Spearman's hypothesis, g and explication of black/white IQ differences

[snafupants]

Snafupants
It is only fair to let you know: I cannot see what you wrote.
I do not know whether you replied to me because after my last post I decided I did not want to read your stuck up, high horsey way of approaching people no more. You think you are quite clever because your English vocabulary is elaborate.
In all that you hardly answered to what I was actually writing.

I fundamentally do not agree with the way you approach psychology. I studied it and am very far from stupid according to your well known IQtests.

You appeared to feel a suspicion regarding the subtle impact of hidden variables, which you listed as SES and caliber of school. Is that right? I thought I had addressed these points numerous times. Perhaps I didn't supply the answer you were hankering for though. I would be happy to answer any questions you may still have; simply bullet point the questions, and I will bullet point my answers. I would also appreciate it if you enclosed the way in which you think I approach psychology. At one point I'm accused of being unoriginal and taking my cues from Jensen and Eysenck and the next I'm crucified for taking liberties with psychology. I find this contradictory since you refrain from castigating these earlier psychologists the same way. It seems as though anything that's not battened down is being used to take my head off; I can dodge these objects for awhile but I would like to know why they're being hurled at me before I'm slugged.

 

[WARchitect]

Scorpiomover and Yet,

Stop associating racism(the acceptance that races are different in many levels) with some kind of the worst evil in the universe and conclusions that the only outcome for a society that accepts race differences is slavery, opression, etc...
You think you have good imaginations? I can think of at least a dozen ideal racist societies( that accept race differences and have laws based on it) with no slavery or something evil(your concept of evil).
You seem like those very religious folks trying to win the masses with dogmatic and emotional speeches about good and evil.

This is a INTP forum.
We dont need you to say what we can think; or how to read a scientific research and what to do with it. These are the facts about IQ and race so far. With this information, if I want to think "lets kill all blacks" I can do so, but far from it, this is not my position. The other day I saw a thread here where a member was thinking about poisoning bibles to make Christians sterile. And many supported it. I want to see you go there and say anything against it...

However, keeping a stress on genetics alone, seems to be quite common, in TV science documentaries, in books by scientists, and in internet forums. Seems to be everywhere.

What the hell? In what society you live?
Theres much more SES/reparations/white-guilty/politically-correct policies, TV shows, books an internet material. Look at this forum for example, basically is just me and Snafu against you all. And this is an INTP forum, we are proud to have freedom of speech. Imagine the other forums...
What is everywhere is Politically Correct mentality.

Look at what happened to Nobel Prize winner James Watson in 2007 for an example (best quotes in color):

In early October 2007, Watson was about to embark on a UK book tour to promote the memoir. He was interviewed by Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe at CSHL. In 1996 she had been a student there in a program in which Watson recruited students to live at his family home and work at CSHL for a year. Hunt-Grubbe had gone on to work for the Sunday Times Magazine; she was selected for the interview as she was one of the few women to have been mentored by him.
Hunt-Grubbe broached the subject of race and intelligence. Watson did not say in his memoir that race was a factor in his hypothesis of divergence of intellect between geographically isolated populations. The following is a transcript of that part of the interview: 'He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”'.[68] Though other publications noted that the paper had '[kept] the profile sympathetic and place[d] the comments at the end of the piece',[69] the article was a public relations disaster for Watson. The Sunday Times Magazine editor Cathy Galvin noted, "It was important the reader understood Charlotte's relationship with Watson and her regard for him before exploring the explosive and unscientific territory of his opinions and history of statements about women, race, and abortion which have stirred so much controversy in the past."[69]
Watson's comments drew attention and criticism in the UK. Watson said his intention was to promote science not racism, but some of the UK venues canceled his appearances.[70] Watson canceled the rest of his tour.[71][72][73][74][75][76]
Because of the public controversy, on October 18 the Board of Trustees at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory suspended Watson's administrative responsibilities. On October 19, Watson issued an apology; on October 25, he resigned from his position as chancellor.[77][78][79][80][81][82][83] In 2008, Watson was appointed chancellor emeritus of CSHL.[84] As of 2009, he continues to advise and guide project work at the laboratory.[85] In a 2008 BBC documentary, Watson said: "I have never thought of myself as a racist. I don't see myself as a racist. I am mortified by it. It was the worst thing in my life."[86]
Some periodicals offered opinions on the matter.[87][88] On December 9, 2007, a Sunday Times article[89] reported a claim by deCODE Genetics that 16% of Watson's DNA is of African origin and 9% is of Asian origin. The claim to the provenience of Watson's (or anybody's) DNA, which is at least 99.5% identical between any two humans, has to be understood in terms of a statistical model that explains the provenience of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Based on this model, the interpretation of SNPs in Watson's DNA was that "we can conclude about one-sixth of his ancestors came from Africa within the last few hundred generations or so." This method of analysis is fairly sensitive to errors in the sequencing of the individual's genome; deCODE's methods were not reported and details of the analysis were not published. According to deCODE's Kari Stefansson, the analysis relied on an error-ridden version of Watson's full genome sequence, and Stefansson "doubts [...] whether the 16 percent figure will hold up", adding that based on the data used "it appears that Watson has two X chromosomes, which would make him a woman."[90]

I remember that in 2007. Maybe you too. The media went crazy with PC crap. And all the pressure that follow on Watson to quit positions, cancel stuff, apologise,etc...

I think an idea like this could also go through generations. Say: when you are black and you are told all your life that blacks are in general less intelligent than whites the sheer expectation could make people perform according to what is expected of them.
A racist society could easily work their way into proving their point by indoctrinating a part of their society into being less clever.

You might be told that you are useless. Then because of what you hear, you think there is no point putting any effort into it. So your results are very poor. So others also say you are useless. That in turn reinforces the original message, that it was confirmed by evidence. The cycle can repeat for a long time.

So what you are saying is that there is an even more evil white man in black Africa telling blacks they are useless and less intelligent. And they may use some advanced technology to do it because the IQ of black Africans is ~70, fifteen points below the black American average.

 

[scorpiomover]

@WARchitect. I have been discussing the topic of genetics and intelligence online, with a professional in the field for a good few years. I personally was curious about it, and wanted to discuss it objectively. In the process, I've read a few papers on the subject, and looked up the authors online. Richard Lynn, Kevin MacDonald, and Satoshi Kanazawa, have all been indicted by the scientific community of making claims about genetics and intelligence, that were unsupported by the data, and were making claims of intellectual inferiority and/or moral inferiority, about groups that have recieved a huge amount of racial prejudice over the years, including blacks, women, and Jews.

