mind is fundamentally physical, it merely serves as the means that the mind interacts with the brain. It’s like when Descartes proposed that the peneal gland was the point of contact, it didn’t mean that the mind as he conceived of it was fundamentally physical. So my argument basically picks up from where he left off, and proposes another mechanistic interface for mental causation. So the framework posits—as all substance dualist frameworks do—that the mental is irreducible to the physical. I then take this a step further, in arguing that only the physical is measurable so the mental isn’t measurable. The fundamental nature of the mind transcends measurement. That’s the ultimate claim.
So the idea is that all infants have a foundational cognitive capacity which is then shaped and molded by the socio-lingistic cultural environments they are born into, so cognitive abilities are shaped by the culture they’re born into. And the mind’s unique capacity for processing information doesn’t inherently lead to the conclusion that you want it to.
Melo,
“Having more neurons necessarily means you have a higher GMR. Herculano showed that in her studies.”
I’m very familiar with her works but did she showed this is true for human brains and variations in the normal range?
“It’s somewhat similar to Fodor’s critique of NS. It’s definitely an interesting theory, but it’s just impossible to prove and pretty redundant.”
Melo, my theory is a philosophical one and attempts to show how the mind interacts with the brain. It doesn’t need to make predictions. And I’ll take the praise from you, friend. That’s rare from you.
“but did she showed this is true for human brains and variations in the normal range?”
She showed that Neurons have the exact same energetic costs across multiple species. If I have more neurons than you, my brain is hungrier. QED.
Another consequence of a seemingly constant metabolic cost
per neuron across species is that the total metabolic cost of rodent and primate brains, and of the human brain, is a simple, linear function of their total number of neurons (70) (Fig. 6), regardless of average neuronal size, absolute brain size, or relative brain size compared with the body. At an average rate of 6 kcal/d per billion neurons (70), the average human brain, with 86 billion neurons, costs about 516 kcal/d.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21390261/
“my theory is a philosophical one ”
That doesn’t matter. If your argument were a priori (it’s not), then it would just be establishing definitions and concluding from them. And therefore, it wouldn’t need to make predictions or empirical evidence. However, your theory is trying to explain how phenomena interact. Just as NS is impotent as an explanatory mechanism without predictive power, yours is, too.
Good theories make predictions. Yours is incapable of doing that. You’re making a just-so story.
By the way, you are very welcome. You’re an intelligent person. But feel free to prove why your explanatory theory doesn’t need predictions. Being philosophical doesn’t change that, in my view.
RR, you don’t seem to understand or accept that 1. many models such as the one I proposed that contradict your model fit portions of your assumptions/aprioris. 2. Subjectivity and objectivity are mutually necessary (context is necessary and that context having some objective existence is necessary). 3. Intentionality has no way to lead to objective physical outcomes through APs if there is nothing objective about mental states 4. complexity by definition leads to measurably relative quantitative differences, and information has complexity because it has qualities that can be separated.
Plus many more things I can’t remember.
But to put it another way, the same reasoning that leads you to think that the mind interfaces through the nervous system and action potentials, and leads you to believe that people form their mental models through MKOs in their ZPDs, leads one to accept that without a physical brain, there is absolutely no mind associated with that person. Because 1. it assumes that there is no mind before the brain (brain is necessary), 2. all external measurements/indications of the mind cease the person’s brain stops functioning and neurons stop firing (when they’re dead, and 3. activity decreases in the brain in association with first-person experiences of unconscious states (sleep or coma), and more empirical evidence that shows the brain is necessary for mind.
So in other words, since you cannot base your cultural acquisition model on any physical or metaphysical proof, and you use empirical methods like the rest of us, the same empirical facts show that without the brain there is NO mind, meaning that it is more than an “interface”, it is the actual housing of the mind.
If it is not where the mind is located or existing, it is implied that the mind could continue before or after the brain.
All you do is reiterate that “the brain is necessary but not sufficient for mind” and “mind is not reducible to the physical” but you base your ideas on empiricism when you want and apriori metaphysical assumptions when you want, even though those assumptions imply contradictory possibilities to your model. (your assumptions either imply that the brain actually is the mind, insofar as it is housing or tied to it existentially, or that minds can exist without brains in ways that may be more religious or supernatural).
Not sure how I can explain this any more simply.
Melo,
The brain’s daily energy consumption is between 320 and 500 kcal. Moreover, there are contradictory results regarding brain metabolism and people with high IQ scores.
While APs are an empirical and physical phenomenon, my AP as interface theory operates at and abstract and conceptual level. It doesn’t aim to explain the empirical characteristics of APs or the precise mechanisms behind AP firing (which is the real of neurobiology and physiology). So my theory addresses the fundamental question of how mental and physical phenomena interact. So my theory doesn’t focus on the empirical aspects of APs themselves, rather it focuses on the broader philosophical inquiries into the mind’s relationship with the physical world, using APs as part of the framework.
Lurker,
“there is no mind before the brain”
Right, because mind without experience is inconceivable.
“It is the actual housing of the mind”
That’s taken care of with the “necessary” part. Again, I don’t think that disembodied minds are logically possible, and there is no mind before experience, and infants aren’t rational, they become rational—that is, they become minded through experience.
“the brain actually is the mind”
Nope.
“minds can exist without brains”
Nope.
And Melo I don’t think the relationship between brain size and kcal consumption is linear.
Also, lurker, keep in mind that I’ve cited and article which showed that standardized tests aren’t on an interval scale. Do you know the implications of that?
“Right, because mind without experience is inconceivable.”
Then where does experience come from? The mind’s framework interacting with the physical world. So the mind’s framework already exists without any specific physcial organization. Therefore mind does not need any specific part of the physical world. Therefore you are a retard who needs to shut up and actualy think before responding.
“Also, lurker, keep in mind that I’ve cited and article which showed that standardized tests aren’t on an interval scale. Do you know the implications of that?”
Keep in mind that has nothing to do with my apriori argument that information needs separation for separate qualities, and actualized existence of separation implies dimensionality or extension along some dimension. Just keep that in mind.
“Therefore mind does not need any specific part of the physical world.”
That doesn’t follow. We NEED experience for mind, to become rational and intelligent and we need to interact in a sociocultural-linguistic environment in order to form these qualities. If you were to lock a child in a dark room immediately after birth and keep them there only giving them what they need to live what do you think will happen? So we need to interact in human environments for the mind to develop; we need experiences for mind to develop and for us to become rational.
That citation is completely relevant.
Your argument is:
(P1) Information needs separation for separate qualities.
(P2) Actualized existence of separation implies dimensionality or extension along some dimension.
(C) So psychological traits are dimensional or extended along some dimension.
P2 is false because it assumes that psychological traits can be ordered and assigned values that represent the degree to which an individual possesses a trait along a single dimension. So for psychological traits to exhibit dimensionality or extension along some dimension, it means that the traits can be quantified or measured in ways that place them on a continuous scale, and a continuous scale best relates to an interval scale. But standardized tests—including so-called intelligence tests—aren’t on an interval scale. So the claims from people like Haier (who admit there is no measurement unit for IQ) stating that IQ is an interval scale are false since standardized tests aren’t on an interval scale and IQ tests are standardized tests so it follows that IQ isn’t on an interval scale. For instance IQ is on an ordinal, not interval scale since it’s a standardized test.
“The brain’s daily energy consumption is between 320 and 500 kcal.”
And how was that figure made?
“Moreover, there are contradictory results regarding brain metabolism and people with high IQ scores.”
Sure, I already said that I expect as much. Not only do I believe structure plays an important role, but I also believe there are different “energetic strategies” between brains.
“While APs are an empirical and physical phenomenon, my AP as interface theory operates at an abstract and conceptual level.”
RR, I’m telling you that you can’t explain how M interacts with P by conceptual argumentation alone. You are endeavoring toward something outside the scope of your tools. It’s like trying to dig the Grand Canyon with a hand shovel.
How would you prove that APs are the interface between M and P?
Made using PET and fMRI. The kcal burn is around 320 kcal.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC124895/
The core of the theory is based on conceptual reasoning; it’s a conceptual framework and it deals with the conceptual nature of mind-body interaction. Based on what we know about APs and what we know about the relationship between APs and bodily movements/actions I can correctly argue that they are the interface for the immaterial mind and the physical body, which establishes the interface Descartes was looking for.
“That doesn’t follow. We NEED experience for mind, to become rational and intelligent and we need to interact in a sociocultural-linguistic environment in order to form these qualities. If you were to lock a child in a dark room immediately after birth and keep them there only giving them what they need to live what do you think will happen? So we need to interact in human environments for the mind to develop; we need experiences for mind to develop and for us to become rational.”
