Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

by **BadgerJelly** on March 18th, 2018, 10:43 pm

Just in case you're not convinced by my "gobbledegook" listen to what Steven Pinker has to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA

The first minute should tell you all you need to know about the science behind measurements of intelligence.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 19th, 2018, 12:21 am

Braininvat » March 14th, 2018, 11:39 pm wrote:
You have an outdated, non-scientific understanding of race that is borrowed from 19th century slave trading societies.

Worry not! I have arrived to this thread to get you "up to speed" on our current understanding of human genetic groupings.....
- Hyksos

Worry not, Forrest Dump posted early in this thread on the obsolescence of the concept of race. I've stopped following the thread, as it's hard for me to really care about all these vague and unsupported metrics. As Serpent (IIRC) pointed out earlier, a competent elementary school teacher can spot aptitudes and help students build on those, while filling in cognitive gaps.

Should I be worried about the CAPITALISATION of the word Nazi as a representation of what I am saying? Or the use of this term a few breaths before stating my name?

What "unsupported metrics"? And then if I try and explain why IQ tests are our best measure of intelligence I am accused of "obsession" by Hyksos. I would hardly call 3-4 thread on IQ over 6-7 years an "obsession" of mine, and I've said this yet Hyksos has continued that narrative.

The concept of race, as I have stated, is a political concept. It is used for self identity. There are distinctions between groups. To say "race" is an outdated term doesn't stop its use nor does it stop people being able to trace their genetic ancestry.

Serpent is take random pot-shots and ignoring the information I have provided to refute what he says ... so much so that he simply goes back to saying something I have already refuted. He has also asked what I am looking for and I have replied two, maybe three, times and yet he persisted and then said I wanted to "engineer" people. Quite silly, as is the use of Finland as an example because we know they stopped taking tests and actually improved in their ability to take tests by doing so - this goes against the idea that IQ can be improved by taking tests when people have improved by not taking tests (those are some examples of the double sidedness of the argumentation I am faced with from Serpent.)

Point out one thing if you can that I said above that is "gobbledegook" if you can. Hyksos managed to conveniently avoid any specific criticism - out of fear of me actually being able to back up what I am saying (which is not very much because I merely wanted to explore the ethical implications and I've been met with nothing but brick walls for the most part.)

There is the point that if people think all psychology is pseudoscience then there is no conversation to be had here with them. I guess that is basically what is being said by Serpent and Hyksos?

by **BadgerJelly** on March 19th, 2018, 1:36 am

And here is some perspective on the history of studying intelligence (which does exist and is measureable to a degree.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xTz3QjcloI

12 minutes long and not really in depth, but it outlines well enough why people get upset by this subject. Feel free to watch the vid after this too ... although I have actually watched hours of Sapolsky talking about this in WAY more depth, although briefly, and Pinker, and Peterson; plus I've read some some books on child develop, the best of which I've yet to get into (Piaget.) And I've read through a 48 part course called Introduction to Psychology (cannot remember the name of professor or uni right now) and I am starting to go through it again and make better notes of the history and development of psychological ideas.

by **hyksos** on March 19th, 2018, 6:08 am

There is the point that if people think all psychology is pseudoscience then there is no conversation to be had here with them. I guess that is basically what is being said by Serpent and Hyksos?

No. Absolutely not. Why don't you engage in the (radical idea) of actually responding to what I actually post?

BadgerJelly. You are playing a game now of dodging your actual assertions, and shifting the blame to Pinker. I am fully aware of the science behind IQ tests, but it is not "scientific" in the way you are asserting. Despite everything you claim, and every source you link to outside this forum, these following facts still remain :

When a scientific experiment produces a Gaussian Distribution (or "bell curve") that is very strong evidence that you are genuinely measuring some kind of actual metric in nature. This is true for things like the width of tree trunks, the speed of water in rivers, the temperature of stars, and whatever else tangible thing exists out in the world.
IQ tests do produce a Gaussian upon the test results when administered to a large group of people. I admitted such cleanly and neatly in my posts.
This is strong evidence that IQ tests are measuring something , but nobody really knows what that is.
A person's acumen on IQ tests have been statistically correlated with their later success in academia. Given. No argument from me on that fact.
The "something" that is measured by IQ tests is not (as you have asserted continually) a "measure of complex problem solving". No. IT would be nice if it was, but we don't know that with any kind of certainty.
The "something" that is measured by IQ tests could be as innocuous as "abillity to do well on pencil and paper tests". This is a completely tenable possibility given the data.
The The "something" that is measured by IQ tests could be as innocuous as "ability to understand and follow written directions ". This is a completely tenable possibility given the data.
IQ tests are not built up from first principles, as if there were some ironclad "deep theory" to testing complex problem solving ability. There is no such theory.
There exist cultural , provincial metrics of "smartness". And that's fine. Make a Smartness Test and administer it. This won't hurt my feelings. Just don't pretend like you have something you don't really have.

As far as gobbledygook is concerned, BadgerJelly's posts about IQ tests are not derived or in accordance with the above facts. He is nancing around this forum pretending like IQ tests are some of universal, absolute, cosmic measure of human intelligence and cognitive abilities. In short, he is selling homeopathic snake oil. We have no such tests. That kind of magical pencil-and-paper test does not exist on earth. BadgerJelly might as well be selling an Elixir of Eternal Youth on TV.

Niether of such metrics , following written directions, doing well on paper tests, (which could actually be what these tests measure!) are not un-important in a person's life. Given. No argument. But to pretend that these tests are absolutely scientific objective measurements of the cognitive abilities of a human beings -- that is gobbledygook. I know this. He knows this. Everyone on this forum knows this.

The facts above remain un-assailed. They are not debunked nor challenged by any material linked in this thread nor by any assertions posted in this thread. Not the Pinker links, and not the him-hawing.

If any person on this forum actually follows your links and listens and reads, they will see the above list of facts repeated in different guises. Every fact I have posted above will be corroborated by your extra-forum materials. I am 110% confident of that.

by **hyksos** on March 19th, 2018, 6:21 am

Look at this. I posted this :

hyksos » March 19th, 2018, 2:34 am wrote:They most certainly do not "tell us about someone's cognitive ability to solve complex problems." This is not science.

Now do not mince my words : I did not claim that IQ tests are measuring nothing. The repeatibility of the Gaussian (read "bell curve" ) results mean they are indeed measuring something, and therefore, cannot be discarded as being useless.

BadgerJelly then posts this in response:

BadgerJelly » March 19th, 2018, 8:21 am wrote:There is the point that if people think all psychology is pseudoscience then there is no conversation to be had here with them. I guess that is basically what is being said by Serpent and Hyksos?

The man has literally minced my words right in front of my face right after I told him not to. This is getting disingenuous.

by **Serpent** on March 19th, 2018, 9:32 am

The school examination, administered to students of the same age, in the same school, taking the same course, measures the amount of subject matter that students have retained. A reasonable expectation is that the spectrum of student motivation, application and recall will distribute along a line from 0-100% retention.
If the marks fall heavily toward the low end, that's an indication that something is wrong with the course. The school board should consider whether 1. the material is too advanced or 2. the students lacked foundation work in previous grades or 3. the teaching was inadequate or 4. the students have poor attendance and/or study habits. If it's heavy on the top end, one might surmise either that the teacher is exceptionally able or that the subject matter is not challenging enough.

A standard test in a nationally mandated standard course, administered to all students of the same grade in a whole country, measures the efficacy of the schools by district. It indicates where schools - not students - are failing and succeeding - at a specific pre-set task.

These tests are useful, if they're applied correctly, to discover discrepancies and correct faults in a system - so long as the purpose and benchmarks of that system is clearly understood by all participants.