Just for one, that was recent, here is the hearing, and [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14945110]here[/url] was the outcome.

As I said, I read some of those papers. My interest in reading the full text, was initially because the claims contradicted what I had observed over decades using Ne. I had already heard of such claims as a youth. I was a big skeptic, and wanted to find out if they were right. So while young, I had deliberately set myself to hold such an attitude to expose myself to a much wider spectrum of individuals, in order to find out if they matched the evidence or not. As a consequence, I would engage all sorts of individuals in conversation, that most people would not normally talk to, because they have no need to. These papers were not reflecting my findings. Naturally, as a P, I thought I must have missed something. So I took a deeper look, and read some of those papers.

After a careful analysis of those papers, IMHO, in all those papers, the choice of experimental data was based on other studies, carried out by others for other purposes, that clearly weren't designed to cope with genetic analysis, and had numerous problems with carrying out such a data analysis. The data analysis was clearly not considering any possibilities other than the single hypothesis, and were not measuring accurately for any other factors, even known ones, such as SES and its effects.

However, as I said, I wanted to discuss the matter objectively. This was how I approached the current topic. I pointed out flaws in the proofs claimed here. These were claimed to be wrong. I pointed out the flaws in the attempted rebuttals. These were again claimed to be wrong. I pointed the flaws in those attempted rebuttals.

Then snafupants posted that we were all just trying to deny science, because we were afraid that he was right. I then explained to him, that the reason why other posters had such a problem with it, was because there was a lot of racism still around, just in case he wasn't aware of it, and this might bring up their Fe.

In my case, the reasons why I rejected the hypothesis, was simply because the evidence does not support it. End of story.

If anyone makes a claim, that is not being supported by the data, and seems to support common racist stereotypes, then it does make one wonder. It does suggest they might be a racist, or a moron, or they are simply trusting scientists, rather than the science, i.e. the evidence, which is the data. I would rather start with the view that those who believe in such unsupported claims are simply being too trusting of people, and not looking carefully enough at the data, due to my Fe, wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[snafupants]

Would you care to arrogate the real average IQ score for blacks? I mean, the presented findings encompass hundreds of papers, studies, researchers and methodologies. This isn't a lone madman besmirching the essence of a particular race. From the embryonic statistics of Spearman to the tests and analyses of Kaufman the same message resounds. Nonetheless, perhaps you would delineate, in plain language, your chief qualms with Spearman's hypothesis and the disparity between black and white composite test scores?

 

[BigApplePi]

A valid experiment Mr. Spearman?

Scorpio and Snafu. This thread is certainly full of a lot of speculation (among other things). I think the question of intelligence difference for a group is a legitimate one. What I can't understand is why all these professors don't do a simple experiment to clinch the answer. I don't like being the only one in the room who suspects the answer, so check this out you guys. My Ne says this would work. It by-passes previous questionable experiments:

Take a test a group which is 50-50. The tough part is getting random subjects, but that is true for ANY test. Do you get what I mean by 50-50? You take the offspring where the mama is pure from one group and the papa is pure from another. If everything were random, you'd get I.Q. 100 for everything because the offspring is exactly 50-50. But don't do that. I will be specific to make it more clear.

Mama's tests at 110 I.Q.; papa's at 90 I.Q. If both groups are pure the offspring should test 100. The presumption is the mama group's higher I.Q. is due to genetics, but we don't know for sure. If we could construct a genetic test which filters out environment we would know.

Take note of where the offspring were brought up (environment). If brought up in the mama's environment, I.Q.'s should still be 100 if genetics is all that matters and there is no bias. Same with papa's environment, I.Q.'s should still be 100. Let's ASSUME environment presents a 5 point hit in each case. So if genetic groups don't matter, offspring in mama's group will be 105 brought up by environment and 95 in papa's group brought down by environment. Still 100 average. Here's the clincher. Say the experimental results show 107 in the mama's environment and 97 in the papa's environment instead. This presents an average I.Q. of 102 when it should be 100. Therefore this influence must have been caused by the mama group's I.Q. difference. Genetics matters since the other variables were treated equally. In any case you have a measure of genetic influence by group.

Questions? Clean up my logic and generalize it, refine the details, take into account regression toward the mean of the offspring and you have a precise test. Why haven't the professors done this? Do they want to keep the speculations going so everyone will have a job? They've got me.

Later: There may be a flaw in the argument above. It may be the environment of the offspring should be lumped together, simplifying things. You will need a control group of homogeneous parents. Hell. I still ask if the experimentors have done this simple experiment. What do you think?

 

[BigApplePi]

Would you care to arrogate the real average IQ score for blacks?

Arrogate, speculate, irrigate or irritate? I still think the question of intelligence for different races a valid one. Are we talking American and British blacks here? What happens when you steal a group of people away from their native country, discourage them from intellectual enterprises over generations and then give them a test? Were the original group of lower I.Q. because they were foolish enough to get caught? What about Australian imports of prisoner populations from Britain? Was the result the same there except follow-on generations were not discouraged from learning? Any other imported populations to test? The Romans took Greeks as slaves, but that doesn't count as they took them as superior teachers. Hell. I don't know.

 

[snafupants]

Re: A valid experiment Mr. Spearman?

Scorpio and Snafu. This thread is certainly full of a lot of speculation (among other things). I think the question of intelligence difference for a group is a legitimate one. What I can't understand is why all these professors don't do a simple experiment to clinch the answer. I don't like being the only one in the room who suspects the answer, so check this out you guys. My Ne says this would work. It by-passes previous questionable experiments:

Take a test a group which is 50-50. The tough part is getting random subjects, but that is true for ANY test. Do you get what I mean by 50-50? You take the offspring where the mama is pure from one group and the papa is pure from another. If everything were random, you'd get I.Q. 100 for everything because the offspring is exactly 50-50. But don't do that. I will be specific to make it more clear.

Mama's tests at 110 I.Q.; papa's at 90 I.Q. If both groups are pure the offspring should test 100. The presumption is the mama group's higher I.Q. is due to genetics, but we don't know for sure. If we could construct a genetic test which filters out environment we would know.

Take note of where the offspring were brought up (environment). If brought up in the mama's environment, I.Q.'s should still be 100 if genetics is all that matters and there is no bias. Same with papa's environment, I.Q.'s should still be 100. Let's ASSUME environment presents a 5 point hit in each case. So if genetic groups don't matter, offspring in mama's group will be 105 brought up by environment and 95 in papa's group brought down by environment. Still 100 average. Here's the clincher. Say the experimental results show 107 in the mama's environment and 97 in the papa's environment instead. This presents an average I.Q. of 102 when it should be 100. Therefore this influence must have been caused by the mama group's I.Q. difference. Genetics matters since the other variables were treated equally. In any case you have a measure of genetic influence by group.