We don’t need “experience” for the formation of the mind, that is simply what the mind does (experience things). But it must exist in some form before experiencing or there would be nothing to do the experiencing. But yes, our minds tend to pick up information from the environment and develop using that information.
I never said mind doesn’t need ANY part of the physical world, because without the physical world there wouldn’t be anything for the mind to process. (Although you haven’t shown that I can grant you that). But that it doesn’t need to obey the laws of physics. I keep saying this a million times. If the mind is not housed in something physical, why does it need to only experience or learn in physical ways? Your argument for the mind being tied to the brain contradicts your argument that the mind is nonphysical and not very dependent on the brain.
“That citation is completely relevant.”
Not to my argument.
“Your argument is:
(P1) Information needs separation for separate qualities.
(P2) Actualized existence of separation implies dimensionality or extension along some dimension.
(C) So psychological traits are dimensional or extended along some dimension.”
Yes.
“P2 is false because it assumes that psychological traits can be ordered and assigned values that represent the degree to which an individual possesses a trait along a single dimension.”
I was not referring to psychological traits themselves, I was referring to intelligence as a processing of information with separate qualities. It is the qualities that the intelligent being is processing that requires dimensionality and which proves quantifiability, not the dimensionality of psychological trait known as intelligence, which can be quantified according to the information it is processing rather than vice versa.
Furthermore I’m not sure how you can say P2 is false, because although context does factor in and hence makes direct experiences of subjective things sometimes hard to directly compare along an axis, most people would state that it is possible for them to be more or less tired, angry, happy, etc. If someone experiences the same emotion, but it differs in intensity, that would seem to be a tentative basis to show that the psychological trait has magnitude. You could argue that it is meaningless because it is all contextual, but from at least one important context (the subjective context of the experiencer) it is clearly quantifiable, objectively, because of the above dimensionality argument.
This argument applied to intelligence or information processing is just taking the emotional intensity argument to the logical conclusion, which is that any perceptible difference requires some dimensionality in any context, and hence, the more differences, the more complex. It just relies on the structure of information or perceptions themselves rather than the subjective sense of complexity/intensity.
“So for psychological traits to exhibit dimensionality or extension along some dimension, it means that the traits can be quantified or measured in ways that place them on a continuous scale, and a continuous scale best relates to an interval scale. But standardized tests—including so-called intelligence tests—aren’t on an interval scale. So the claims from people like Haier (who admit there is no measurement unit for IQ) stating that IQ is an interval scale are false since standardized tests aren’t on an interval scale and IQ tests are standardized tests so it follows that IQ isn’t on an interval scale. For instance IQ is on an ordinal, not interval scale since it’s a standardized test.”
OK, I understand that standarized tests do not necessarily use an interval scale, but that has nothing to do with my apriori argument about intelligence being quantifiable. I’m trying to explain what tests measure, whether or not they measure them correctly or accurately.
If someone gets angry, or experiences basically any emotion, they might react based on what it is in their immediate vicinity and what they are physically capable of. That doesn’t indicate the emotion’s intensity but the available resources. So the lack of the ability of the test to indicate some subjective fact does not indicate that the subjective fact is nonexistent.
“Your argument for the mind being tied to the brain contradicts your argument that the mind is nonphysical and not very dependent on the brain.”
I wrote this vaguely “not very dependent on the brain” because your definition has been very vague. You’ve just said the brain is a necessary condition for mind. Yet the mental is not physical. You’ve given a model that depends on locality of experience but not shown how it follows from your apriori assumptions (which is important because if you disagree with physicalism in order to allow for nonphysical phenomena but still think that the mind must obey physical laws in other ways, you have to show why… you can’t use apriori arguments for one and then empirical arguments for the other because causality and mind are not something you can empirically deduce).
“Your argument for the mind being tired to the brain contradicts tote argument that the mind is non-physical and not very dependent on the brain.”
It’s not a contradiction but a recognition that mind needs brain, while being fundamentally immaterial in its nature.
“I was not referring to psychological traits themselves”
Didn’t you say I correctly articulated your argument?
“it is possible for them to be more or less tired, angry, happy”
Right, but that doesn’t denote quantification and thusly a magnitude.
“I’m trying to explain what tests measure”
Yes, I understand this.
I know your belief that IQ tests are measures of intelligence. But the issue is, since IQ is ordinal, it implies a level of precision which doesn’t align with that ordinal nature. It creates the misconception, in my view, that the numbers themselves represent precise units of intelligence. The differences between points on an interval scale are uniform, whereas for ordinal scales they are not (you can’t say 140 IQ is twice as “intelligent” as 70 IQ).
And regarding your second comment, it’s related to theories of cognitive development like Vygotsky’s since cognitive development occurs through interactions with others and cultural tools which eventually become psychological tools.
The first thing the article says is, “The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time.” which buttresses my claims. But the reason I asked was that if that figure was derived by measuring caloric expenditure across multiple individuals and then deriving a range from that group, it would mean those figures are not relevant to my point.
“I can correctly argue that they are the interface for the immaterial mind and the physical bod”
You didn’t make an argument. I even reread the article just to see if there was some sort of “hidden logic” there. You simply assert that they are the interface. If you’re that confident, then publish your article in some Philosophy Journal. We’ll see what happens.
“But the reason I asked was that if that figure was derived by measuring caloric expenditure across multiple individuals and then deriving a range from that group, it would mean those figures are not relevant to my point.”
What are you looking for, then?
“You didn’t make an argument. I even reread the article just to see if there was some sort of “hidden logic” there. You simply assert that they are the interface.”
The “hidden logic” is the causal chain from AP to muscle movement (action), as shown in my diagram.
Maybe I will clean it up eventually and try to get it published, since it certainly is a novel view of mind-body interaction.
“It’s not a contradiction but a recognition that mind needs brain, while being fundamentally immaterial in its nature.”
It’s a contradiction because you are basically stating that Mind needs brain, but Mind does not need brain for any specific physical function because mind is not physical, leaving everyone to wonder what exactly is necessary about the brain.
“I was not referring to psychological traits themselves”
“Didn’t you say I correctly articulated your argument?”
You correctly articulated an argument I’ve made but that is not how I derived the quantifiability of intelligence. That is how I derive the quantifiability of information, which is what intelligence operates on, which is how I know intelligence is quantifiable.
“it is possible for them to be more or less tired, angry, happy”
“Right, but that doesn’t denote quantification and thusly a magnitude.”
Of course it just, just not necessarily a interval scale. But if you say one is “more X” then obviously you talking about quantification as you are measuring the degree of something.
“I know your belief that IQ tests are measures of intelligence. But the issue is, since IQ is ordinal, it implies a level of precision which doesn’t align with that ordinal nature. It creates the misconception, in my view, that the numbers themselves represent precise units of intelligence. The differences between points on an interval scale are uniform, whereas for ordinal scales they are not (you can’t say 140 IQ is twice as “intelligent” as 70 IQ).”
That is a fair critique and fair to say that “IQ tests are not like thermometers” based on them not being interval scales, but it depends on the meaning of “like a thermometer”… it could be as vague of statement as what you are claiming about mind not being physical.
“And regarding your second comment, it’s related to theories of cognitive development like Vygotsky’s since cognitive development occurs through interactions with others and cultural tools which eventually become psychological tools.”
Well I would agree that it’s evident that our mind develops somewhat based on culture and environment, but that points to additional requirements of physicality to the mind besides the simple necessity of the brain (such interaction based on locality, temporality, storage in the brain, pre-existing mental-to-physical translative substances etc.).
All of this is also only based on empirical evidence of our own thoughts and learning, rather than some sort of definitive logical proof.
Our own empirical evidence also indicates the possibility of greater intelligence based on greater brain size or differing structures, and things like NDEs or out of body experiences can not be ruled out given quantum entanglement and nondeterminancy.
No one on this blog has respect what a bunch of losers!
We let drug addicts roam around our cities in the US. Of course no one has any respect.
Poor down syndrome people… Seems they have “less mind”…
Intelligence and personality differences among human populations reflects their own evolutionary, historical and cultural histories. It’s illogical to believe a population very recently descended from hunter gatherers who have never developed a complex society with writing and numerical system could be equally teachable, exactly about these abstract thinking skills, to other population with a long and relatively stable history of an opposite cultural and social scenario. There are exceptions like the Middle East. That’s why i highlighted the “relatively stable”.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/washington-post-race-isnt-real-science-says/
(((Imagine))) and people is still empathetic with Jewish suff’ring in Middle East caused by themselves… It’s very hard to feel empathy with a people with so many mentally ill sociopaths…
Janet Uher is going to be an editor for a special issue in Frontiers on critical issues in quantitative psychology and measurement.