If the majority of students in a district or nation have poor showing on a standard test, that indicates something - either about the education system or the test. If we don't know the purpose of the test or the system it's testing, we can get no useful information from the result.

Trying to tailor an expectant mother's nutrition to the eventual success of her child at taking paper-and-pencil tests is a futile exercise. On the other hand, feeding all mothers and babies well would be worth doing, whether they ever take an IQ test or not.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 19th, 2018, 1:01 pm

Hyksos -

The man has literally minced my words right in front of my face right after I told him not to. This is getting disingenuous.

It was hardly a cloaked comparison to Nazis was it? I merely asked, strongly, if you thought psychology was pseudoscience because you seem to deny they're attempting to measure "intelligence" and say they don't know what they are measuring. Certainly no one is saying, or has said on this forum, that any test of intelligence is irrefutable. Everything points to what we all generally recognize as "intelligence" (that is why people who score high are inclined to be more successful in their chosen pursuits.)

And yet you seem to have "literally minced" my words here (sorry, they are not actually MY words at all):

To nance around this forum claiming we have "The most perfectly refined test of human intelligence to separate the complex problem-solvers from their inferior brethren" this is idiotic

Yes, that is an idiotic statement. Those are your words though, not mine.

You've not addressed anything I've said, and preceded to tell silly stories about "raw water", and THEN turned around and called me disingenuous?

Here is an example of your word manner:

As far as gobbledygook is concerned, BadgerJelly's posts about IQ tests are not derived or in accordance with the above facts. He is nancing around this forum pretending like IQ tests are some of universal, absolute, cosmic measure of human intelligence and cognitive abilities. In short, he is selling homeopathic snake oil. We have no such tests. That kind of magical pencil-and-paper test does not exist on earth. BadgerJelly might as well be selling an Elixir of Eternal Youth on TV.

Disengenuous? Mmmm ...

How do you wish me to refute your rhetoric? I have provided a leading psychologist saying that IQ does measure intelligence, and you've provided ... nothing yet.

If Pinker is not enough how about the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/topics/intelligence/

Intelligence refers to intellectual functioning. Intelligence quotients, or IQ tests, compare your performance with other people your age who take the same test. These tests don’t measure all kinds of intelligence, however. For example, such tests can’t identify differences in social intelligence, the expertise people bring to their interactions with others. There are also generational differences in the population as a whole. Better nutrition, more education and other factors have resulted in IQ improvements for each generation.

It is not me who needs to back up what I am saying, unless you wish me to produce information to show that Steven Pinker is doing science that measures up to your standards.

I am also curious what you are referring to by saying gobbledegook? What terminology are you not familiar with?

Here is an example of my apparent gobbledegook from the post your were referring to:

IQ was not developed to measure someones ability to enter the US army. That is a false statement. The IQ test was originally developed to help school "retarded" students by Binet, and previous to that it was used. Francis Galton is generally accepted as the founder of psychometric studies and he was simply curious about human intelligence and human genius (as many people are.)

I am not massively concerned with individual instances of slave history without the broader picture. In the US I am suggesting that differences in IQ between "groups" is due to psychological conditioning (social and media attitudes, and peoples sense of indentity - plus these influences are amplified, so I believe, by prenatal conditions of stress that then have a knock-on "Grandmother" effect.)

How about commenting on why humans score higher on older IQ tests? Are we getting "smarter"? Is it due to, as Pinker suggests, the higher degree of technological interaction of the average person?

What do you mean by "there is no deep theory behind these tests"?

The "grandmother" effect was a reference to the Sapolsky lecture in which he explained the knock-on effect of prenatal environments taking time to fade out - I highly stressed environment would be more likely to effect the fetus and that fetus would grow into a child susceptible to stress, and so on.

As for this:

This is strong evidence that IQ tests are measuring something , but nobody really knows what that is.

We don't know what intelligence is, but we do our best to measure it. It is defined, and in some areas people talk of "multiple intelligences", but they are "intelligences" designed to ignore personality traits.

The IQ test doesn't measure social ability, artistic talent or creativity; but it does correlate a little in certain aspects of personality (which is a much more vague field to measure because it relies on self analysis.)

Why don't you engage in the (radical idea) of actually responding to what I actually post?

I am more than happy to if present something other than bizarre stories of tenuous connection to the topic (eg. "raw water", "hippies", "spiritualists", "dead jelly-fish" and "The Mozart Effect".) I am sorry, but I fail to see the connection between those and anything I've said? It is hard for me to respond to these because I never brought any of them up.

note: I am still curious about what you think of the apparent "increase" in human ability.

Food for thought (something I watched a long time ago that I found interesting):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

That was the gist of what Pinker seemed to be saying too.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 19th, 2018, 1:20 pm

Serpent -

Trying to tailor an expectant mother's nutrition to the eventual success of her child at taking paper-and-pencil tests is a futile exercise. On the other hand, feeding all mothers and babies well would be worth doing, whether they ever take an IQ test or not.

It is not about tailoring prenatal conditions. I was simply interested in the biochemistry involved and the mechanism. Also, as the cortical levels rise in the mother to be they can effect the baby too and the babies children.

If you thought about this you'd perhaps see that even if there is an apparent distinction between groups in IQ measures of intelligence then it doesn't mean it is irreversible and merely a condition of the prenatal environment. Given that on top of this the global relevance of IQ tests is debatable due to control measures and what I was curious about in the other thread - which was a more clearly laid out (although vague) idea of what I meant by "patriotism", and such, having an effect.

Maybe we can just disagree about what IQ shows. Either way I'd rather move onto the "race" as a product of a certain concoction of personality traits - basically a proclivity for/against group identity - wherein things like "social intelligence" are likely more correlated to traits like "extroversion" than being a separate "kind of" intelligence. Creativity is also a factor that doesn't seem to fit anywhere, but we can see openness and creativity as being related.

I already said over and over that IQ does not make someone "better" or "successful", not to mention morally superior (although that is REALLY something that I love to think about and it throw up all kind of positive and negative ideas!)

note: There is no correlation between industriousness and IQ. Which is strange when you appreciate that IQ tests measure for "mental speed".

by **Serpent** on March 19th, 2018, 4:26 pm

BadgerJelly » March 19th, 2018, 12:20 pm wrote:Serpent -

[ expectant mother's nutrition to the eventual success of her child at taking paper-and-pencil tests ..]
It is not about tailoring prenatal conditions. I was simply interested in the biochemistry involved and the mechanism. Also, as the cortical levels rise in the mother to be they can effect the baby too and the babies children.

You can't learn biochemical mechanism from IQ tests. That's not what IQ tests are for.

If you thought about this you'd perhaps see that even if there is an apparent distinction between groups in IQ measures of intelligence then it doesn't mean it is irreversible and merely a condition of the prenatal environment.

Prenatal conditions most certainly are irreversible. Children who are malnourished and/or neglected in the first three years cannot catch up to their luckier cohort, no matter how their conditions may improve. But children of normal development who test low in the first two or three grades can improve their test scores in an enriched learning environment.

Given that on top of this the global relevance of IQ tests is debatable due to control measures and what I was curious about in the other thread - which was a more clearly laid out (although vague) idea of what I meant by "patriotism", and such, having an effect.

I have no idea how can you go about finding that out.

.. I'd rather move onto the "race" as a product of a certain concoction of personality traits - basically a proclivity for/against group identity - wherein things like "social intelligence" are likely more correlated to traits like "extroversion" than being a separate "kind of" intelligence. Creativity is also a factor that doesn't seem to fit anywhere, but we can see openness and creativity as being related.

You have totally lost me. What "race"?

I already said over and over that IQ does not make someone "better"or "successful"

Okay, but you did say that low IQ scores were a problem to be solved. Or, at least, that's what I read.

not to mention morally superior (although that is REALLY something that I love to think about and it throw up all kind of positive and negative ideas!)