Questions? Clean up my logic and generalize it, refine the details, take into account regression toward the mean of the offspring and you have a precise test. Why haven't the professors done this? Do they want to keep the speculations going so everyone will have a job? They've got me.

Later: There may be a flaw in the argument above. It may be the environment of the offspring should be lumped together, simplifying things. You will need a control group of homogeneous parents. Hell. I still ask if the experimentors have done this simple experiment. What do you think?

Here's the deal. Why does it matter what caused the low test scores? If you decide it does, I have furnished this thread with oodles of data and empirical evidence; I feel that even if the reason eludes us, which is hardly the case, we can still postulate conclusions. Do we need to understand every nuance of childbirth to solder the connection between sex and gestation? Fact is, blacks show dramatically lower IQ scores on average than whites, and whites show slightly lower average IQ scores than asians. In an effort to elucidate or obfuscate, hinging on the person, this thread has pondered about the reasons for both disparities, while sidetracking everyone's attention to frivolous debates. The reasons hardly matter! In other words, you could aver any theory you fancied at the moment and the data illustrating the disparities would remain unblemished.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: A valid experiment Mr. Spearman?

Here's the deal. Why does it matter what caused the low test scores? If you decide it does, I have furnished this thread with oodles of data and empirical evidence; I feel that even if the reason eludes us, which is hardly the case, we can still postulate conclusions. Do we need to understand every nuance of childbirth to solder the connection between sex and gestation? Fact is, blacks show dramatically lower IQ scores on average than whites, and whites show slightly lower average IQ scores than asians. In an effort to elucidate or obfuscate, hinging on the person, this thread has pondered about the reasons for both disparities, while sidetracking everyone's attention to frivolous debates. The reasons hardly matter! In other words, you could aver any theory you fancied at the moment and the data illustrating the disparities would remain unblemished.

Ah but what conclusions can we make? You have stated blacks and asians get such and such IQ scores related to whites. Fine and we can accept that. But that's IQ only, not "g" or intelligence or some generalized meaning for intelligence ... only a particular kind of intelligence in a particular culture. I'll go further. IQ is not even genetic general verbal ability if given in some special language others have not learned. It isn't even genetic general logical ability if given with rules others are not facile with or ever tried out in experience.

Let me place all of you at a meeting of chemical engineers and see who is most intelligent at chemical engineering. I'll bet the chemical engineers will come in first with the chemists and engineers behind and you and I at the very last no matter what our IQ's. The playing field is not level.

I'll give you another scenario to think about. If IQ represents genetic intelligence and it remains nearly the same over one's childhood growth period where it is defined as a ratio, why does one's intelligence increase as one's age increases? Why am I at eight more intelligent than at four? Brain growth? Experience? Which and how much?

Do the 50-50 test if you really want to know if asians and blacks have certain genetic intelligences related to whites. Prove to me that test won't work!

 

[WARchitect]

BigApplePi and similar others,

The problem is that you come here with very basic questions and alternatives( as expected from people in a "multi-cult-we-are-all-equal" society).

Congratulations on formulating these questions,alternatives and scenarios, they are logical and valid. But don't think the scientists we mention here never thought about that...Its their work!
They made studies with adopted children in excelent SES families. There are IQ tests with no language bias. They did neutralize the equivalent of your "chemical engineers" scenario. Of course they know IQ changes with age; and let me surprise you:it does not grow forever in a lifetime. It grow untill a certain age and then you might lose some points...
They did all this, and much much more; they are professionals!
If you read this thread, snafupants posts, they are full of answers to questions like these.

Do you want a "scenario" to think about? They even did studies with identical twins. Same genes and guess what? Same IQ.

I know, the thread is not full of links; but its full of names. Do your research.

 

[InvisibleJim]

@snafupants

We have to very careful when using a correlation to imply causation. If you read socio-economics studies and books (like the wonderful superfreakonomics) you discover that blind testing has shown that there are three classes of people in the US (the area with the most statistical studies); those with white/latino/chinese names and education, those with white/latino/chinese names who are uneducated and black people. Economically education tends not to pay off and therefore it is irrational to invest in it; therefore there are socio-economic drivers that make development of the thinking muscle a lower priority.

 

[BigApplePi]

WARchitect. What you say sounds very sincere. Perhaps I'm lazy because I didn't talk to the research guys. What I do is try to think on my own. Since this is an interactive thread among people I'm allowed to do that.

BigApplePi and similar others,

The problem is that you come here with very basic questions and alternatives( as expected from people in a "multi-cult-we-are-all-equal" society).

Congratulations on formulating these questions,alternatives and scenarios, they are logical and valid. But don't think the scientists we mention here never thought about that...Its their work!
They made studies with adopted children in excelent SES families.

I used to read that stuff. I don't accept authorities especially when one authority disagrees with another. The very fact one disagrees with another means the issue is not settled.

There are IQ tests with no language bias. They did neutralize the equivalent of your "chemical engineers" scenario.

Name one. You mean those analogy diagrams? Or perhaps number sequences? Those are not culture free. Anyone who likes puzzles and has played with them is ahead of the game. I don't think you can neutralize the chemical engineer scenario because the premise is chemical engineers understand the chemical engineering playground and the others don't. No way even a savy 180 I.Q. person can compete on a biased playing field. Think of the kinesthetic intelligence required to learn how to swim. One touch in the water gives the experienced person an advantage.

Of course they know IQ changes with age

I merely ask WHY does it change with age? Experience plays a big part. If that is true, genetics isn't measured.

; and let me surprise you:it does not grow forever in a lifetime. It grow untill a certain age and then you might lose some points...

I'm a living example of that. Today I'm selective in what I care to remember. When I was young, I accepted anything.

They did all this, and much much more; they are professionals!

Then let those authorities start agreeing. B.S. authorities.

If you read this thread, snafupants posts, they are full of answers to questions like these.

Show me an answer and I'll blow some hole in it.

Do you want a "scenario" to think about? They even did studies with identical twins. Same genes and guess what? Same IQ.

That's fine. I believe it. But when we compare blacks to whites to Asians, we are not talking twins. We are talking subtleties. A subtle difference requires a subtle approach and proof.

I know, the thread is not full of links; but its full of names. Do your research.

Once I see a flaw in research I stop reading. Why should I waste time on uncorrected errors or misjudgments?