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/55117/critical-debates-on-quantitative-psychology-and-measurement-revived-and-novel-perspectives-on-fundamental-problems
These are the things that the IQ-ist psychometricians just disregard. Because they have their own “special definition of measurement”. That there is no response to the Berka-Nash measurement objection after 30 and 40 years is very telling. Because psychometricians have no response. Because psychometricians don’t know what they’re talking about.
OK to summarise on the JIDF agent:
– does not believe intelligence has anything to do with the brain
– does not believe in evolution
– does not believe evolution applies to human beings even if it did exist
– does not believe blacks and whites have different intelligence
– does not believe in IQ testing
– does not believe the mind is related to the brain
– does not believe non-physical phenomenon can be measured
– does not believe races differ except for skin colour
– does not believe in genetics
– does not believe income is related to intelligence in any way
– does not believe twins share the same genes because genes don’t exist
Believes all races are the exact same in terms of the mind.
And the evidence for this set of beliefs is a religious-jewish moral theory advocating it would be immoral to say races of man are different. No empirical evidence. Just assumes it, because it is the ‘right thing’.
This is why you are a fitness trainer. Youre too stupid to do anything.
“does not believe intelligence has anything to do with the brain”
Yea because psychophysical reductionism is false. P is merely necessary but not sufficient.
“does not believe in evolution”
Stupid. I hold to an EES-DST model.
“does not believe evolution applies to human beings even if it did exist”
See above.
“does not believe blacks and whites have different intelligence”
They have different experiences which lead to differences in test scores. But they are beginning to converge just as Helms predicted.
“does not believe in IQ testing”
I already explained this nonsense claim.
“does not believe the mind is related to the brain”
P facts are necessary for M facts.
“does not believe non-physical phenomenon can be measured”
Yup. Because only physical things can be measured.
“does not believe races differ except for skin color”
False.
“does not believe in genetics”
False.
“does not believe income is related to intelligence in any way”
The correlation between IQ and income is like 0.23, nevermind the fact that when IQ is equated and social class is not, family background schooling explain the IQ-income relationship.
“does not believe twins share the same genes because genes don’t exist”
Genes are necessary developmental interactants and not causes on their own. MZ twins don’t even share the same genes.
How many of my beliefs did you get correct you clown?
all of them. sadly.
rr goes on a talk show:
“all of them. sadly.”
Exactly.
I like how Philosopher frames what RR says in the wrong words according to RR but everyone already knows what he means. “RR doesn’t believe in genetics”. Everyone knows RR believes genes or DNA physically exist and make up part of the development but the fact that he thinks the carried material from parent to child doesn’t determine anything about the development of the organism except “holistically” (which means in practice he can claim any specific inherited trait is environmental based on gaps of our knowledge)
“he thinks”
He self brainwashed to believe on it because his profession (teachers are very frequently lamarckians), low self awareness/low rational capacity, personality traits and life’s history, but who cares??
PP keep him trashing her blog while she is tryin to convince Icelanders that Oprah is the greatest human being ever lived.
“but the fact that he thinks the carried material from parent to child doesn’t determine anything about the development of the organism”
Because DNA doesn’t do anything on its own; it’s inert until activated by the physiological system. DNA/genes aren’t determinative and probabilistic epigenesis is true.
“He self brainwashed to believe on it”
Explain my view to me.
You’re saying that as if Lamarckian-type views aren’t valid and haven’t been valid for the last 30 or so years.
I think everyone can agree that RR is a troll and needs to be banned except Puppy.
i think PP needs 2 be banned from her own blog instead. her sins are 2 many!
All these papers RR copies and pastes here show academia is now totally and fully controlled by con artists, autists and jews. Nobody sane would argue in a paper than intelligence can’t be measured or doesn’t exist. Yet there are about 100 papers arguing this in clown world.
No wonder academia lost any relevance since jews took over the Ivy league. All the best thinking and research is done by independent researchers like Frost and I suppose people like Puppy.
The claim that psychology resists quantification is a valid view but you’re just too ignorant to see that. By the way, Kevin Bird showed no support for the hereditarian hypothesis. You’re just too ignorant to know that.
The effects on jews on society are now worse than I thought previously. I thought it was just about owning the media and mind controlling people to harm themselves but I realise with RR’s posting its about destroying science and philosophy and greatly slowing down intellectual progress (for non-jews that is).
Its like a kind of speed limit on the economy and scientific progress to have high IQ gypsies running the system.
1. what the nazis did was SATANIC.
2. “punch a nazi!” is never gonna get rid of nazism.
3. the same with bolshevism.
on stalinism:
The horror which No. 1 emanated, above all consisted in the possibility that he was in the right, and that all those whom he killed had to admit, even with the bullet in the back of their necks, that he conceivably might be in the right. There was no certainty; only the appeal to that mocking oracle they called History, who gave her sentence only when the jaws of the appealer had long since fallen to dust.
history doesn’t progress by slaying dragons. it progresses by EATING dragons.
Well well well. Seems that GWAS for Alzheimer’s is steeped in bias with the genetic associations already found. The genetic correlations are misleading. Who would have thunk? The GWAS house of cards is falling.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.13.562272v1
I do not need a measuring object to state that some people can do more mentally than others. It is simple: people take in an amount of information and utilize an amount of memory to compare evaluate and synthesize it.
If we want to make precise and meaningful comparisons of propels mental abilities, we need a reliable measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. Making predicted and meaningful comparisons is essential for scientific understanding and effective interventions. The absence of a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for mental abilities hinders the ability to make precise and meaningful comparisons. So to accurately state that some can do more mentally than others, we need a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit for mental abilities.
And of course the sociocultural context comes into play here, since per my definition and argument what people are exposed to causes the differential crystallization of intelligence. Face the facts—you need a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit, and that FACT that there are NONE in the psychometric literature is devestating to psychometrics. Psychometrics isn’t measurement. And no one here can state HOW psychometrics is measurement because the criteria for measurement don’t exist in the literature. (And also because people here clearly don’t read any kind of literature and it shows.)
>what people are exposed to causes the differential crystallization of intelligence.
what makes people different is the spatiotemporal shape of the nervous system and this allows people to utilize memory in larger amounts than others thus having greater intelligence to manipulate information in complex ways.
The CNS doesn’t have a “shape.” My argument is untouched.
And regarding your second figure, when people come together from various disciplines to engage in joint metacognition and philosophical reflection, they are essentially engaging in a form of collaborative learning and knowledge construction. Through this collaborative process, people can integrate their distinct mental processes which then result in a more holistic understanding of the phenomenon. And this integration occurs due to a result do social interaction, discussion, and sharing of different ideas and perspectives which align with Vygotsky’s ZPD where learning and development are enhanced through interaction with others.
people have memory and memory is shaped by experience but memory has a bandwidth limit in what it can take in and combine together forming new ideas.
metacognition has a spatiotemporal shape in the networked memory structure of human brain architecture.
other animals do not have it for this reason, they do not have the networked shape for a potential reflective thought process.
and some humans have more metacognition than others because they can evaluate more information at a single given time.
This hardly addresses anything I said. Of course memory is shaped by experience, and I don’t see any reason for this “bandwidth limit” to be overtaken by mnemonic techniques.
that is…
with individual evil people…
like ted bundy…
you can say…
“let ‘us’ not execute him so ‘we’ can study him. unnuhstan how people become or just are this way…” as one professor said on Nightline on the night of his execution…
and people say, “fuck off professor. he’s evil. just kill him. but before you kill him punch him.”
1. nazism and stalinism were not like ted bundy took control of a country. NOT!
2. it was “sincere committed ideologues”.
the same with robespierre. “you’re the montagnard!” is not the only lesson herr peterson./
Stalin was a bit like Ted Bundy actually. Certainly Beria definitely was.
how? stalin was a hard-core commie. everything he did for his ideology. beria may have been selected because he was a fellow georgian. so there you have ethnic nepotism even under communism.
but what is the evidence that any of the high ranking bolshies or nazis were sociopaths in their personal lives?
maybe yezhov. i read he had orgies.
beria’s daughter said, “if my father had been an american he would have been ceo of general motors.”
He was the biggest traitor of Russian Revolution. Orwell represented Stalinists as the Pigs on his “Animal Farm” book.
here’s the wiki-dirt on beria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Alleged_sexual_predation
if true then pill is right about beria.
GROSS!
it’s totally NOT sexy when she’s not into it.
GROSS!
BUT it was a SOVIET trial only shortly after stalin died.
SO…
take with a YUGE grain of salt!
i mean i think it’s just IMPOSSIBLE that a guy can be the ultimate desk jockey and rape and rape and rape!
mugabe-snopes says FALSE!.
now if his daughter said he raped her…THEN i might believe it.
it’s like some female fantasy that powerful men are the ultimate horn-dogs…THEY AREN’T sista!