I never touched the ethical component, for the simple reason that I never understood it.

note: There is no correlation between industriousness and IQ.

Then why bring it up?

Which is strange when you appreciate that IQ tests measure for "mental speed".

What's strange? Industriousness (or application) has nothing to do with speed, or mental agility, or problem solving. It's simply an attitude. It can be instilled early in life by parents, or acquired under competitive pressure, or developed along with ambition, or a byproduct of a consuming interest. Some aptitude tests may give a clue to which; no IQ test can. However, a moderately intelligent student who works hard and pays attention may score higher on a generic IQ test than a brilliant one who doesn't care.

by **hyksos** on March 19th, 2018, 6:20 pm

When a scientific experiment produces a Gaussian Distribution (or "bell curve") that is very strong evidence that you are genuinely measuring some kind of actual metric in nature. This is true for things like the width of tree trunks, the speed of water in rivers, the temperature of stars, and whatever else tangible thing exists out in the world.
IQ tests do produce a Gaussian upon the test results when administered to a large group of people. I admitted such cleanly and neatly in my posts.
This is strong evidence that IQ tests are measuring something , but nobody really knows what that is.
A person's acumen on IQ tests have been statistically correlated with their later success in academia. Given. No argument from me on that fact.
The "something" that is measured by IQ tests is not (as you have asserted continually) a "measure of complex problem solving". No. IT would be nice if it was, but we don't know that with any kind of certainty.
The "something" that is measured by IQ tests could be as innocuous as "abillity to do well on pencil and paper tests". This is a completely tenable possibility given the data.
The The "something" that is measured by IQ tests could be as innocuous as "ability to understand and follow written directions ". This is a completely tenable possibility given the data.
IQ tests are not built up from first principles, as if there were some ironclad "deep theory" to testing complex problem solving ability. There is no such theory.
There exist cultural , provincial metrics of "smartness". And that's fine. Make a Smartness Test and administer it. This won't hurt my feelings. Just don't pretend like you have something you don't really have.

In case anyone was under the impression that my posts are being replied to -- the above bullet point list was ignored by the reply-ee. All 9 of them were ignored.

The reply-ee went back into the thread to quote-mine individual fragments of much older posts I made in earlier sections. In essence, this forum participant has disengaged from having a conversation with me, and has turned to character assassination instead.

by **Serpent** on March 19th, 2018, 6:57 pm

All the same, if I had a toddling grandchild in the house, I would rather play Mozart to it than Travis Scott.
I do - or have in the past, before all these lacunae opened in my aging brain and thousands of names, as well as other words, fell into them - quite well on IQ tests - except for the number progression questions, which I skipped because they annoy me.

by **wolfhnd** on March 19th, 2018, 11:54 pm

I think this is easy to settle. Everything else being equal, such as common sense, emotional health, attractiveness, physical health, would you want you kids to have an IQ of 100 or 130?

by **BadgerJelly** on March 20th, 2018, 1:35 am

The first two bullets points I agree with ... after that I wouldn't say we have no idea what is being measured. It is in part "intelligence", as I have pointed out numerous times (and which Serpent even conceded) and which practically every psychologist would agree with.

The search was originally for some hypothesized "g factor." Opinion has waxed and waned over decades about this hypothesis, but it is now widely accepted because all tests point to an understand "g factor". The question is more about the precision of measuring such a thing and how well IQ scores correlate with someone's ability to perform different tasks.

What has been found is that there is something underlying all these different abilities, because generally speaking if you are good at one you're much more likely to be better at others.

There is nothing to suggest that if your IQ is around 90 you'll never achieve academic success or have a well paid and demanding job, but it does say it is less likely. The flip side goes to, high IQ does not mean you'll be successful in your life.

Other factors, just as important (more so in some ways I believe) are the Big Five and creativity.

After that the bullet points were mainly repetition dressed up as different points as far as I can tell.

Hyksos -

I am curious what it is you think the purpose of a university is? If it isn't for the best and brightest who is it for?

by **BadgerJelly** on March 20th, 2018, 3:41 am

Serpent -

You can't learn biochemical mechanism from IQ tests. That's not what IQ tests are for.

I never made this claim in those words, but actually I am suggesting there is merely a biological mechanism for intelligence and that we know prenatal conditions have an effect on IQ (and therefore on intelligence, but I am not saying they are by any means equivalent - one is an attempt to measure the other.)

IQ tests were designed to find the underlying workings of intelligence, so originally they were but since then it has taken a back seat to education purposes.

I am very curious about neurochemistry and neurogenesis. If you have the time to watch that Sapolsky lecture in full I think you'll be fascinated too and find all sorts of questions fighting around in your head - it is simply a case of blood flow? Apparently not because testosterone in a prenatal rat will pass onto their prenatal siblings because they share the same blood stream.

Prenatal conditions most certainly are irreversible. Children who are malnourished and/or neglected in the first three years cannot catch up to their luckier cohort, no matter how their conditions may improve. But children of normal development who test low in the first two or three grades can improve their test scores in an enriched learning environment.

I agree. I am just saying there is still something to learn here and that we have no idea what benefits may arise from such curiosity. Factors like social interaction are deadly important and I curious about how nutrition and social activity play into this.

You have totally lost me. What "race"?

You know what it means and it seems we all agree it is an unsubstantiated position. There are small differences, but generally speaking humans are more alike than different compared to other animals. The term "race" has been replaced by the more palatable term "ethnicity" by some and others hold onto the older term. Either way people do identify as being this or that "race", so I was reducing the term "race" to be simply a matter of identity and that such neuroticism (the need to feel part of a group) is more to do with personality traits than with intelligence.

Okay, but you did say that low IQ scores were a problem to be solved. Or, at least, that's what I read.

I don't think I did say that, but maybe my words were not so good. Either way there is a current and future problem in employment when it comes to finding jobs for people in a society with higher and higher cognitive demands.

I am more interested in simply looking at what intelligence is and how human being differ and relate. That is my "problem" and it is not strictly solvable or only about IQ. This topic is simply one that appeared to cover several different things at once.

The other topic I made like this some time ago was about the famous trolley problem and how rationality plays into ethical choices.

What's strange? Industriousness (or application) has nothing to do with speed, or mental agility, or problem solving. It's simply an attitude. It can be instilled early in life by parents, or acquired under competitive pressure, or developed along with ambition, or a byproduct of a consuming interest.

I would have expected "application" to a problem to be part of "intelligence." Industriousness is not really something we can measure easily. The constant problem of personality traits is the fact they are subjective tests. Even so they do yield some insight, but I am not sure we are really in a position to say one way or another much "industriousness" lean to or from nurture.

I don't believe there is a "gene" for intelligence. I believe intelligence is a property of humans we're all aware of and appreciate well enough when it comes to genius levels of cognition or low levels, like when a grown man has the mentality of a child (where I live there are people like this and they are treated well enough - believe it or not!)

Then there is the ethical issue of eugenics. People who find out they are having a child with Down syndrome having an abortion. Is this necessary? I find it inhumane myself, but I can understand why some people would think that it was okay due to ignorance.

Then Wolf mentioned about the choice of IQ in your children. I don't like that idea much either. So right there we an issue of if we can influence prenatal develop (when we come to understand this more) how can we handle this in a responsible manner if we're already caught up in issues of race identity above actual biological differences. If we weigh more into the rhetoric of "race" than the actual supposed biological differences then what are we doing? Are we then admitting that most people care more about identity than scientific evidence? If so what means do we have to alter this view and if we did what would be the resulting society that would arise from it?

note: The TEDtalk about the "hypothetical" and people's inability to think in an abstract manner.