 

[WARchitect]

Ok BigApplePi,

I understand where do you come from, your perspective. I said before in this thread, maybe this is all about "belief systems". And I must say, from my deepests feelings of INTP reasoning : race differences fits perfectly in my universal truth, my belief system. Its not just this IQ information. Its all I've seen in my whole life. For example my contribution in my first post on this thread about the differents environments Homo sapiens evolved.

Scientists disagree all the time, you wont find unanimity in any subject. From Einsten and before, to 9/11 twin towers.

I could answer to your points, even snafu could, with more information. But this will not help.
Cultural free tests? I think those scientists did it. But you dont. And you could mention that very simple IQ problem, when you start the test:
"image of a horse with no tail"; "select image below" (with the tail of course)...
And you question: "But there are people that never saw a horse in their life, they dont know if it has a tail or not; total cultural bias" And I would say nothing, because I'm a INTP too, I know its possible to not know what a horse is.
We could deconstruct this ad infinitum.

I would like to ask you, in my hypothetical poll what level would you be?

" In what level do you believe evolution/selection of genes worked in the past 100.000 years in all Homo Sapiens population across the planet ? "

"1- Just Melatonin/ Skin Colour (scorpiomover level) ?
2- The above + nose/eyes/hair/etc shapes ?
3- Above + bone/muscle structure/density/fibers (see sports/forensic data) ?
4- Above + internal organs/hormones/biochemistry (- brain) functionality/size/intensity (see racial medicine data) ?
5- Above + Brain size/functionality/architecture (see IQ and political-incorrect* data) ? "

I don't accept authorities either. And this is the reason I'm in extreme level 5.

 

[DetachedRetina]

I don't have much time atm, but I would love to come back to this.

A few quick points:
- socioeconomic status and culturally unstimulating environments are potentially exponential gap wideners for IQ over generations. Stupid parents teach already stupid children their own maladjustments.

- Do not discount the influence of the environment on the genes themselves. Epigenetics could play a prominent role in snowballing those in already unfortunate circumstances, or at least keeping them at the bottom.

I agree with this. I think too much emphasis has been put on trying to determine if the test itself is biased. Perhaps the test is unbiased but the culture at large is biased. We are not forced to conclude the genetic inferiority of an entire race.

Has anyone considered nutrition as a factor?

 

[DetachedRetina]

Use BigApplePi's method to first rule out genetics and then start looking for the reasons for the apparent disparity. After Genetics are ruled out test bias can be tackled. This should be pretty simple. You start with a group of black people with an IQ of 85 by current test standards, and a group of white people with IQ 100 by current standards. Theoretically if test bias was the only bias you would be able to design a test such that both groups score the same. You divide your sample population of blacks and whites into multiple subgroups each taking a different trial test and a control (the original test). If you arrive at such an "unbiased" test you need to then take that test to the general public and confirm your results. Average across blacks and whites should be 100. Next you need to test whether this "unbiased" test is an accurate predictor of intelligence and relative success like the current intelligence tests are.

Now at this point if you apply the "unbiased" test to the general population and find that it is not a good predictor of success for both whites and blacks, you will be forced to conclude that test bias is not the issue. If you do find that the "unbiased" test is a good test for intelligence, you can finally put the issue to bed.

If you have ruled out test bias and genetics, you must conclude that we live in a racist society. This is pretty much the general assumption made by academics already even without clear support. They simply take the IQ difference as evidence enough without investigating why there is a difference.

I do not understand this. Couldn't these tests be used to help combat the racist institution? For example you could use IQ test differences to try to pinpoint exactly the social or cultural weaknesses in our society. If I knew that society could be restructured in such a way as to increase IQ by 15 points I would be looking at these sorts of tests right away!

If we are living in a society where blacks are oppressed (as I tend to believe we are) and we can once and for all start to highlight the specific institutional sources of this oppression why aren't we? We tend to think "black incarceration rates are higher, black poverty rates are higher, black IQ is lower. What a pity, what a shit society. Oh well, all I can do is not be a bigot myself." POO! Why aren't we looking into the institutional and cultural differences that lead to these problems?

 

[snafupants]

Use BigApplePi's method to first rule out genetics and then start looking for the reasons for the apparent disparity. After Genetics are ruled out test bias can be tackled. This should be pretty simple. You start with a group of black people with an IQ of 85 by current test standards, and a group of white people with IQ 100 by current standards. Theoretically if test bias was the only bias you would be able to design a test such that both groups score the same. You divide your sample population of blacks and whites into multiple subgroups each taking a different trial test and a control (the original test). If you arrive at such an "unbiased" test you need to then take that test to the general public and confirm your results. Average across blacks and whites should be 100. Next you need to test whether this "unbiased" test is an accurate predictor of intelligence and relative success like the current intelligence tests are.

Now at this point if you apply the "unbiased" test to the general population and find that it is not a good predictor of success for both whites and blacks, you will be forced to conclude that test bias is not the issue. If you do find that the "unbiased" test is a good test for intelligence, you can finally put the issue to bed.

If you have ruled out test bias and genetics, you must conclude that we live in a racist society. This is pretty much the general assumption made by academics already even without clear support. They simply take the IQ difference as evidence enough without investigating why there is a difference.

I do not understand this. Couldn't these tests be used to help combat the racist institution? For example you could use IQ test differences to try to pinpoint exactly the social or cultural weaknesses in our society. If I knew that society could be restructured in such a way as to increase IQ by 15 points I would be looking at these sorts of tests right away!

If we are living in a society where blacks are oppressed (as I tend to believe we are) and we can once and for all start to highlight the specific institutional sources of this oppression why aren't we? We tend to think "black incarceration rates are higher, black poverty rates are higher, black IQ is lower. What a pity, what a shit society. Oh well, all I can do is not be a bigot myself." POO! Why aren't we looking into the institutional and cultural differences that lead to these problems?