I think there is a lot of evidence that Beria and Stalin were clinical psychopaths. Certainly Beria. Even Stalin warned his own daughter never to be alone around Beria.
Beria drove around in his car and abducted women from the street at random and those women never appeared again. He basically raped them and had them shot.
OMG!
did you do what i think you just did?!
did you!?
did you DENOUNCE comrade beria?
i hear the drums…
and then i hear…
ah yes!
Gletkin is NOT Joran van der Sloot…he’s a pretty cool dude!
both bolshevism and nazism were and are SOPHISTICATED ideologies.
stalin was criticized by krushchev for his “cult of personality”.
but that was nothing compared to nazism’s fuhrer. he really was messianic.
nazism really was a POLITICAL THEOLOGY as carl schmitt put it.
does this mean it was GOOD?
NO!
but it does mean it will continue to exist at the margins explicitly and at the center implicitly as long as the REIGNING IDEOLOGY has nothing more ATTRACTIVE!
how can i edit rr’s photo to make his hair a collage of gary coleman faces?
Pseudo sophisticated
Nazism:
Blue eyed blonde folks are superior to all other human populations. Only Jews are evil. We are the only rational and altruistic fully humans just because our pink skin and golden heads.
Bolshevism:
Capitalism and everything associated with it is morally wrong so we need to wipe out them to build a better world. Social classes exist just because people on the top is evil not also because people differ in abilities and proclivities.
sophistical.
but your summaries are neoliberal propaganda.
Neolibs are simplisticly evil too.
EXACTLY!
did i say that?
EXACTLY!
now we’re gettin’ somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
neolibs say, “what’re you nazi? what’re you a commie?”
TINA! TINA!
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TO US). WE ARE GOD!
neolibs say, “what’re you a nazi? what’re you a commie? THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO US. WE ARE GOD.
there is a general very sociopathic element of some people (qua political people) where they think, “if only we got rid of those people…
[redacted by pp, 2023-oct-18]
Bolshevism was a zionist movement masquerading as a socialist one according to McDonald. In the same way neoconservativism is an ‘Israel first’ political movement masquerading as an American supremacist or ‘democracy first’ one.
KMAC has a SMALL HEAD…
SADLY.
theres a lot of monkey business going on on this blog. i dont see the utility of it.
You don’t belong here. You add nothing. Ever.
you add negativity and stupidity 2 this blog. i think neutrality is better than the stupidity you seem 2 conjure up!
Well well well. No significant differences between blacks and whites in the total and mentally retarded samples, which suggests that the lower average scores of blacks aren’t due to genetics.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009579848701400103?journalCode=jbpa
LOL
There was (1) no significant difference between the percentage of Blacks in the total population and the percentage of Blacks in the mentally retarded sample; (2) no difference between the percentage of Whites in the total population and the percen tage of Whites in the mentally retarded sample
This is nonsense. the percentage of blacks in classes for the educable mentally retarded became so high that it became illegal for state administered IQ tests to be given to black kids in California
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/06/iq-tests-restricted-by-race/9c85a956-4ec9-4dfa-8191-70af9c1ff0cb/
Best to read the paper, it’s short and… California is in the analysis.
And those 2 were published a month between each other.
Yes, and now universities are scrapping even the watered-down version of the SAT due to affirmative action lawsuits. COVID gave them the perfect excuse to alter policy.
Why PeePee??
And this shit for more five years or more. Do you call it “quality debate”???
Even bigger LOL!!
Kidder and Rosner showed unconscious inherent bias in the SAT against blacks. They showed that questions blacks were more likely to get right were thrown out as “psychometrically invalid.”
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol43/iss1/3/
I see that no one here likes having their view challenged. Sad.
the LOLs just keep getting bigger.
the SAT is biased against stupid people.
^^^ doesn’t understand the because he didn’t read it.
here’s what mugabe was alluding to the other day in case you know little about judaism…
why do haredi jews have those “side-curls”/pe’ah?
answer: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
chabad interpretation (#68 of the 613 commandments):
68. Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head—Leviticus 19:27 https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments-Mitzvot.htm
rr has shaved the “corners” of his head. you can see this in his picture.
does rr have tattoos?
They publish this junk to keep the goyim stupid and then any papers that say blacks are stupid, which every knows just sitting in a classroom with them, they ban.
i apologize.
apparently the side-curls are called “pe’ot”.
the “pe’ah” refers to the corners of farms.
anyway…
the rabbinic (pharisaic) vs christian division in judaism occurred 150+ years before the mishnah was ever written down and 650+ years before the talmud was completed.
so those jews who say, “our religion is the oldest religion” are wrong on two counts +.
zoroastrianism (aryan, not semitic, religion btw) is older.
rabbinic judaism is NOT a more AUTHENTIC continuation of ancient judaism than christianity.
mormons are cool. 99+% of muslims are cool. but there is no “crazy mormon” minority.
“rr has shaved the “corners” of his head. you can see this in his picture.”
Yea I do because the hair doesn’t grow as long there, it’s my “box” and not the part of my hair that grows long.
“does rr have tattoos?”
Nope.
“They publish this junk to keep the goyim stupid”
Doesn’t understand the argument because he didn’t read the paper. Of course. Stay ignorant.
“They showed that questions blacks were more likely to get right were thrown out as “psychometrically invalid.””
I’m not reading that whole thing. What were the questions?
The actor’s bearing on stage seemed _____; her movements were natural and her technique was _____.
a. unremitting…blase
b. fluid…tentative
c. unstudied…blase
d. eclectic…uniform
e. grandiose…controlled
They also gave an example of a math question that blacks were more likely to get right. So the ETS bases it’s test question selection on statistics which were established on performance based on previous tests. Students who scored higher on previous versions were more likely to not answer the question correctly while students who didn’t score higher on previous versions were more likely to answer the question correctly. So this then ensures that the test question selection process has a self-reinforcing, built-in racial bias. So the question selection processes builds in race-biased results.
There’s also a similar analysis for men and women too (Rosser, 1988).
RR keeps resurrecting debates that were resolved before he was even born. From pages 154 to 156 of Daniel Seligman’s A QUESTION OF INTELLIGENCE:
This isn’t persuasive, because overprediction occurs due to educational biases. It assumes that there is no bias in the criterion. Thus it’s not evidence of no bias if the criterion is itself biased. The fact of the matter is, all “ability” tests are achievement tests, because they’re different versions of the same test.
But what if the criterion is performance in the military? Are you saying even military jobs like learning how to find your way out of the woods or how to assemble a gun or how to fly a jet are biased against blacks. It seems IQ tests are equally predictive of black and white military performance.
Click to access AS92009_Sensitivity_Fairness_of_ASVAB_Tech_Composites.pdf
ASVAB is a test of cultural knowledge.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608000000352
“The actor’s bearing on stage seemed _____; her movements were natural and her technique was _____.
a. unremitting…blase
b. fluid…tentative
c. unstudied…blase
d. eclectic…uniform
e. grandiose…controlled”
Seems like a bad test item.
Is it factually shown that test items were taken out that blacks did better at specifically, that they any predictive validity for anything else but being within a specific culture, or were good test items (like this one… it seems sus)?
“Is it factually shown that test items were taken out that blacks did better at specifically”
Yes, but it’s not because blacks did better, it’s because previous low scorers on past tests were more likely to answer the questions right on the experimental part and so they were thrown out. If 60 percent of whites answered a question correctly but 30 percent of blacks did, then the disparate impact is 30 percent. So Kidder and Rosner found that in the 1988 SAT that the disparate impact was 14.7 percent with whites scoring higher on all 138 questions.
An excellent critical article on admixture studies and IQ.
This blog now is
“What is rrr opinion???”
🙄
Just stop giving him attention.
Thanks for PP compliance, rrrr is everywhere here. It’s mostly impossible not feed the troll.
Hahaha. Exactly. I think RR writes more for PP’s blog than PP does. Of course most of it is repeating himself.
Sober random individual: “group x differ from group y in substantial level. Look at all these evidences everyone can see at naked eye”
Rrr: “jewisch and ungoy showed you are wrong”
Sober random individual: “at least read the link…”
Rrrr: “because the theory of “”””White”””” Racis, group x outperform group y so we need to give reparations to the victimized, oppressed one”
Sober random individual: ” no.”
Rrrrr: “yes”.
Rrrrrr: “why did you said no??”
I actually read what people give me. And yea making a claim without reasoning isn’t an argument and one needs to explain their reasoning on why they reject X. “Anyone who disagrees with me is Jewish”—sure bro.