I am not setting myself up to say one thing this way or that, I am simply curious about all of these things. I will not say that IQ does not in any way measure intelligence though, but I will concede willingly, and already have, that IQ does not ONLY measure intelligence and that no test can in all seriousness factor out all other external influences because that just doesn't happen (even in phsyics.)

That is likely the reason Hyksos is getting so upset about this. Physics is precise and I remember something funny said on "The Infinite Monkey Cage" where Brain Cox was mocked by his cohost (in a jovial manner) by saying he viewed biology as a form of art something like dance.

I can easily turn around and ask questions of phsyics and present the same semantic argument over the existence of "gravity" or "matter" ... I understand the limitations of physics when it comes to articulating such phenomenon though, so I don't tend to take up that position unless people against the scientific endeavor start ranting about how Newton was right and now he isn't (such talk is usually down to misconceptions of the worded concepts in play and the physically verifiable phenomenon.)

Am I presenting intellectual nostrums as Hyksos keeps saying? I'd say not. I have presented what the psychological community thinks and have yet to see a counter argument - I was hoping for something and I am ready to change my mind about this (my previous view of IQ was the same as everyone else's btw. I tried to find the thread but it was years ago I mentioned IQ tests.)

If I have said something you deem CrAzY point it out and I'd point out where I heard such a thing and who said it. I'll even do my best to provide videos and references.

Hyksos -

Is this or is this not refuting what you are saying about intelligence. Just to remind you you stated:

The facts above remain un-assailed. They are not debunked nor challenged by any material linked in this thread nor by any assertions posted in this thread. Not the Pinker links, and not the him-hawing.

Pinker is talking about the APA here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA:

"... the consensus report noted that intelligence is a stable property of a person well measured by IQ tests and it predicts many life outcomes, moreover IQ is largely heritable within populations accounting for anywhere 50 and 80 percent of the variants depending on how you measure it and at what age this is established by many studies of tens of thousands of identical and fraternal twins or identical twins are more correlated in their intelligence than fraternal twins of twins separated at birth and who grow up in different environments whose IQs are highly correlated and in comparisons of biological and adoptive siblings where the correlations are far stronger among biological siblings than among adoptive siblings ..."

It does not say it is a flawless measurement or it would be saying IQ is intelligence. That is not my claim and never has been. You seem to be agreeing with me mostly yet acting emotionally and with vitriol against what you wish me to be implying so you can get all high and mighty ... or maybe you actually have a point. I will assume the later and await your response.

And again from APA [url]http://www.apa.org/research/action/intelligence-testing.aspx
[/url]:

Certainly no half full glass has been scrutinized more carefully than the glass that symbolizes intelligence and achievement tests. Despite all the controversy surrounding intelligence testing, few people would call for a wholesale abandonment of any form of testing under any circumstances. Thus, IQ and achievement tests are likely to be around for many years to come. This drives home the point that more research is needed to try to ensure that tests are used to maximize learning opportunities for all students - rather than becoming an additional barrier to some children's achievement. Much is being done, but there is much more left to do.

And again, I would be interested to hear what you think of the apparent modern change in IQ scores over the last few decades? I am literally giving you ammunition for a counter argument to the relevance of IQ testing as a measurement of intelligence. Have computers made us more intelligent or are they merely a "tool" that has helped us to explore further? Or is it the ability to think about hypothetical problems and in an abstract manner (again, IQ tests would weigh in here I believe wouldn't they?)

by **hyksos** on March 20th, 2018, 3:55 am

What has been found is that there is something underlying all these different abilities, because generally speaking if you are good at one you're much more likely to be better at others.

Yes. We have data showing correlations between early IQ test results and later achievement in academia. Does this mean we have stumbled upon the Grand Cosmic Secret of the Human Brain? Absolutely not.

Academia, particularly college coursework, does include these aspects
(1) Taking exams on pencil and paper.
(2) Being able to read, understand, and follow written directions.

Are these aspects of intelligence? Maybe. Probably? But these alone could explain the correlations.

Despite some people in this thread promoting IQ tests are unadulterated, pure, and scientific, and "totally accepted by all psychologists" the reality is much more bleak. There are huge arguments raging in whether the tests should or should not contain vocabulary. Some complain vocabulary is just memorization.

Anecdotally from college level coursework, we know there are people who cannot "get math" no matter what. They self-admit this quite openly. Either they "hate math" or they hate math because they "cannot get it" no matter how hard they work at it. Should IQ tests contain canonical mathematical equations in them, or not? Or would containing algebra on an IQ test not "be fair" to those not trained in it? If you contend that training in mathematics is not conducive to any test, then neither should be vocabulary.

We have reasons to believe that IQ tests were tilted away from geometric reasoning towards more vocabulary , literally in the hope that ENGLISH MAJORS would score more equitably with their STEM counterparts. This was done for nothing other than political reasons.

Traditional psychology was largely couched in behaviorism. And this was a historical accident, because at the time, it was impossible for neuroscience to form a theory of brain function. We still don't have this theory today. The brain remains a Black Box.

However, we are in possession of landmark experiments with mice showing that behaviorism cannot be true. Those behaviors learned by repetition through classical conditioning were a certain type of memory. Lately, other types of memory have been revealed by neuroscience. We have very good experiments showing that there is probably a type of memory called "Episodic Memory" that is operated by completely different mechanisms in the brain than the memory identified by behaviorism and classical conditioning. Other landmark experiments show that mice can compare-and-contrast episodic memories. That is, they reason logically about the past and draw conclusions from that reasoning.

Because the bulk of traditional textbooks in psychology were all couched in the behaviorist framework, these landmark studies brought psychology to a screeching halt. If not a halt, it was slowed down drastically. Psychology does not progress with leaps-and-bounds in the way that Pinker-and-company promote in public dialogue. Most normal folks are not comfortable with the slowness in which science progresses on these things. It is achingly slow. Most people would just say "Can't we just assume that mice reason about the past and get on with it?!!" No. We cannot. Everything in psychology is very piecemeal and diligent and careful.

In recent years, the most important evidence has largely been coming from neuroscience.

IMHO neuroscience for the last 18 years has been doing very well at debunking a collection of common wive's tales about how the brain functions. (Women and men use their hemispheres differently. They don't. Urban myth) (Training children in chess in classrooms makes them smarter in all other aspects of their lives. Probably not.) (et cetera)

by **BadgerJelly** on March 20th, 2018, 5:20 am

I've sent a lengthy PM already and tired of this ... will look tomorrow or the day after. Hope there is room to discuss modern psychology (at a glance that looks to be the main qualm above.) I am also interested in this and mentioned the impact of the advances in neuroscience regarding this; and it ties into my look at Husserl too and the general grounding of science etc. in regards to more subjective areas of research.

As I said in PM the brain hemisphere is likely due to hippies taking up Jungian ideas and misapplying them. The issue was, I am guessing, the conflation of "feminine" with "female", and "masculine" with "male." Of course it is a nonsense to suggest such a thing, but that it can be disproven is step forward. If someone asks the question we're meant to provide a counter argument and present evidence to back up our position - if our evidence cannot back up our position then we have to come to terms with this and expand our view and look to other factors and consider that we may be wrong to hold this or that position too (the later is the hardest and the most fulfilling IMO)

Thanks for toning down. I understand the delicacy of the subject matter I've presented and it is the delicate matter because I was tired of seeing, in other forums and across youtube, some deeply biased presentation of figures with very little in the way of context or counter argument.

Anyway, blah blah blah ... back to my books until Thursday I think.

by **hyksos** on March 20th, 2018, 5:50 am

(forked instead)

by **BadgerJelly** on March 20th, 2018, 6:20 am

Jeez ... I take it back. Back to name calling.

note: AI is acronym for "artificial intelligence"

Care to express your definitions of "intelligence" and "smartness" publicly?

by **Serpent** on March 20th, 2018, 7:52 am

wolfhnd » March 19th, 2018, 10:54 pm wrote:I think this is easy to settle. Everything else being equal, such as common sense, emotional health, attractiveness, physical health, would you want you kids to have an IQ of 100 or 130?