Regarding your opening, the notion that black and white scores on intelligence tests are more pronounced when the test is more g-loaded (i.e., Spearman's hypothesis) has been a thoroughly replicated finding. Ironically, culture-free tests tend to be more g-loaded, which leads to more stark differences between blacks' and whites' scores. This is ironic because many black, perhaps multicultural, psychologists assume that the less cultural influence a test possesses, the less poorly blacks should perform and, therefore, the more the racial gap should contract. Actually the reverse is the case because the hinging factor is the extent to which the test is g-loaded rather than the extent to which the test is culturally saturated. There's really little reason why blacks should consistently score lower on the backwards digit span subtest on the WAIS but they do; please note that the forward digit span subtest is half as g-loaded as the backwards digit span subtest; blacks tend to do relatively well on arithmetic subtests, so the claim that whites are better with numbers is as specious as it is insufficient in explaining the foregoing digit span subtest differences. To transition to your ending, which synthesizes many important ideas, I feel we do live in a racist society. The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any industrialized nation, and blacks are overrepresented for victimless crimes in that system which possesses all of the qualities of a business operated at the state level. Fundamentally I refuse to accept that blacks are given a fair socioeconomic shake in this country, and there's more justification for black outrage than white hubris. I, perhaps like you, want to know how these scores can rectify a dire situation. The underlying mechanisms are essentially understood, and thousands of multiple regression studies have been orchestrated with repeatable data, and yet we often quibble and bury our heads in the sand. This doesn't help anyone. Programs like NCLB and Head Start, although well meaning, are clearly ineffectual (at combating group IQ differences) and a gross squandering of taxpayer dollars. The first step in finding programs which actually work is having the courage, even temerity, to objectively analyze the data that's been presented to us for at least three generations.

 

[DetachedRetina]

^Exactly. I'm saying that getting to the root of these differences, and acting like scientists for christ's sake, should actually be beneficial for constructing a less oppressive society.

I guess I tend to naturally reject the idea that there are genetic differences causing these group IQ score differences. I didn't really understand the idea of g loading vs. IQ until just now though. So if that in itself is meant to disprove test bias as the cause of group IQ differences I don't see any other conclusion but two:

1) Blacks are genetically inferior (This seems much less likely than...)

2) External factors like nutrition (epigenetics), black cultural norms as entrenched sub-optimal practices (the absent father effect for example), etc. are forcing the disparity.

The main point I wanted to make was that external social factors could force a difference in group IQ even if the test is unbiased.

I'm actually not sure I believe genetics play that much of a role in intelligence anyways. But that is a claim I have neither the energy, time, nor brainpower to defend at the moment.

 

[BigApplePi]

This may seem far out, but here's a comment on intelligence. If countries had intelligence, which country would be more intelligent? Germany in the north or all those southern countries like Italy, Spain and Greece whom Germany is at economic war with? Is Germany more intelligent because their economy is in good shape and they kept economic house but is now pressured to bail out (rescue) those southern countries by giving away their precious money? Or are those southern countries more intelligent because they borrowed and lived it high with good times on money that wasn't theirs and now hope to get Germany to pay for it?

Is this analogous to blacks originating in Africa who didn't have to work as hard for clothing and shelter because of the temperature than whites who moved further north and did and so had to use their brains to figure how to cover their bodies and survive?

 

[DetachedRetina]

This isn't really on topic, but I just have to say... oh my fucking god, how can people score 100 or less on an IQ test? I consider myself of mediocre intelligence, and I can rock a 145 on IQ tests all day long. I can't imagine getting through life being stupider than I am.

I would rape a duck for an IQ of 145.

I would.

 

[DetachedRetina]

This may seem far out, but here's a comment on intelligence. If countries had intelligence, which country would be more intelligent? Germany in the north or all those southern countries like Italy, Spain and Greece whom Germany is at economic war with? Is Germany more intelligent because their economy is in good shape and they kept economic house but is now pressured to bail out (rescue) those southern countries by giving away their precious money? Or are those southern countries more intelligent because they borrowed and lived it high with good times on money that wasn't theirs and now hope to get Germany to pay for it?

Is this analogous to blacks originating in Africa who didn't have to work as hard for clothing and shelter because of the temperature than whites who moved further north and did and so had to use their brains to figure how to cover their bodies and survive?

Who says cold weather selects for intelligence?

Maybe it just selects for fatness and white skin.

 

[BigApplePi]

I would rape a duck for an IQ of 145.

I would.

Hey Retina. My black buddy (I am white), has an IQ of 88. (He took two tests as a youngster.) He has a Ph.D. and two Masters and is more knowledgeable than I am. Would you like me to ask him if he "raped some duck" because I think he must have.

P.S. As far as my weird brain goes, you is on topic.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Hey Retina. My black buddy (I am white), has an IQ of 88. (He took two tests as a youngster.) He has a Ph.D. and two Masters and is more knowledgeable than I am.

Well, in effect I would like to have an IQ of 145, which is to say I would like to be really smart. I don't really care to have a Ph.D., two Masters, and be more knowledgeable than you. I suppose those things would be nice, but I wouldn't rape a duck over them.

It is very good for your black friend that he has accomplished so much, I would assume through hard work and without much duck raping. I am quite happy for him, I am, though I don't see what his existence is supposed to prove to me. Is showing me his IQ meant to refute, in one sweeping gesture, the notion that IQ has anything to do with being smart or successful?

I really shouldn't say I want to discourage you from asking him if he raped a duck, for if you suspect he did, that is most disturbing. Did he even do it to attain an IQ of 145?

P.S. As far as my weird brain goes, you is on topic

I apologize for going off topic. Can we close the discussion on ducks and rapists and your successful black friend now?

 

[snafupants]

^Exactly. I'm saying that getting to the root of these differences, and acting like scientists for christ's sake, should actually be beneficial for constructing a less oppressive society.

I guess I tend to naturally reject the idea that there are genetic differences causing these group IQ score differences. I didn't really understand the idea of g loading vs. IQ until just now though. So if that in itself is meant to disprove test bias as the cause of group IQ differences I don't see any other conclusion but two:

1) Blacks are genetically inferior (This seems much less likely than...)

2) External factors like nutrition (epigenetics), black cultural norms as entrenched sub-optimal practices (the absent father effect for example), etc. are forcing the disparity.

The main point I wanted to make was that external social factors could force a difference in group IQ even if the test is unbiased.

I'm actually not sure I believe genetics play that much of a role in intelligence anyways. But that is a claim I have neither the energy, time, nor brainpower to defend at the moment.

The notion of genetic differences is hardly that controversial or novel. Hair, eye and skin color are inherited, and we know that the observed intelligence test score is attributable to one's parents to a large degree, so why should the genetic component of intelligence be a revelation? In a few hundred years, once all of the genes are mapped out, we will take today's prescience as common sense; the glacial pace of science, unfortunately, bridles this process; the price of verification is quite steep. Your reluctance to accept the sobering reality that intelligence is inherited is expected though, perhaps even quaintly admirable. Well, like I've stated before, environment accounts for about thirty percent of the variance in observed intelligence test scores, leaving about two thirds ascribable to genetics. When dealing with a dichotomy deductions are rendered relatively easily, yes my friend? As an aside, nutrition plays a negligible role in augmenting intelligence, barring severe deficiencies in which subsequent supplementation provided a maximal increase of less than one half of one standard deviation; nutrition and myriad other factors are subsumed under environment variables (e.g., SES) anyway so that's already been largely dismissed. What people find shocking is that when you seek to stagnate and homogenize the environment you actually facilitate the flowering of genetic's impact on intelligence; with a dichotomous influence, holding one variable constant (e.g., environment) should, save cataclysmic circumstances (e.g., lobotomizing the whole population), enhance the other variable (i.e., genetics).