And then he uses every random metaphysical argument that supports his claim whether or not contradictory but plausible arguments exist… and then acts like only his metaphysical assumptions or interpretations are viable. All without having a detailed mathematical or logical model of what the physical or mental is… besides one being “measurable” and then one being not reducible to the other…. without defining in any detail what reducible or measurability is (which would show how his assumptions are either incorrect or only true based on specific interpretations of each word, those interpretations not any more valid than any other)
The physical: encompasses all entities, phenomena and processes governed by the laws of physics and the natural science, including matter, energy, and spacetime. It’s characterized by objectivity, measurability and predictability and can be studied using empirical methods. Properties of the physical realm are described by quantitative, physical terms.
The mental: includes all conscious experiences, thoughts, emotions, beliefs, desires, intentions and subjective phenomena of individual minds. It’s characterized by subjectivity, privacy, and qualitative experiences. These properties are described using qualitative mental terms.
So the physical represents the objective, external world subject to empirical investigation while the mental represents the subjective and internal experiences of conscious beings.
It’s just a formal dictionary-esque descriptions of what “physical” and “mental” states ‘are”. But while physical is also chemical or chemically triggered, mental is, by now, not empirically proven, based on its meaning as a mostly independent phenomenon from the (chemical)-physical World. That’s how true Science works, by empirical evidence, from experiment or correct observation. Saying “we have feelings and thoughts so mind exist” is like saying “there are wonderful species so God exist”. Mind is a fancy term historically used (directly or accidentally) to perpetuate a trully anthropo supremacist view where humans are seeing as basically divine, carrying a “mind”, a God’s gift. But if human brain is a magnificent construct of evolution, this does not mean it is literally a completely separated phenomenon from everything existing around. “Mind” or “human consciousness” is an inner projection of all the physical-chemical processes happening within our organisms while we are alive and awake, in reaction to environment, from the most stable or basic construct like the self awareness and sight, to the less frequent, like a sudden emotional reaction.
“Empiricism” requires a perception, aka a subjective observer.
Saying mental things are described using qualitative mental terms is not very useful when physical things are also only described using mental terms (as all terms are mental, obviously).
All physical properties are made up of qualities, but just ones that happen to be reproducible and expressible in terms of quantifiability. But again, these are all nested on metaphysical assumptions that involve our subjective perceptions, such as faith in our observation, faith that we are actually speaking about the same things and that are words have objective meaning, etc. which shows that mind has objectivity and also that mind is more than “subjective intentionality” but also encompasses objective measurements of quantities.
Furthermore, nothing about intentionality, emotions, desires, etc. precludes 1. repeatability or 2. lack of objectivity (just because something is subjective does not mean it is not also objectively true or existing).
Subjective expressions or properties still need a place and time to exist. Measured properties or quantities still need an observer and still exist as quantities of some *subjectively* defined property. These are facts, not my assumptions.
“Saying ‘we have feelings and thoughts so mind exist’ is like saying ‘there are wonderful species so good exist.'”
That’s not my view and both of those affirm the consequent.
If anything that can be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is material, then anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial. If all terms used to describe physical things are mental, and this makes mental descriptions insufficient, then no terms can sufficiently describe physical things. No terms can sufficiently describe physical things because all terms used to describe physical things are mental, yet physical descriptions are inherently limited. Consequently, other forms of description—like mental descriptions—become valuable in complimenting physical descriptions. Thus, the use of mental descriptions alongside physical descriptions enhance our understanding of the world. And there’s the fact that there is a mind-independent world based on the argument from prediction and causality, so we know that there is a physical world beyond our perception, and that it is qualitatively different from the mental.
“That’s not my view and both of those affirm the consequent.”
I cant have time and patience to read horrible writing style passing as Philosophy. Try to improve at least on it. Only people misplaced inside on academia is capable to learn this regressive communication.
So how do you think “mind” is real???
“If anything that can be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is material, then anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial”
This makes no sense. I cant understand horrible writing.
Is wind physical to you??
“If all terms used to describe physical things are mental, and this makes mental descriptions insufficient, then no terms can sufficiently describe physical things. No terms can sufficiently describe physical things because all terms used to describe physical things are mental, yet physical descriptions are inherently limited.”
Rr is a great example of how low is philosophy today. A lot of incompetent losers believing they are “philosophers” just because they are verbal tricksters. This sentence above is not just horribly constructed to give the impression of sophistication but is also completely useless, it explain nothing nor add something relevant to this discussion.
But i bet he takes this sentence from his personal collection of quotations, sentences and links.
“Mental description” like “washed water”.
Nobody believes a conceptual description is totally perfect in describing things. But saying is totally insufficient is also fallacious. Primary human knowledge is by comparing, differentiating and isolating and then by focusing on particularities on given object.
The level of sufficiency is dependent on where the subject draw the line.
“If all terms used to describe physical things are mental, and this makes mental descriptions insufficient, then no terms can sufficiently describe physical things. No terms can sufficiently describe physical things because all terms used to describe physical things are mental, yet physical descriptions are inherently limited.”
How to be repetitive.
“If all terms used to describe physical things are mental, SO this makes mental descriptions insufficient” …
So everything you are saying here is INSUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE because is “mental”??
“So how do you think “mind” is real???”
Dozens of a priori arguments establish that the mind is real and irreducible.
“This makes no sense. I cant understand horrible writing.”
“This sentence above is not just horribly constructed to give the impression of sophistication but is also completely useless, it explain nothing nor add something relevant to this discussion.”
Funny coming from you. Mind explaining what you’re having trouble understanding?
“But i bet he takes this sentence from his personal collection of quotations, sentences and links.”
It’s my own argument. Are you projecting?
So you dont have any really empirical evidence of what you believe…
I cant easily understand poorly written sentences like yours. It’s not my fault you cant write like a normal human being.
“A priori is a term first used by Immanuel Kant and it means “from the beginning” or “at first”. It is a type of argument based on the meaning of terms. It describes things we can know independently of the facts. To know something a priori is to know it from pure logic, without having to gather any evidence. For example, you can know that triangles have three sides without having to examine any actual triangles and count their sides..”
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/a-priori-arguments.html
So you dont need any empirical evidence to know or believe mind is real and metaphysical… Ok.
God believers use exactly the same thinking to claim that God is real…
So you think to know mind is supposedly a unthing, metaphysical and irredutible, is the same to know triangle have three sides. Dont you need to check the emptiness and irredutibility of all “minds” to know it???
“I can’t easily understand poorly written sentences like yours”
Please explain what is poorly written about what I wrote and I’ll explain it to you.
Here’s an a priori argument:
P1: Consciousness is a real, undeniable phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by physical or material processes.
P2: If consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical or material processes, then it must be a nonphysical phenomenon.
C1: Thus consciousness is a nonphysical phenomenon.
P3: The existence of a nonphysical phenomenon requires the existence of a nonphysical entity that can support or generate such phenomena.
C2: So the existence of consciousness implies the existence of a nonphysical entity.
C3: This nonphysical entity is the mind, so the mind exists.
I had misspoke, since I wanted to say that only “Dozens of argument establish that the mind is irreducible”, but I have an a priori argument for the existence of mind, anyway.
“Please explain what is poorly written about what I wrote and I’ll explain it to you.”
I gave a little example above, too much written.
“Here’s an a priori argument:
P1: Consciousness is a real, undeniable phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by physical or material processes.”
Consciousness is not mind. While consciousness is indeed an undeniable phenomenon, mind is just a synonymous, a word, people like you think is another thing.
By now, you just cant say that consciousness never will be “fully” explained by physical or “material processes”. Anyway you always forget the chemistry involved… It’s not “metaphysical”, it’s chemical your “missing link”.
“P2: If consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical or material processes, then it must be a nonphysical phenomenon.”
If.
Wrong by which i said above. To say this you need to think brain and peripheral nervous system, the physical stuff, are not involved on consciousness which would be very illiterate to think of.
“C1: Thus consciousness is a nonphysical phenomenon.”
Repetitively wrong.
“P3: The existence of a nonphysical phenomenon requires the existence of a nonphysical entity that can support or generate such phenomena.
C2: So the existence of consciousness implies the existence of a nonphysical entity.
C3: This nonphysical entity is the mind, so the mind exists.”
Nonphysical phenomenon doesnt exist in this realm. Sorry.
It’s about forgeting the chemical stuff and thinking this must be “nonphysical” or “metaphysical”.
“I had misspoke, since I wanted to say that only “Dozens of argument establish that the mind is irreducible”, but I have an a priori argument for the existence of mind, anyway”
Could a thousand arguments. None can truly sustain your claims.
“Consciousness is not mind”
I didn’t say it was.
“Anyway you always forget the chemistry involved”
The physical is a dependency condition.
“Wrong by which i said above. To say this you need to think brain and peripheral nervous system, the physical stuff, are not involved on consciousness which would be very illiterate to think of.”
See above.
“Repetitively wrong.”
C1 follows from P1 and P2.
“Nonphysical phenomenon doesnt exist in this realm.”