Everything else is never equal! However, if it were, what I would prefer is what's best for the child, which depends on their environment. 130 would be fine, if they had the opportunity for higher education, and to go where academic type cleverness is appreciated, not penalized. For a farm or factory worker, 100 is quite adequate. The social and romantic lives of average intelligence people is certainly easier in most societies.
What I would not want for them is 85 or 150.

by **Serpent** on March 20th, 2018, 9:15 am

BadgerJelly » March 20th, 2018, 2:41 am wrote:
[You can't learn biochemical mechanism from IQ tests.]

I never made this claim in those words, but actually I am suggesting there is merely a biological mechanism for intelligence and that we know prenatal conditions have an effect on IQ

And I've pointed out why the testing is not helpful in understanding this process. The time-lag. The 15 years and hundreds of other factors that intervene between prenatal conditions and IQ testing. However, the various kinds of intelligence do manifest in early childhood. Babies respond differently to different stimuli and you can tell quite a lot about their individual personality and thinking process by careful observation. A babysitter could tell which of her charges are extroverted, timid, bright, adventurous, pensive or slow.
It's not measurable yet, but it's evident.

IQ tests were designed to find the underlying workings of intelligence, so originally they were but since then it has taken a back seat to education purposes.

Education is the only viable application of standard testing. Even in the army, it was just to sort out which recruits were suitable for educating. In other areas of life, IQ testing tells you nothing useful.

I am just saying there is still something to learn here and that we have no idea what benefits may arise from such curiosity.

That's what I haven't been able to figure out: what benefits you're talking about. And to whom?

Factors like social interaction are deadly important and I curious about how nutrition and social activity play into this.

That's the other thing I can't figure out. What have social activity and nutrition to do with each other (other than people like to eat together) and what either has to do with IQ scores. It seems to me, people have already got social lives and their interaction can be studied - but not measured by an intelligence test. Odds are, average people find friends and mates more readily than exceptional ones, simply due to the numbers.

[ What "race"?]
I was reducing the term "race" to be simply a matter of identity

Okay. When you decide to change the meaning of a word, you should indicate that more clearly.

and that such neuroticism (the need to feel part of a group)

There is nothing neurotic about group identity. All social animals have it. You can't cure that - in fact, alienation is far more painful to the individual and harmful to the society.

is more to do with personality traits than with intelligence.

It's more to do with biology than either: all social animals crave companionship; require it for emotional health. But group identity doesn't depend on genetic similarity. Members of a family, cult or or fraternity can be closely bonded by other factors - including, as you mentioned, patriotism, or a belief or cause or experience or mutual dependence, or trust and affection.

[low IQ scores were a problem to be solved.]
... there is a current and future problem in employment when it comes to finding jobs for people in a society with higher and higher cognitive demands.

Are there, right now, more intelligent jobs than people to fill them? Will there ever be?
No. In fact, there never have been. For the most intellectually challenging professions, and the university course that train them, there has always been fierce competition: far more qualified applicants than available places.
(Of course, the highest IQ's don't want a job at all; they would rather follow their interests independently of bosses. But I doubt those extreme cases are under consideration.)
Any jobs that currently exist, or will ever exist, can be readily filled, by training the available work-force.
But there will only ever be fewer jobs of any kind.
And there will be more people of every kind than can ever be employed. The way to solve that problem is not to produce more overqualified candidates for fewer positions, but to stop depending on employment. It was never a good idea, and its time is finally passing.

I am more interested in simply looking at what intelligence is and how human being differ and relate. That is my "problem" and it is not strictly solvable or only about IQ. This topic is simply one that appeared to cover several different things at once.

It sounds as if that's because it's different topics. That's no reason you shouldn't study them, but it might be the reason nobody else is ever on your same page.

The other topic I made like this some time ago was about the famous trolley problem and how rationality plays into ethical choices.

And that's yet another different topic.

I would have expected "application" to a problem to be part of "intelligence."

But I wasn't using it as "to a problem" I was using it in the general meaning of elbow-grease, attention, dedication, perseverance, work ethic, industry - or as you prefer: industriousness. The willingness to apply effort to a task. Less gifted students are more likely to make an effort at their studies, because the gifted ones generally find school courses boring: they daydream, skip classes, write poetry in Algebra period, wonder about the teacher's life, stare out the window and leave their textbook in their locker, accidentally on purpose, so they can't do the homework.

Industriousness is not really something we can measure easily.

Easier than intelligence.

I don't believe there is a "gene" for intelligence.

It would have to a whole lot of genes, not one.

I believe intelligence is a property of humans

Of all animals with a brain. It's not the presence of intelligence we're testing, but a display of that intelligence - as compared to other individuals of the same species, or of one species compared to another. It can only be measured as a blip on a graph, never as an absolute quantity.

we're all aware of and appreciate well enough when it comes to genius levels of cognition

No, we're not. We waste exceptional, as well as ordinary, potential every day. We waste people by the millions, the same as we waste elephants, frogs and butterflies. Because we do not appreciate them.

or low levels, like when a grown man has the mentality of a child (where I live there are people like this and they are treated well enough - believe it or not!)

Well enough. I prefer to believe that.

Then there is the ethical issue of eugenics. People who find out they are having a child with Down syndrome having an abortion. Is this necessary? I find it inhumane myself, but I can understand why some people would think that it was okay due to ignorance.

Is there any reason you consider adequate to decide on an abortion? If not bringing a handicapped child into a world in which they can't compete is inhumane, consider the inhumanity of bringing a physically and mentally perfect child into a world where they will have no food.

Then Wolf mentioned about the choice of IQ in your children. I don't like that idea much either.

But you do expect them to compete for demanding technological jobs.

So right there we an issue of if we can influence prenatal develop (when we come to understand this more) how can we handle this in a responsible manner

When humans have understood something, did they handle that in a responsible manner?
Ever?

Are we then admitting that most people care more about identity than scientific evidence?

You might as well admit it, because it has always been true.

If so what means do we have to alter this view and if we did what would be the resulting society that would arise from it?

We'll never know.

If I have said something you deem CrAzY point it out and I'd point out where I heard such a thing and who said it. I'll even do my best to provide videos and references.

You're never short on videos and references. I have no ready means of evaluating their accuracy or reliability. I don't particularly care about them: there is always a range of opinion "out there" to support any position you choose to take.
I didn't say crazy.
I said unclear. I asked simple questions to which i got complicated answers that seemed not entirely, and sometime not even nearly, on topic, so I have never been clear on exactly what you were asking, or even what the central subject was. Is.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 21st, 2018, 5:26 am

Serpent -

And I've pointed out why the testing is not helpful in understanding this process. The time-lag. The 15 years and hundreds of other factors that intervene between prenatal conditions and IQ testing. However, the various kinds of intelligence do manifest in early childhood. Babies respond differently to different stimuli and you can tell quite a lot about their individual personality and thinking process by careful observation. A babysitter could tell which of her charges are extroverted, timid, bright, adventurous, pensive or slow.
It's not measurable yet, but it's evident.

And I've presented data and information to say quite clearly that you're wrong. Genetics are a big influence and prenatal differences have been noted and recorded as influencing IQ scores - that is just a fact whilst you're merely expressing an opinion.

Education is the only viable application of standard testing. Even in the army, it was just to sort out which recruits were suitable for educating. In other areas of life, IQ testing tells you nothing useful.

In your uninformed opinion.

That's what I haven't been able to figure out: what benefits you're talking about. And to whom?