 

[BigApplePi]

Who says cold weather selects for intelligence?

Maybe it just selects for fatness and white skin.

Warm weather you can just hang out.

You are freezing. You gotta do something right away. The ones with 75 IQ can't think of anything. No time to eat a lot or bleach your skin.

 

[BigApplePi]

I apologize for going off topic. Can we close the discussion on ducks and rapists and your successful black friend now?

We could close the topic but that would leave some loose threads.

Well, in effect I would like to have an IQ of 145, which is to say I would like to be really smart. I don't really care to have a Ph.D., two Masters, and be more knowledgeable than you. I suppose those things would be nice, but I wouldn't rape a duck over them.

It's alright to want to be smart. You may already be there. I am smart in some ways and really stupid in others. Sometimes I can't always hide it.

It is very good for your black friend that he has accomplished so much, I would assume through hard work and without much duck raping. I am quite happy for him, I am, though I don't see what his existence is supposed to prove to me. Is showing me his IQ meant to refute, in one sweeping gesture, the notion that IQ has anything to do with being smart or successful?

I am strongly suspicious that this case proves he doesn't really have the low intelligence that an IQ of 88 would imply. No 88 person, no matter how hard he worked could get 2 MA's and 1 PhD. If something is wrong for the test for him, what about others?

I really shouldn't say I want to discourage you from asking him if he raped a duck, for if you suspect he did, that is most disturbing. Did he even do it to attain an IQ of 145?

Does it count as rape if the duck was willing?

 

[snafupants]

We could close the topic but that would leave some loose threads.
It's alright to want to be smart. You may already be there. I am smart in some ways and really stupid in others. Sometimes I can't always hide it.
I am strongly suspicious that this case proves he doesn't really have the low intelligence that an IQ of 88 would imply. No 88 person, no matter how hard he worked could get 2 MA's and 1 PhD. If something is wrong for the test for him, what about others?
Does it count as rape if the duck was willing?

Within the error component of classical test theory something could be amiss with the test's appropriateness, the test administration, the testing environment, the test subject or any permutation therein. I too doubt that this guy's observed score is close to his true score or bona fide intelligence test score given what he's accomplished. I would bet that his scores, if he took a test today, would be closer to expectations based on his educational attainment (IQ ~125); this vast hike would perhaps be more than regression to the mean, in other words; without more information, however, I refuse to posit what caused this aberration. Anyway, I'd say that intellectual striving definitely plays a role in the expression of intelligence. I mean, part of crystallized intelligence is expressive vocabulary, and through reading extensively some lexical and articulation osmosis takes place; this is obvious when you consider the reverse (i.e., a kid, black or white, who never cracks open a book isn't going to sound like Noam Chomsky or Cornel West). I make this claim about intellectual striving and crystallized intelligence because vocabulary subtests typically have extremely high g-loadings (~.8) compared to, say, processing speed (~.3) subtests. Crystallized intelligence, furthermore, sometimes accounts for half of an intelligence battery's total arsenal of subtests and, hence, overarching IQ score. I liked how Kaufman framed the issue; he said that, assuming two identical composite IQ scores but varying levels of crystallized intelligence, the child with more crystallized intelligence is functionally more intelligent (for all intents and purposes) because our society is predominately composed of words; note that Kaufman never said the kid with lower crystallized intelligence was more or less intelligent than the other kiddo.

 

[WARchitect]

Originally Posted by DetachedRetina
Who says cold weather selects for intelligence?

Maybe it just selects for fatness and white skin.

Warm weather you can just hang out.

You are freezing. You gotta do something right away. The ones with 75 IQ can't think of anything. No time to eat a lot or bleach your skin.

You are joking, right?

 

[BigApplePi]

You are joking, right?

Not at all. I just didn't elaborate.

 

[DetachedRetina]

If only nobody ever asked you to elaborate

http://buttersafe.com/2011/09/01/this-bar-i-heard-about/

 

[BigApplePi]

LOL.

 

[Antediluvian]

Within the error component of classical test theory something could be amiss with the test's appropriateness, the test administration, the testing environment, the test subject or any permutation therein. I too doubt that this guy's observed score is close to his true score or bona fide intelligence test score given what he's accomplished. I would bet that his scores, if he took a test today, would be closer to expectations based on his educational attainment (IQ ~125); this vast hike would perhaps be more than regression to the mean, in other words; without more information, however, I refuse to posit what caused this aberration. Anyway, I'd say that intellectual striving definitely plays a role in the expression of intelligence. I mean, part of crystallized intelligence is expressive vocabulary, and through reading extensively some lexical and articulation osmosis takes place; this is obvious when you consider the reverse (i.e., a kid, black or white, who never cracks open a book isn't going to sound like Noam Chomsky or Cornel West). I make this claim about intellectual striving and crystallized intelligence because vocabulary subtests typically have extremely high g-loadings (~.8) compared to, say, processing speed (~.3) subtests. Crystallized intelligence, furthermore, sometimes accounts for half of an intelligence battery's total arsenal of subtests and, hence, overarching IQ score. I liked how Kaufman framed the issue; he said that, assuming two identical composite IQ scores but varying levels of crystallized intelligence, the child with more crystallized intelligence is functionally more intelligent (for all intents and purposes) because our society is predominately composed of words; note that Kaufman never said the kid with lower crystallized intelligence was more or less intelligent than the other kiddo.

It's interesting you bring up the bold point, there was a study which commented on the role of children's motivation accounting for close to a standard deviation in the below average group. I think this can apply to the accumulation of crystallized intelligence as well (reading).

As for BigApplePi's black friend, I remember an anecdote concerning a black psychologist who scored around an 80 on an IQ test as a child, and was told to become a bricklayer. It was in my old psychology textbook, I think. Anyway, my point was that, according to all of the psychologists I've interacted with, both online and in real-life, IQ tests primarily assesses academic potential. If one exceeds their predicted potential, then one would have to consider the possibility of the test being flawed (for that person). Of course, as you said, such an occurrence is undoubtedly rare, and one has to analyze all the factors, such as applied effort. But, I don't think a borderline retarded person could truly attain a PhD in psychology.