What’s the argument?
“Could a thousand arguments”
Yes they do.
” “Consciousness is not mind”
I didn’t say it was”
The only way “mind” being considered something possibly legitimate would be if it is the same as consciousness…
But mind is not consciousness because it’s just a synonymous word, i said above…
“The physical is a dependency condition”
Fallacy of fake dual dynamics, because “nonphysical” or “metaphysical” doesnt exist or never was detected/proven. Or if (“nonphysical”) could exist as a “anti matter” but “you” should prove empirically that it is “absolutely nonphysical”.
If nonphysical dimension exist so, for example, gravity laws would be completely filled with exceptions and we could do things in our world is impossible like jump to reach the highest clouds. The chemical-physical dimension would be way more weaken than in our real world.
“What’s the argument?”
It’s not based on argument but based on all the availlable evidence. If nonphysical exist so, at least, should exist a nonphysics or metaphysics as a scientifically valid and well stablished field.
” “Nonphysical phenomenon doesnt exist in this realm.”
What’s the argument?”
The same i use to argue against God and eternal life existences. There is not even a single trace of evidence that nonphysical or “nothing dimension” exist within “everything or chemical physical dimension”, even less within our brains.
“But mind is not consciousness”
Quote the premise that you think leads to this claim because the argument is clear in the distinction.
“Fallacy of fake dual dynamics”
What the hell is this?
“because “nonphysical” or “metaphysical” doesnt exist or never was detected/proven”
It’s not an evidentiary matter.
“If nonphysical dimension exist so, for example, gravity laws would be completely filled with exceptions and we could do things in our world is impossible like jump to reach the highest clouds.”
This doesn’t follow.
“If nonphysical exist so, at least, should exist a nonphysics or metaphysics as a scientifically valid and well stablished field.”
It’s not an evidentiary matter.
“The same i use to argue against God and eternal life existences. There is not even a single trace of evidence that nonphysical or “nothing dimension” exist within “everything or chemical physical dimension”, even less within our brains.”
Why do you think that empirical evidence is relevant to a priori arguments? It isn’t.
And we (may) could do…
PP you know this debate is completely pointless. So why?? Give me a really good reason to keep this loser totally free to shit your blog…
“Why do you think that empirical evidence is relevant to a priori arguments? It isn’t.”
“A priori arguments” are self evident…
They are not necessary because they already there…..
Not the case of
Your intelligence;
Your “mind” metaphysical hypothesis;
And everything your mental illness touches…
Santo, he dominates the comments because you keep responding to him. If you ignored his comments & responded to other people, his influence would fade.
To quote Oprah, what you focus on expands.
Sorry, that response doesn’t cut it.
And yea, I was pulling back my commenting here at the end of August but AK keeps bringing up my views so I just keep responding. So you’re right. Stop bringing my name up out of nowhere and I won’t comment here anymore. Then Santo and “philosopher” will have the echo chamber they desire.
It’s not easy but i should to convince Lurker and Animekitty to stop to feed him.
Lurker, if you think you will win this parrot, i tell you, you already won thousand times. So just stop with this freakshow. Or if you will keep with this pointless debates, why??
Animekitty, rr is mentally ill, of a special kind, just stop to feed him. Your argumentation is good, but you never will make him confess his (multiple) mistakes or accept when he is wrong. So why??
thank you peepee. but why can’t i post the clip from dodgeball? is it just too mean?
ideology = if the facts disconfirm my theory then the facts are wrong
I think it’s posted now
Notice how no one has provided any reference that psychological kinds are quantifiable, because there is NO evidence in the psychometric literature that this is true.
There is no evidence that they are not quantifiable. I gave you analytical reasoning to show they must be, by definition of what a perception or quality even is.
A bunch of lackluster empirical studies that you think show that some IQ gaps have closed in some miniscule ways does not at all show that they are not quantifiable.
So it’s just your aprioris versus mine, and mine are actually correct.
“There is no evidence that they are not quantifiable”
Yes there is a wealth of evidence (Uher, Trendler, Michell). And the claim HAS NOT been established in the psychometric literature. Uher, Michell, and Trendler have argued that psychology resists quantification, and there’s no argument from dualism there. The fact is, “psychometrics” “measures” latent hypothetical variables. Psychometric “researchers” fail to specify the phenomena, qualities and quantities studied (that is, they fail to articulate the specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit, and even one of the biggest IQ-ists Richard Haier admits that there is NO measurement unit for IQ like there is for height and weight). This is a deathblow for psychometrics, and it HAS NOT been addressed; the psychometricians haven’t addressed Berka, Nash, Uber, Trendler, and Michell.
Uher argues that “psychometrics does not establish systematic relations to individuals’ minds as needed for measurement and that, consequently, psychometric results should not be used to make decisions about persons.” While Franz argues that the claim that psychology is measurable is a “highly questionable idea.” And Michell argues that “conceptual analysis, realistically construed and applied to mental concepts, may show that they exclude quantitative structure” and he argues that psychometricians have their own “special” definition of “measurement.” Trendler argues that “Psychological phenomena are neither manipulable nor controllable to the required extent. Therefore they are not measurable.” All of these criticisms combined to guarantee the conclusion that psychometrics isn’t measurement and that psychology isn’t quantifiable, therefore psychology is immeasurable, and none of them are dualists.
Isn’t that strange to you? Why do you think that may be?
“A bunch of lackluster empirical studies”
Prove it. The gap HAS closed and your unevidenced claim isn’t compelling at all.
And also again: Fagan and Holland showed that the gap is cultural, again lending credence to Helms’ (1992) prediction.
“Uher argues that “psychometrics does not establish systematic relations to individuals’ minds as needed for measurement and that, consequently, psychometric results should not be used to make decisions about persons.” ”
In what way does it not establish systematic relations? It’s obvious that any IQ test will never be perfect in establishing the complexity of the mind that is tested, nor it will all test items always remain of exactly the same utility for practical intelligence in every day life.
Still, that IQ tests correlate with success in just about every walk of life is not contested. So, Uher simply doesn’t understand what IQ tests or intelligence is, much like you.
“While Franz argues that the claim that psychology is measurable is a “highly questionable idea.” And Michell argues that “conceptual analysis, realistically construed and applied to mental concepts, may show that they exclude quantitative structure” and he argues that psychometricians have their own “special” definition of “measurement.””
Again, a bunch of vagueries that do not get at what intelligence actually is, in a logical, mathematical, and informational way. Clearly Franz does not understand what IQ tests are or intelligence is.
“Trendler argues that “Psychological phenomena are neither manipulable nor controllable to the required extent. Therefore they are not measurable.” All of these criticisms combined to guarantee the conclusion that psychometrics isn’t measurement and that psychology isn’t quantifiable, therefore psychology is immeasurable, and none of them are dualists.”
Not manipulable nor controllable using current tests or even any theoretical test =/= not measurable or having no quantifiability or magnitude.
“Isn’t that strange to you? Why do you think that may be?”
Because they are midwits and they are afraid of IQ tests being used for “racist” policies.
If intelligence were definitely not measurable or had no quantifiable element, it would be provable and you wouldn’t need to quote psychometricians.
The fact is that most psychometricians understand either implicitly or explicitly that they are measuring some sort of ability to solve novel problems or process information.
This is basically the same as health. People know what being healthy is, in a general way, but there are some contextual differences and nuances. But is it wrong to state that health isn’t important or that quantifiable differences do not exist?
For example I can give a definitive quantifiable definition of health: The longer someone can stay alive, while enjoying a large amount of physical and mental freedom and being emotionally happy and content, and also not harming others physically, emotionally, or reducing their freedom, the healthier they are. Having a meaningful or purposeful life could also be added. Possibly, a meaningful life or pursuit could be limited, but no one could argue that all else being equal that this is a quantifiable, true, and coherent definition of health.
“In what way does it not establish systematic relations?”
The best example I know of is temperature measurement with a thermometer. The “systematic relation” shown is simple: The height of a column of mercury increases or decreases based on the current room temperature. She then argues that there is nothing like this for psychometrics.
“Still, that IQ tests correlate with success in just about every walk of life is not contested.”
0.23 correlation with income. Such an outstanding correlation.
“Again, a bunch of vagueries”
Those aren’t “vagueries” at all. They’re clear with their intentions of their writings. That’s the opposite of vague. And Franz’s view on “intelligence” is much more nuanced than you’re giving him credit for. You should read his response to Trendler and Michell.
“Not manipulable or controllable”
“current tests or any theoretical test” is irrelevant to the argument.
“Because they are midwits and they are afraid of IQ tests being used for “racist” policies”
I don’t think so—their viewpoints and arguments are very nuanced and their arguments lend strong credence to the claim that psychology resists quantification and thusly that psychometrics isn’t measurement.