Why does the mountaineer climb the mountain? Why do mathematicians try to solve obscure seemingly useless abstract problems? There doesn't have to be a goal for curiosity. I am a little puzzled why that idea is hard for you to absorb tbh.

That's the other thing I can't figure out. What have social activity and nutrition to do with each other (other than people like to eat together) and what either has to do with IQ scores. It seems to me, people have already got social lives and their interaction can be studied - but not measured by an intelligence test. Odds are, average people find friends and mates more readily than exceptional ones, simply due to the numbers.

I can't figure out why you are unable to grasp the idea that nutrition effects health (including brain development - especially prenatal conditions) and that social interaction factors into development too. children need interaction with a range of age ranges in order to understand their world through peers or others immediately below or above them on the developmental scale. This is nothing more than deprivation I am talking about here.

Finding mates? What are you talking about? The stereotype of higher IQ and lack of social ability? (that is not something I believe holds up, but if you've evidence to suggest it does I'd be interested to see it.)

Okay. When you decide to change the meaning of a word, you should indicate that more clearly.

At no point have I made any attempt to change the meaning of the term "race." There are two meanings already. In scientific parse we're all part of the human race, but in terms of social identity some people identify as being "black" or "white", "latin" or "Asian", etc.,. This is mostly due to humans being very visual creatures, and I'd imagine if we were blind we'd focus on other distinctions such as language and accent more than we do already.

Embedded here we can ask what human attributes contribute to a proclivity toward group identity? Are certain personal types or IQ levels more likely to fall into hard cast ideas about group identity - that was a partly loaded enquiry because I already know high conscientiousness and low openness would correspond to such an attitude (basically conservatiism.)

Maybe in sight of the recent Channel 4 exposure some people will wake from their slumber and begin to understand that it is not only possible to be puppeted, but that need to be on their guard about this when dealing with political agendas wrapped in sensationalism.

There is nothing neurotic about group identity. All social animals have it. You can't cure that - in fact, alienation is far more painful to the individual and harmful to the society.

I never said that. In fact you appear to be parroting pretty much what I said in the lead up to my open enquiry about this. Of course we're social animals. Alienation is more damaging to people who are extroverted and less damaging to people like myself. That is not to say either can survive in complete isolation, only that some people use social interaction as a crutch and are likely willing to bend to any will rather than cause disruption to their immediate world.

It's more to do with biology than either: all social animals crave companionship; require it for emotional health. But group identity doesn't depend on genetic similarity. Members of a family, cult or or fraternity can be closely bonded by other factors - including, as you mentioned, patriotism, or a belief or cause or experience or mutual dependence, or trust and affection.

That makes no sense to me because we're talking about how biological organisms experience the world and express themselves. It is more to do with biology than intelligence and personality traits? How are human characteristics not part and parcel of human biology? I am not going to look back at where you pulled that line from in what I was saying, but I can pretty much guarantee that I was referring to human behavior (something I don't regard as non-biological) as presenting a specific correlation.

Just like high IQ shows an obvious correlation with physical health and wealth, personality traits show certain proclivities too (ie. you can pretty much guess whether someone will vote for liberal or conservative candidates based only on personality traits - IQ doesn't factor in here much as far as I know?)

And that's yet another different topic.

This was in reference to the trolley problem ... yes and no. I'll go into that another time. There is an underlying theme in that there is a conflict between rational thought and ethics though. That was what I was getting at; such conflicts fascinate me no end because within them I see the general aspect of what we call volition.

note: Granted not directly important right now.

Easier than intelligence

In reference to measures of "industriousness." Incorrect. This is because IQ is measured objectively (although not perfectly by any means) whereas industriousness is measured by self assessment; subjectively.

Of all animals with a brain. It's not the presence of intelligence we're testing, but a display of that intelligence - as compared to other individuals of the same species, or of one species compared to another. It can only be measured as a blip on a graph, never as an absolute quantity.

Agreed. I would stay away from comparisons from species to species though because we're still struggling to accept the extent of environmental conditions within the human species (which happens to be genetically linear due to population size.)

I think of it as being measured with a ruler, but we need to be cautious about the margin of error. Measuring my height suffers from an insignificant margin of error. Combined with this we have the political history of this subject and eugenics leading to previous regimes of sterilization and genocide by misusing and sensationalizing the data. Plus many people seem to think that IQ is a measure of who they are (which is nonsense, and nasty idea that needs to be flushed out rather than ignored IMO.)

Is there any reason you consider adequate to decide on an abortion? If not bringing a handicapped child into a world in which they can't compete is inhumane, consider the inhumanity of bringing a physically and mentally perfect child into a world where they will have no food.

Of course this is a very nuanced and difficult subject. As for your question and I can simply turn it back on you, do you think it is absolutely okay to abort a child because they exhibit Downs syndrome? I don't think it is, but like I said I understand why some people would and I am not saying they do so because they are inhumane only that I believe, in the wider picture of things, it is inhumane to abort a life because of IQ. I thought you'd agree with that?

Would you abort an unborn child if you knew the IQ was likely to be no higher than 80? Or as you proclaimed earlier to Wolf, if so would you also be willing to abort if your potential child would likely have an IQ in excess of 150?

note: Abortion is primarily the choice of the mother to be in my view. Luckily I am a man so when it comes to such a decision in reality I will never be faced with such a difficult choice - and I imagine many women who proclaim staunch views either for or against may find themselves in reality acting out against their previous views. I do happen to know the amount of psychological support given to women in such positions is woefully inadequate. btw in no mood for a debate about abortion, go to the other forum for that ongoing back and forth if you wish.

But you do expect them to compete for demanding technological jobs.

Obviously, if that is all that is available. Plus, IQ is not 100% accurate, it is an estimate that works best at the extreme ends and as an approximation of large samples of people. When it comes to increased technological application in the work place people with IQs of 80 or lower (which is a considerable number) are likely going to struggle in some areas more than others. Maybe society will learn to deal with this in the near future and maybe it will become more and more of a problem so that we'll have to do something about it.

When humans have understood something, did they handle that in a responsible manner?
Ever?

I admire pessimism. We're still here and we're still trying. For me that is good enough, but I certainly don't think we can pat ourselves on the back just yet.

To paraphrase (badly) Confucius from The Anelects:

"The person who attains virtue is not virtuous; yet the person who always pursues virtue is."

Sorry, my memory fails me but that is the gist.

You might as well admit it, because it has always been true.

No problem. The thing is I don't see scientific evidence as anything other than humanity striving for identity - meaning a sense of place and perspective that is open to further exploration.

We'll never know.

Opinion. I am inclined to say we don't yet know. We can, and do, hypothesize about various outcomes and prepare ourselves.

You're never short on videos and references. I have no ready means of evaluating their accuracy or reliability. I don't particularly care about them: there is always a range of opinion "out there" to support any position you choose to take.
I didn't say crazy.
I said unclear. I asked simple questions to which i got complicated answers that seemed not entirely, and sometime not even nearly, on topic, so I have never been clear on exactly what you were asking, or even what the central subject was. Is.

Oh. Should I ignore you then and/or stop trying to explain or offer evidence to back up what I am looking at and the points I am making not being based on mere opinion? Or should I from now on offer no context and simply say what I think about this or that subject without doing any kind of research?

I am not here to offer simple answers, or any answers for that matter. I was asking questions about intelligence and race in todays world in terms of how to assess these things on a biological basis. Given that there is string resistance to except that there is a means to measure intelligence, strong disagreement about what "intelligence" is, and a lack of interest to actually look at the subject in term of how psychological studies have come to delineate difference in human characteristics and set up way to measure personality traits, intelligence and make distinctions between talents and intelligence; meaning a talent for dancing is not an "intelligence", it is a talent. This is why we don't tend to talk about physical strength as being a kind of "muscle intelligence", because to do such may sound slightly plausible, but it is to distract from what is meant by "intelligence" - that is a mental capacity, one of reasoning, abstract thought and speed of thought.