Actually, all this vaguely reminds me of the Atkins case, where the defendant scored a 59 on an IQ test, while the presiding psychologist concluded he was at least of average intelligence. I think interviews that assess academic achievement, fluidity in conversation, and adaptability to the environment should all be taken into account when assessing someone's intelligence. I believe psychologists already utilize this method, to an extent.

 

[snafupants]

It's interesting you bring up the bold point, there was a study which commented on the role of children's motivation accounting for close to a standard deviation in the below average group. I think this can apply to the accumulation of crystallized intelligence as well (reading).

As for BigApplePi's black friend, I remember an anecdote concerning a black psychologist who scored around an 80 on an IQ test as a child, and was told to become a bricklayer. It was in my old psychology textbook, I think. Anyway, my point was that, according to all of the psychologists I've interacted with, both online and in real-life, IQ tests primarily assesses academic potential. If one exceeds their predicted potential, then one would have to consider the possibility of the test being flawed (for that person). Of course, as you said, such an occurrence is undoubtedly rare, and one has to analyze all the factors, such as applied effort. But, I don't think a borderline retarded person could truly attain a PhD in psychology.

Actually, all this vaguely reminds me of the Atkins case, where the defendant scored a 59 on an IQ test, while the presiding psychologist concluded he was at least of average intelligence. I think interviews that assess academic achievement, fluidity in conversation, and adaptability to the environment should all be taken into account when assessing someone's intelligence. I believe psychologists already utilize this method, to an extent.

Well, before overgeneralizing, I stated that some tests (e.g., KBIT, WAIS, WASI) entail large chunks which are related to crystallized intelligence; when I say related, I mean that factor analysis revealed, say, a two factor structure in which arithmetic loaded with expressive vocabulary and other traditional crystallized intelligence tasks on the WAIS or something. I feel this is a far cry from stipulating that intelligence tests are synonymous with achievement tests; that said, both of the foregoing brands of test gauge academic potential quite well; both tests also tend to correlate with one another (i.e., both tests are g-loaded). I mean, per your dictum that intelligence primarily assess academic potential, how would you parry the claim that intelligence is useful outside of academia and correlates with myriad ecological data (criminality, religiosity, etc.) that has little bearing on academia? What about someone who scores higher than the average (IQ ~125) of the highest degree attainable (doctorate) in the United States? As an aside, for a few decades now the APA has required more than a subpar IQ score (IQ < 70) to adjudicate the classification of mentally retardation. In almost any circumstance, a disservice is done to the kiddo, prisoner, etc. when only one piece of datum is scrutinized to the detriment of interviews, conversational proclivity, grades and these erstwhile extraneous factors.

 

[Antediluvian]

Well, before overgeneralizing, I stated that some tests (e.g., KBIT, WAIS, WASI) entail large chunks which are related to crystallized intelligence; when I say related, I mean that factor analysis revealed, say, a two factor structure in which arithmetic loaded with expressive vocabulary and other traditional crystallized intelligence tasks on the WAIS or something. I feel this is a far cry from stipulating that intelligence tests are synonymous with achievement tests; that said, both of the foregoing brands of test gauge academic potential quite well; both tests also tend to correlate with one another (i.e., both tests are g-loaded). I mean, per your dictum that intelligence primarily assess academic potential, how would you parry the claim that intelligence is useful outside of academia and correlates with myriad ecological data (criminality, religiosity, etc.) that has little bearing on academia? What about someone who scores higher than the average (IQ ~125) of the highest degree attainable (doctorate) in the United States? As an aside, for a few decades now the APA has required more than a subpar IQ score (IQ < 70) to adjudicate the classification of mentally retardation. In almost any circumstance, a disservice is done to the kiddo, prisoner, etc. when only one piece of datum is scrutinized to the detriment of interviews, conversational proclivity, grades and these erstwhile extraneous factors.

You make a solid point that higher IQ correlates with ecological data such as low criminality and religiosity. As a sidenote, it is interesting that culture fair IQ tests correlate less well with academic achievement than culturally endowed IQ tests.

As for parrying, educational achievement also implies being able to somewhat conquer the environments at hand, as in juggling other areas of life in order to attain educational goals.

I suppose my concern is with the statistical aberrations that defy the predictions of their IQ score. Sometimes, explanations aren't readily offered.

I also wonder if in some ways motivation is an indication of intelligence (academically speaking, formally or informally). I have to cut this reply shorter than I'd like, but would you agree that IQ primarily assesses academic potential? It of course correlates with other occurrences in life. I'm not sure on how much the correlations vary.

 

[snafupants]

You make a solid point that higher IQ correlates with ecological data such as low criminality and religiosity. As a sidenote, it is interesting that culture fair IQ tests correlate less well with academic achievement than culturally endowed IQ tests.

As for parrying, educational achievement also implies being able to somewhat conquer the environments at hand, as in juggling other areas of life in order to attain educational goals.

I suppose my concern is with the statistical aberrations that defy the predictions of their IQ score. Sometimes, explanations aren't readily offered.

I also wonder if in some ways motivation is an indication of intelligence (academically speaking, formally or informally). I have to cut this reply shorter than I'd like, but would you agree that IQ primarily assesses academic potential? It of course correlates with other occurrences in life. I'm not sure on how much the correlations vary.

Acquiescing and conflating IQ with academic achievement would be disingenuous and ironic given my previous testimony of IQ as an approximation of g, which is itself an approximation of and colloquially referred to as this construct called intelligence. Depending on the test's credibility (validity, standardization, reliability, etc.) I'd say IQ is basically synonymous with g, and my definition of g is one's ability to handle and manipulate abstraction and complexity. Intelligence tests generally correlate well with one another to the extent that they gauge g. The question's type is irrelevant as long as general mental ability (g) is being tapped. Because IQ correlates with academic achievement and scholastic predilection that doesn't mean that IQ is academic achievement or scholastic aptitude. That's a tempting but beguiling teleology. Imagine that someone called all pleasure sex merely because sex happened to feel good. Absurd? But getting back to your contention, why stop with academic potential? Perhaps we could say that IQ and criminality are the same thing as they correlate reasonably well? Do you see where I'm going with this? The reason that grades or standardized tests scores correlate with IQ is that grades and SAT scores obliquely assess g with varying degrees of subtlety and success. Many of the signature black/white disparities in IQ, therefore, show their disfigured faces on the LSAT and SAT and de facto, silent IQ tests.