It’s a conceptual issue.
“measuring some sort of ability”
Ah, the “We’re measuring SOMETHING” claim.
“The best example I know of is temperature measurement with a thermometer. The “systematic relation” shown is simple: The height of a column of mercury increases or decreases based on the current room temperature. She then argues that there is nothing like this for psychometrics.”
“Still, that IQ tests correlate with success in just about every walk of life is not contested.”
“0.23 correlation with income. Such an outstanding correlation.”
There’s more to life success than a positive correlation with income. If in combination with other psychological traits (conscientiousness or low neuroticism or something else) you can predict various outcomes to a high degree (which don’t even have to be positively/equally correlated at all levels… for example, if you showed that ultra-high IQ people consistently do not have any higher income than high IQ people, that is still a good prediction). I was just making a point that IQ has more predictive value than simply “fitting into a specific culture”.
“Those aren’t “vagueries” at all. They’re clear with their intentions of their writings. That’s the opposite of vague. And Franz’s view on “intelligence” is much more nuanced than you’re giving him credit for. You should read his response to Trendler and Michell.”
This excerpt is full of vagueries. If the nuances imply the same complaints you’ve had, they’ve already been dealt with.
““current tests or any theoretical test” is irrelevant to the argument.”
Yes it is very relevant… because any specific test can be trained for so psychometrics cannot have a fullproof controlled test.
“I don’t think so—their viewpoints and arguments are very nuanced and their arguments lend strong credence to the claim that psychology resists quantification and thusly that psychometrics isn’t measurement.”
They’re the same arguments you use mostly.
“It’s a conceptual issue.”
“measuring some sort of ability”
“Ah, the “We’re measuring SOMETHING” claim.”
Ah, the “RR doesn’t remember who he is talking to.”
I’m not a psychometrician, I’m giving the argument that psychometricians or people who believe in psychometrics know they measuring something whether they understand it fundamentally or not, or can isolate it.
I already know intelligence has quantifiable aspects because of conceptual arguments, but not all psychologists understand it, even though they can intuit aspects of it. (or anyone who believes in IQ)
“There’s more to life success than a positive correlation with income”
Like what? I think that most if not all of the relations can be explained due to the fact that it’s a middle-class knowledge and skills test.
“If the nuances imply the same complaints you’ve had, they’ve already been dealt with.”
No they’re different, they’re ones I haven’t brought up.
“Yes it is very relevant… because any specific test can be trained for so psychometrics cannot have a fullproof controlled test.”
No, what he means by “not manipulable or controllable” is that they aren’t manageable, so they aren’t manipulable or controllable to the extent required for measurement theory.
“I’m giving the argument that psychometricians or people who believe in psychometrics know they measuring something whether they understand it fundamentally or not, or can isolate it.”
Yea that claim that “SOMETHING is being measured” has been used for literally 100 years. The fact of the matter is, the test was created and then they attempt to work backwards to see what it “measures”, and that’s going about measurement the wrong way.
Also another fact of the matter: What they “thought they were measuring” has been a falsified concept for almost 100 years. Psychometrics is empty both empirically and conceptually. Most importantly because there’s no measurement unit, and there’s the fact that before we can articulate a measurement unit we need to know what we’re measuring (they don’t) and if it can be measured at all (psychological traits resist quantification so they can’t be measured), so no measurement unit can exist.
One more thing: The claim from Jensen, Urbach, and Eysenck that IQ tests is to thermometers as IQ is to temperature fails on the grounds that the scales they use are completely different. Why this never occurred to them is a mystery to me.
Non quantitative qualities are measurable by comparison. But even individually a psychological trait can be measured by its intensity levels, disruption levels of subjective well being… The only problema there is the lack of other refference values to be compared and measured.
I mean, because we still dont have a strict quantitative averages of cognitive and psychological traits (associated with reactive variation on specific areas of the brain and such or the neuron numbers which are moved during a given emotional reaction or cognitive task) “we’ cant measure them in quantitative way even thought doing it look pointless if is not really necessary, just by sheer curiosity or entertainment, for the sake of scientific pedantism.
“Non quantitative qualities”
“”we” can’t measure them in a quantitative way”
Thanks for the admission.
You can´t read.
”I mean, because we still dont have a strict quantitative averages of cognitive and psychological traits (associated with reactive variation on specific areas of the brain and such or the neuron numbers which are moved during a given emotional reaction or cognitive task)
… “we’ cant measure them in quantitative way”
”Non quantitative qualities are measurable by comparison. But even individually a psychological trait can be measured by its intensity levels, disruption levels of subjective well being…”
The fact of the matter is, psychologists have physics envy and they “try” to “measure” what’s immeasurable and non-quantitative. Why do you think they haven’t addressed these deathblows, Santo? Serious question.
“Non quantitative qualities” means they AREN’T quantitative. Psychological traits are NOT quantitative and this has been established by numerous authors. Of course, nothing you’ve said refutes the claim that psychological traits are “non quantitative” and therefore immune to quantification. Because you’re not familiar with the literature on this matter. Because you don’t read. If a quality isn’t quantifiable—that is, if it isn’t quantifiable—then it isn’t measurable.
Non quantitative=\= immesurable.
I already said … Only reason it’s not quantifiable is because there are no invented proper tools and produced knowledgeble about all of quantitative variations of human brain and nervous system, such as number of neurons, under specific stimuli and also the lack of utility on doing it.
But it’s measured through comparison of different “mental” states: reactions, perceptions… That’s how people can detect when someone is experiencing a psychotic state from other individual who are not having the same experience. It’s called qualitative comparison and it is equivalent to measurement of physical properties and or dimensions. This is the basic of psychometrics.
“Non quantitative=\= immeasurable”
Hahaha
Thank you. 😉
To defeat RR once and for all:
Why do you like blacks so much?
You’ll get interesting answers. Go ahead RR. Explain why blacks are not the creatures that HBD makes them out to be. Explain their benefit to society outside of music.
“But HBD is science!” “Explain why blacks are not the creatures that HBD makes them out to be.” Clown.
Why do you feel the way you do about blacks?
RR is a fitness trainer because he has a low IQ. Fitness trainer…is essentially a very low IQ ‘profession’. Even being a carpenter takes more brainpower. Sorry I meant ‘mind/soul power’ lol.
Unlike unsanitary clowns who don’t take showers, I have a great job making great money that uses my A and P knowledge helping people reach their goals. I’ve never been fired from any job. I keep jobs longterm.
yes.
i felt sick when you looked down on melo for being a carpenter. carpenter is a real job. carpenters should be paid a lot more than they are. and used to be before all the carpenters became mexicans. bernie was a carpenter at one time. the only jewish carpenter since jesus.
whereas fitness trainer is a fake and gay bullshit job no one should admit to let alone be proud of…
but under neoliberalism such jobs are most jobs.
Charles Murray recently made a similar point, saying we could get rid of everyone with an IQ above 120 and society would function fine because so many of them were in bullshit jobs like sociology professor. This is probably a big exaggeration on his part though
A pre modern society could work fine.
Charles Murray recently made a similar point…
similar to what? what’re you RETARDED?
apparently you:
1. CAN’T READ.
2. HAVE ACCUSED CHARLES MURRAY OF HAVING AN IQ ABOVE 120. WHICH HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT HAVE.
3. HAVE ACCUSED CHARLES MURRAY OF WANTING TO T-4 HIMSELF.
4. CHARLES MURRAY’S PHD IS IN…SOCIOLOGY!…OR WAS IT POLY-SCI?…WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
I never said he has an IQ above 120 but he OBVIOUSLY DOES!!!
peepee thinks carpenters have IQs > 120 or it’s possible to “get rid of” carpenters!!!
LEARN TO READ AND ACCEPT THAT CHARLES MURRAY HAS AN IQ ALMOST AS LOW AS RR’S!!!
IT’S TOTALLY OBVIOUS PEEPEE DOESN’T HAVE A Y CHROMOSOME SADLY.
Why does Mugabe keep saying great thinkers are stupid? Jensen, Rushton, Niethsche, Murray…he shits all over these people even though they are brilliant. Is it because they hate religion or something?
I know Mugabe definitely hates Richard Dawkins haha.
It’s because they’re HBD.
mugabe imagines this MEDI-EVAL moral scenario…
mugabe et al have shut themselves up in a castle because the black death, plague is raging…
some people come before the castle and say, “let us in! let us in! if you don’t let us in the huns will kill us.”
mugabe: if there’s one of you with the plague all of us in the castle will die.
outside: only if you let rats in with their fleas.
mugabe: you only know that because you can see the future.
outside: let us in anyway.
mugabe: NO! i must save myself and all the people i am closest to, and if i let you in one of you may KILL us all.
outside: have you read kidder and rosner (907 bce)?
mugabe: okay that’s enough. boiling oil on your heads AND huns.
it’s a metaphor or example to which peepee should apply her jusuitry.
dammit that didn’t have the bit. here it is, in part:
reminds me of rr.
the moment rr changed his views:
///
LOL
That guy played by Stiller is smarter than RR. RR really does read the dictionary though.