Hyksos -

However, we are in possession of landmark experiments with mice showing that behaviorism cannot be true.

Behaviorism cannot be true? Meaning what exactly? I think if you took the time to look behavioral biology does not necessarily adhere to some set boundary between Nature and Nurture. Some biologists likely lean more one way than the other, but over all their all pretty aware that the complexity of the situation shows that it depends on the scale of reference. The limits are set in order to find certain patterns that work within those limits, but that may not necessarily work on other scales, but do have some effect - given your inclination toward what I regard as the "primary" science of physics I thought you'd be able to grasp that easily enough.

We have very good experiments showing that there is probably a type of memory called "Episodic Memory" that is operated by completely different mechanisms in the brain than the memory identified by behaviorism and classical conditioning.

No probably about it last I heard? Old news. There are many different terms though, such as "procedural memory" and "non-procedural memory", "implicit" and "explicit", "declarative memory", etc.,. Episodic Memory is certainly not a recent discovery (or term) so what do you mean by this? References if you have them would be VERY much appreciated (Miller?)

Other landmark experiments show that mice can compare-and-contrast episodic memories. That is, they reason logically about the past and draw conclusions from that reasoning.

Can I see references please? Was the study by Swanson by any chance, he's done a lot of studies about rat brains so I am guessing maybe not?

by **Serpent** on March 21st, 2018, 8:27 am

Opinion, yes. That was never disputed.
Opinions are informed by different sources.

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 9:27 am

Can I see references please?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1333198.The_Cognitive_Neuroscience_of_Memory

This is not a popular science book. This is an actual neuroscience book and it is woefully difficult to read. It is very much reading articles posted directly into neuroscience journals. (it is literally a string of publications with filler text by the author.)

The landmark experiments I have mentioned are covered in excruciating detail in that book.

Mazes and Fruit Loops.

We know that mice, under controlled lab conditions (with control groups and all that jazz) have engaged in behaviors that is contradictory to their training. This experiment involved mazes and fruit loops, and lots of training. The mice were not harmed or cut up.

"The mouse compares episode/events in her biography within her present mind, and acts on that pondering." <-- Let's denote this sentence H_B, meaning Hypothesis B.

In terms of rigorous , published science, it is too early to say we have crucially confirmed H_B. However, stating H_B is a good way to communicate it to someone outside the research. Mice were seen sloughing off all their repeated training when they found "a better way" of completing a task. Their mind must have been comparing the newfound method to their trained method.

The research showed that mice act in ways that is contrary to their repeated training trials -- this is not necessarily proof of H_B. It is, however, absolutely inexplicable in terms of Behaviorism. That experiment upended "accepted theories" of animal cognition that had been on the books for some 40 years or more. It is historically accurate to claim that the experiment debunked behaviorism.

Curiosity and Zapping.

The second landmark experiment in the book involved the trials performed on episodic memory. Under very carefully controlled experiments involving control groups (and the usual statistical jazz) they made lesions in a tiny region of the mouse's hippocampus. Then put lesioned mice through episodic training involving shocking their feet in a chamber.

Personally , it is one of my favorite mouse experiments. (Despite the obvious cruelty). The statistical results are breathtaking. A chamber was opened suddenly in an enclosure which the mice had become bored with after several days. Mice, being curious, want to always go into the new place. Therein they are shocked on their feet and race back out.

Control group : after a single shock, they never went near the opening ever again. Even if the shock were 7 days ago, they learned their lesson the first time.

Lesioned mice : They would race in and get shocked in the opening a mere day after getting shokced. And then again the next day. No matter how many times this was repeated, the mouse kept going in and getting zapped.

So tiny damage to the hippocampus, caused the mice to either not be able to form episodic memories, or made them completely incapable of recalling them later on.

This landmark experiment demonstrated that there must exist a type of memory in the brain that does not operate by long-term potentiation (or "LTP" as they call it). More importantly, for our discussion here, any kind of memory in animals that is not potentiation was explicitly forbidden by Behaviorism. Hence another nail was placed in Behaviorism's coffin.

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 9:46 am

Note the debunkings of cognitive theoryes are slow, expensive, formal, and slow to be accepted. They must be corroborated by other labs before the "Community" of working psychologists accepts them as canon.

This type of cognitive science proceeds much more slowly, much more carefully, and more rigorously than most normal people are comfortable with.

People are drawn to pop psychology because its flashy claims -- that there is some secret ivory tower of psychologists out there who have some powerful and deep grasp on how brains function. That we possess a magial pencil-and-paper test that can quickly and effectivelyt measure the performance of your brain ogran. There is no tower and no such psychologists. And there is no such magical 90-minute paper test.

The repeated quoting of Stephen Pinker only indicates that Pinker tends to the flashy, the popular, and the overweening statements.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 21st, 2018, 11:55 am

So an appeal to authority from you is okay, but from myself it is not? Anyway, thanks. Maybe I'll buy the next edition of that when it comes out.

Gotcha! I get where you're coming from. Any chance you'd care to explain the "debunking of behaviorism" and what precisely you mean by that? Seems like you're claiming we should all be in the nurture camp and to hell with the idea that DNA has any input on anything (which you'd be surprised to hear I would agree with in part.)

I am not sure it is sane to say Behaviorism is "debunked" though. Are you making the mistake of conflating behavioral biology with some imagined unmoving view of philosophical behaviorism? Seriously, what you're saying make very little sense.

I've heard of both of those experiments before. I don't see how you're connecting this to the refutation of IQ tests being able to measure intelligence though?

Sapolsky is the behavioral biologist btw. He is not a psychologist. If I post links to something like this:

https://www.hse.ru/data/2011/06/28/1216307711/Gazzaniga.%20The%20Cognitive%20Neurosciences.pdf

Does that count as an appeal to authority. Y'know! I've read something and therefore I know stuff? Seriously, I believe you've read it. My question is what does that have to do with intelligence or some strange claim of "debunking" behaviorism? What does a philosophical stance have to do with the biology and understanding intelligence?

If you'd provided details from something like this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521646695&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cognitive+neuroscience+of+intelligence&dpID=510h48kC3zL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

I may have understood. That is not to say I think how memory functions is not an important part of intelligence, I just don't see anything that directly corresponds to the question of how human intelligence is measured? We all know squirrels can remember where they buried most of their nuts or that chickens can learn how to operate touch screen systems in order to get fed. The primary motivation for animals, for food and sex, is quite well documented and they can perform complex actions in order to reach there goal. I think octopuses have been shown to have one of the best abilities for learning new skills simply by watching - being able to place oneself in another position seems to be a very important part of learning new and novel skills.

I could also offer a link to Gazzaniga himself saying dogs don't know who you are ... but I don't really believe in that, yet he is far from a quack.

I am also not quite sure how this is evidence that shows anything much relating to intelligence and what IQ tests have shown.

I am unsure why you're still embarrassing yourself?

pop-psychology? Really? Is there any hope of civil discussion here?

Repeated quoting? Where? I posted ONE quote to show that you what you were claiming was untrue:

If any person on this forum actually follows your links and listens and reads, they will see the above list of facts repeated in different guises. Every fact I have posted above will be corroborated by your extra-forum materials. I am 110% confident of that.

I then provided a quote from Pinker saying what the American Psychology Association said:

"... the consensus report noted that intelligence is a stable property of a person well measured by IQ tests and it predicts many life outcomes, moreover IQ is largely heritable within populations accounting for anywhere 50 and 80 percent of the variants depending on how you measure it and at what age this is established by many studies of tens of thousands of identical and fraternal twins or identical twins are more correlated in their intelligence than fraternal twins of twins separated at birth and who grow up in different environments whose IQs are highly correlated and in comparisons of biological and adoptive siblings where the correlations are far stronger among biological siblings than among adoptive siblings ..."

note: The consensus report from the APA (American Psychology Association)

Anyone can select any random psychology lecture and find the very same thing. The data from studies on twins is pretty damn solid - although there are factor of environment involved and these cannot be reduced to zero (for obvious reasons.)

I repeat this quote now because you disagree with the APA. The only counter argument to the g-factor is the theory of "multiple intelligences", which cannot be measured and have not held up to the test of time - in fact historically all attempts to debunk the hypothesis of the g-factor have merely indicated the existence of a g-factor. Nothing you've said seems to have offered any reasonable counter to this. All we've seen is an almost endless stream of vitriol, bizarre and unrelated stories about "raw water" and such, and a failed attempt to offer anything other than some seriously questionable accusations and outright lies.

I loath to use this term, but for once there is simply no other term available to drive home the point harder.

It is a STRAWMAN. At least once we get past this point, if ever, I strongly suspect out view of race will be aligned well enough. I am still confounded by your view of what the APA says as being comparable to "pop psychology" though. For me that is a strange claim to make.

by **BadgerJelly** on March 21st, 2018, 11:58 am

Serpent » March 21st, 2018, 8:27 pm wrote:Opinion, yes. That was never disputed.
Opinions are informed by different sources.

I am kind of curious what your sources are? I am very open to reading new literature and watching any related lectures - even if they are not entirely related to the matter at hand.

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 2:17 pm

Sitting at the foundation of IQ tests is not a strong scientific theory, but a collection of half-baked items of folk psychology. As neuroscience advances from the rear, these folksy , fadsy, pop-psychology things will be destroyed one-by-one. Mark my words.

1. Neuroscience has already destroyed Behaviorism

2. Then it recently went about destroying some "widely accepted" notions of pedagogy. (chess has benefits outside of chess. The data suggests otherwise.)

3. Then it destroyed very common myths about how men and women use their brain hemispheres differently. They don't. That was an urban myth. But look how widely-accepted that myth was. Most of the population was under the impression that there must have been ironclad neuroscientific evidence behind it. That never existed even when most people thought it did!

One by one, these strawmen built on fashion and fad will fall. They will fall and be debunked the way diet fads are individually debunked.

Quoting Pinker over and over again and putting it in bold text means nothing to me. You are unable to re-trace the reasoning behind any of those conclusions. Due to this inability, your a therefore demonstrably engaging the fallacy of Appeal-To-Authority. You expect me to accept these conclusions for no other reason than some famous person said it.

Stephen Pinker is not posting on this forum, BadgerJelly is. I will not debate Pinker using BadgerJelly as a proxy.

Even taken at face value, there is no deep theory of brain function underlying Pinker's conclusions. You just keep repeating the conclusions, with no support. Pinker is prone to overweening grandiosity. So what?

Badgerjelly had better start making coherent arguments and taking responsibility for them on his own, rather than blame-shifting his responsibilities onto people who are not present.

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 2:58 pm

That is not to say I think how memory functions is not an important part of intelligence, I just don't see anything that directly corresponds to the question of how human intelligence is measured?

Do you not see how everything about the way you talk is a giganitic appeal to authority? You really do not see it, do you? You are absolutely completely unconscious of yourself.

You are just a litany of one paragraph after the next of "The traditional way in which intelligence was measured" "The traditional this" "The traditional that"... To hell with TRADITION! I don't give a flying rats about about tradition!

Build your goddamn theories up from hard science first -- trace the reasoning behind them first... not just merely state their prepackaged conclusions. You just keeping posting conclusions in bold text. THere is nothing behind this bullshit other than debunked smoke and mirrors. This is fashion and fad and pop psyuchology. You are like a salesman on Saturday morning infomercials pedalling a diet craze.

The brain is the most misunderstood physical entity in the universe right now. We know this now. The researchers at Blue Brain Project know this very very clearly now.

But you don't. You think there is some magical ivory tower full of magical neuroscientists who have a complete and exhaustive account of how functional brain areas interact to give rise to complex behaviors. They don't exist, man. GET IT? There is no such ivory tower.

We are nowhere near a theory like that. We don't even know what a cortical column does. Cortical columns are packed in your head tighter than the cells are packed into bone marrow. The evolution of primates in the ape branch was so concerned with packing as many of those things in our heads, that it caused our brains to be folded. That's how IMPORTANT nature thought those things were and we don't even know what they do!

You don't know what they do. Pinker doesn't know what they do. If Pinker really does support the things you are blabbering about on this forum (and he likely doesn't,. You are likely quote mining him) --- then Stephen Pinker is a scientific dinosaur who belongs to a bygone era of cognitive science. He belongs in a bygone era of psychology that was still hopelessly saturated in behaviorism. Given our knewly-discovered vast ignorance of brain function, this is entirely plausible.

We have no theories about how crows can reason out the bending of a wire into a fishing tool. A crow has not a single cortical column in its head -- because it has no cortex at all. "Traditional psychology" supposed the cortex is the part of the brain responsible for "complex problem solving" that you infomercial salesman repeat like a marketing buzzword. Consider that thing doesn't even exist in the crows head , this shows how deeply flawed our theories are.

You suppose you and Pinker have the answer to all these deep problems in cognitive neuroscience? Given your unwavering confidence in pencil-paper tests designed in the 1970s, I know that you have lots of secret knowledge that the world needs to know. Well, the world waits with baited breath for your genius insights, "BadgerJelly". Set us all straight with your secret knowledge of brain function.

Would you like a link the emails of the professors at the Blue Brain Project? HEre let me get them for you. Make sure you contact them and tell them all the missing pieces to intelligence that you and Stephen Pinker are in unique possession of. I'm sure they will fly you to Geneva on short notice to give a lecture on your profound findings on brain function :

Henry Markram : henry.markram@epfl.ch
Mônica Favre : monica.favre@epfl.ch
Olivier Hagens : olivier.hagens@epfl.ch

Here is the homepage of all the researchers at the Allen Institute :

https://www.alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/about/team/

Here is the faculty at Center for Memory and Brain at Brown University. INcluding among them, Howard Eichenbaum. You know Dr. Eichenbaum? Ever read any of his books? BadgerJelly, given your religious zeal for IQ tests designed in the 1970s, I know your bookshelf is just chock-full of his books. So contact him and give him this secret knowledge you and Pinker are keeping all hush-hush secret from the world.

https://www.bu.edu/cmb/faculty/

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 3:04 pm

"It's measured!"

"It's measured!"

"It's traditionally measured"

"It's tradition!"

"Traditionally measured!"

"Don't you know how it's measured? Don;t you know about traditional measures?"

HURR DURR DURR

by **hyksos** on March 21st, 2018, 3:14 pm

....then Stephen Pinker puts on a white robe and enters the Secret Enigma Tower of Brain Function. He enters the chamber of inner Neural Lords. They tell to him the secret theories of functional brain areas and how they all relate to behavior and memory and the production of conscious awareness.

Pinker leaves the Secret Enigma Tower to come back down to the regular world , now armed with the one single sweeping general theory that explains all manifestations of intelligence, from insects to fish, to mammals and the larger primates. A theory so powerful and so unifying that it captures all the fine individual differences between all humans. From this theory he constructs his Magical Intelligence Elixir ... a simple litmus tests taken with a pencil and paper that magically captures the power and function of a person's brain organ in 90 minutes or less. The test produces a single number.. an intelligence quotient, which perfectly measures and contains the complete cognitive abilities of the test-taker. A reduced single number, all in accordance with the deep theories derived from the wisdom of the members of the inner Neural Lords.

Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole meesy biology of humanity

Who is online