^^^DELETE PLEASE^^^
this is giving rr way toO much credit.
PLEASE BAN PILL AND RR AND SANTO.
PEEPEE’S LAST CHANCE.
IF PEEPEE SOLVES THE VERY HARD IQ TEST QUESTION OF DELETE-ING THE ABOVE COMMENT THEN I PROMISE TO STOP COMMENTING UNTIL RR IS PERMANENTLY BANNED.
mugabe: why do hindu south asians do so much better in british society than muslim south asians?
rr: because racism.
mugabe: okay…this is why there were concentration camps. where are the “hindu grooming gangs”? oh right they don’t exist and hindus are the top performing ethnicity in britain. lying idiot!
why are american black roman catholics so conspicuously more intelligent than the rest?
rr: because racism.
Imagine him teaching his daughter to be a professional victimist.
the simple answer is because there are a billion Hindu dindus coming from South Asia and there are only 400 million South Asian Muslims.
even if you argued that the proportions should be the same that would be wrong because Hindu Dindus are less successful in a lot of ways than South Asian Muslims when it comes 2 certain fields.
Look the Hindu Dindu is a pest and a parasite. dont let them in2 your countries. [redacted by pp, 2023-10-18]
EXACTLY!
once again LOADED is the highest IQ commenter.
Catholicism is a retardates religion. it should never exist. Catholics are dumber than Islamists and it is a backwards religion.
Black Roman Catholics or any religious black person sounds like an idiotic psychopath because theyre all degenerates 2 begin with.
Let them rot.
Muslims are the dumbest of all monotheistic groups.
you dont believe in IQ what criteria are you even using 2 determine how Muslims are dumb you flamin homo!
youve been supporting the Pals this whole time against Israel while believing this what type of moron are you!
Poor little rat…
“U dont believi in IQ”
Where do you read this, 93 IQ??
my IQ is certainly higher than yours. just look at how fast my mind works and how quickly i can solve problems including solving the problem of why Santo the homo thinks he is smart!
In most of your comments you are just saying how umbelivable smart you think you are while having a perpetual disssociative experience…
Your supposed detection of contradictions showed how low is your rationality and thus intelligence. You think if someone is against Israel or pro Palestine he cant believe and or accept that Muslims are the dumbest among monotheistic religious groups. Actually accepting or believing on it is even helpful to seeing Palestinians as legitimate victims.
Santo your retardation is profound. i think you have Down Syndrome. just a professional diagnosis here.
It’s a better compliment than call me “Loaded”. If there is a bell curve here you are on the very bottom.
you dont even know how a bell curve looks like!
you people are old fools! there is no need 2 be evil about it but you guys are what i would call the puppet masters 4 the illiterate masses.
the people on this blog are greedy scumbags. washed up losers. old timers.
Pill will lose his mind the second the needle gets dropped. let him rot! let him eat feces!
You are losing it.
no you Hindu your culture and religion have lost.
How loaded?
please don’t approve my comment with the reference to misgender-ers. i know that hurts rr’s feelings.
thank you peepee.
i promise not to comment again until rr has fully transitioned, is post-op.
I found an interesting comment on quora. Read this folks, esp you loaded it says great things about how great and intellectual muslims are :
Who was more intelligent einstein or john von neumann?
Here’s a quote from Eugene Wigner, a Nobel-prize winning physicist who was friends with both Einstein and Von Neumann:
“I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jancsi [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed.
But Einstein’s understanding was deeper even than von Neumann’s. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann’s. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jancsi’s brilliance, he never produced anything as original.”
—————————————————————————————————————
In terms of precocious, “gee whiz he can calculate Pi to the 23,000th decimal place in his head!” Johnny was unmatched. Nobody – for the exception of Ramanujan, whose talents in mathematics were unparalleled – could match Johnny’s eidetic gifts. But that raises an interesting question about what we mean by “intelligence.”
If we ranked geniuses by IQ tests then I doubt any man of the last 120 years, perhaps with the exception of Poincare, would beat John Von Neumann (or perhaps some janitor working nights at MIT would win, these things are hard to predict and, more importantly, meaningless). But is intelligence simply the summation of an IQ test? Truly “smart” people know the answer is no. You can be more brilliant and creative than somebody with a higher IQ than you. Such metrics are too simplistic to capture the totality of what we mean when we say “intelligence.” Creativity is intelligence. Abstract, conceptual thinking is intelligence. Mathematical deduction is intelligence, but so is literary deduction.
Both men were incredibly prolific. Von Neumann was an incredible polymath (everything from game theory in economics to computational engineering, pure & applied mathematics, etc.) but he didn’t revolutionize an entire field like Einstein did. What Einstein accomplished hadn’t been done in 250 years, and that was just one of his many gifts to humanity. Neumann’s mind was quicker than anybody of his era, but Einstein’s mind was both more penetrating and more original than Johnny’s- and that isn’t an indictment of Johnny, but a reminder of how incredible Einstein’s accomplishments were.
youre an idiot Name. all you Hindus are low IQ and stupid beyond measure.
you drink cow piss 4 the sake of Shiva the many armed blue “god” or whatever.
pathetic.
Loaded wants to be white
Never. Who’d wanna be a honkey when blacks are supreme? Makes no sense have some common sense here!
Loaded, you drink goat and camel piss.
Islam is not even a religion and culture. Third rate. That is why it threatens it’s followers with death for leaving it. Otherwise it will cease to exist if it doesn’t. See how weak islam is? And everyone knows muslims are then dumbest. They make 20% of indias population but don’t even make up 20% of the population in intellectual jobs/professions despite having lesser instances of iq depressing anemia, zinc deficiency and alcoholism than hindus.
[redacted by pp, 2023-10-20]
youre autistic Name.
>Einstein’s mind was both more penetrating and more original than Johnny’s
>You can be more brilliant and creative than somebody with a higher IQ than you. Such metrics are too simplistic to capture the totality of what we mean when we say “intelligence.” Creativity is intelligence. Abstract, conceptual thinking is intelligence.
All that is happening is a valuation or comparison between patterns.
Not only are we manipulating data but we are looking for novelty.
We are predicting what will happen but we are looking at what is possible.
We combine and we take apart. Externally and internally.
The brain as a system is a higher-order control network.
This is valuable to both quantity and quality.
The imagination is a memory mechanism for generating new things.
New things are the essence of creativity.
PP out of the 3 movies you recommended me which should I watch this weekend? I also heard about “Gerald’s Game” and “The Fourth Kind” which seem cool.
In order:
1) Friday the 13th (1980)
2) Knock at the Cabin (2023)
3) Bury the Bride (2023)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/18/u-s-announcement-of-humanitarian-assistance-to-the-palestinian-people/
6 billion to Iran
8 billion to Israel
I feel like Biden has no idea what a balanced budget is. (although giving money to both sides certainly is balanced!)
Also, reducing the quality of life of Americans to more fit the quality of life of Gazans by burdening our taxpayers certainly balances things.
That $6b is Iran’s own money that was seized by sanctions.
Obviously America is a tributary state to Zion. I think Biden privately sympathasis with the muslims but he knows who his boss is. Frankly, they are probably blackmailing him on something sexual.
sometimes people feign ignorance 2 the higher purpose. this is not Jewy or Muzzie in nature but you see what i mean.
Loaded is too mentally ill at this point to function in society. Thats why no job and just sits in his underwear making bizarre and inflammatory comments on blogs.
After Chateau Heartiste shutdown, this is the only blog I ‘shitpost’ on.
no you fucking idiot i have more class and have accessibility 2 more resources than you both figuratively and literally.
you are a hypocrite 2 the highest order!
Easy buddy. Can i give you a tip that enables a better mood for you through the day? Brush your teeth before going to bed too. This is not a slight on you or muslims as most people in the world regardless of religion or race dont do it. Heck even i didn’t do it until recently. I used to brush only once a day like everyone. But i noticed better mood the next day if i brush the night before too. Not just good dental health.
Just saying….
This is the same good mood that is making me give you this tip despite our recent comments to each other. If i hadn’t started nightly brushing i wouldn’t have felt like telling you this.
Cheers.
listen Hindu you brush your teeth with cow piss which is not the same as brushing your teeth. fucking moron.
I can insult you similarly ten times worse but I wont. I can imagine why u insult other religions without provocation. Because that is what islam is about. It makes its followers like that.That is why I say it is not a religion. It is a bigoted cult.