 

[Antediluvian]

Acquiescing and conflating IQ with academic achievement would be disingenuous and ironic given my previous testimony of IQ as an approximation of g, which is itself an approximation of and colloquially referred to as this construct called intelligence. Depending on the test's credibility (validity, standardization, reliability, etc.) I'd say IQ is basically synonymous with g, and my definition of g is one's ability to handle and manipulate abstraction and complexity. Intelligence tests generally correlate well with one another to the extent that they gauge g. The question's type is irrelevant as long as general mental ability (g) is being tapped. Because IQ correlates with academic achievement and scholastic predilection that doesn't mean that IQ is academic achievement or scholastic aptitude. That's a tempting but beguiling teleology. Imagine that someone called all pleasure sex merely because sex happened to feel good. Absurd? But getting back to your contention, why stop with academic potential? Perhaps we could say that IQ and criminality are the same thing as they correlate reasonably well? Do you see where I'm going with this? The reason that grades or standardized tests scores correlate with IQ is that grades and SAT scores obliquely assess g with varying degrees of subtlety and success.

Right, I didn't meant to suggest that IQ and academic achievement were the same thing, or that one automatically means the other. But, I would say that academic fields have varying degrees of complexity (utilizing many executive functions, depending on the subject), and if one is successful in attaining achievement within a particularly complex field, it would suggest that that person's potential to score highly on an IQ test is somewhat high. Obviously, effort is a hard trait to measure, and that needs to be taken into account when assessing someone's intelligence if one is using academic achievement as a yard stick. I would also say that not everyone excels in the same testing environment, extreme social anxiety comes to mind.

I don't know, I'm sleep deprived and not thinking clearly, and maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Ultimately though, as a tangential comment, I'd say rather vehement debates regarding IQ stem from insecurity (those who might suspect that they have an average IQ would seem to be more inclined to argue over the validity of the various tests).

Debates that have a cooled atmosphere tend to have dispersed the fog so that both sides can clearly see.

 

[snafupants]

Right, I didn't meant to suggest that IQ and academic achievement were the same thing, or that one automatically means the other. But, I would say that academic fields have varying degrees of complexity (utilizing many executive functions, depending on the subject), and if one is successful in attaining achievement within a particularly complex field, it would suggest that that person's potential to score highly on an IQ test is somewhat high. Obviously, effort is a hard trait to measure, and that needs to be taken into account when assessing someone's intelligence if one is using academic achievement as a yard stick. I would also say that not everyone excels in the same testing environment, extreme social anxiety comes to mind.

I don't know, I'm sleep deprived and not thinking clearly, and maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Ultimately though, as a tangential comment, I'd say rather vehement debates regarding IQ stem from insecurity (those who might suspect that they have an average IQ would seem to be more inclined to argue over the validity of the various tests).

Debates that have a cooled atmosphere tend to have dispersed the fog so that both sides can clearly see.

Your opening paragraph was actually quite lucid. There are some fields in which the most herculean effort will be squandered as the minimum requirement is only the highest intelligence. Advanced mathematics and quantum physics perhaps fall under this header; literature and philosophy and economics and political science, to a lesser degree, also require smarts to fully elucidate their vision in an engaging and comprehensible way. This notion that more brains helps in predominately thinking professions shouldn't come as an enormous revelation though. Well, the science with intelligence tests is really within the ambit of its statistics whereas the art of intelligence testing is in its administration. An astute psychologists would understand that giving a kid with cerebral palsy and gross motor control issues the block design test from the WAIS, which requires extensive motor control and manipulation, would artificially deflate the subject's score. According to classical test theory, such a mistake would introduce error and undercut the full expression and relaying of intelligence, or the subject's true score seen through the prism of her observed score. Irrespective of how cautious the residing psychologist is, confidence intervals should always be reported.

 

[Antediluvian]

Your opening paragraph was actually quite lucid. There are some fields in which the most herculean effort will be squandered as the minimum requirement is only the highest intelligence. Advanced mathematics and quantum physics perhaps fall under this header; literature and philosophy and economics and political science, to a lesser degree, also require smarts to fully elucidate their vision in an engaging and comprehensible way. This notion that more brains helps in predominately thinking professions shouldn't come as an enormous revelation though. Well, the science with intelligence tests is really within the ambit of its statistics whereas the art of intelligence testing is in its administration. An astute psychologists would understand that giving a kid with cerebral palsy and gross motor control issues the block design test from the WAIS, which requires extensive motor control and manipulation, would artificially deflate the subject's score. According to classical test theory, such a mistake would introduce error and undercut the full expression and relaying of intelligence, or the subject's true score seen through the prism of her observed score. Irrespective of how cautious the residing psychologist is, confidence intervals should always be reported.

I take it the lucid comment was in response to my professed sleep-deprivation? The world "actually" always gets me paranoid. See what I mean about the insecurity thing?

Anyway, I agree that the most intense effort may only meet the minimum intellectual performance requirements when coupled with someone's mental ability, and that effort only accomplishes so much to compensate for a lesser degree of intelligence. I have a clinically retarded brother, and I don't mean this derisively, but it's obvious he won't become a physicist. This is a sad fact of life.

Also, it does make sense that an astute psychologist would be able to assess much more accurately a disabled person's true score. And while I believe David Wechsler claimed that the tests (at least during his time) only tapped intellectual performance rather than quantity of intelligence, I've always thought that the performance is the most important of the two traits, not that they are mutually exclusive, the former needs the latter. This is why I believe IQ tests are an important gauge, it shows that someone can succeed (or fail) in a test environment, which of course is important in an academic atmosphere.

On the bold point, it is true that such a line of thinking is hardly revelatory, but I simply meant that highly complex fields are testing cognitive abilities to some degree, perhaps as well some of those that aren't heavily emphasized on IQ tests, such as intense, long-sustained attention, or social reasoning (a hellish academic environment due to poor social skills isn't conducive to degree attainment, though of course some do persist). These are just paltry examples off the top of my head, mind you.

 

[snafupants]

I take it the lucid comment was in response to my professed sleep-deprivation? The world "actually" always gets me paranoid. See what I mean about the insecurity thing?

Anyway, I agree that the most intense effort may only meet the minimum intellectual performance requirements when coupled with someone's mental ability, and that effort only accomplishes so much to compensate for a lesser degree of intelligence. I have a clinically retarded brother, and I don't mean this derisively, but it's obvious he won't become a physicist. This is a sad fact of life.

Also, it does make sense that an astute psychologist would be able to assess much more accurately a disabled person's true score. And while I believe David Wechsler claimed that the tests (at least during his time) only tapped intellectual performance rather than quantity of intelligence, I've always thought that the performance is the most important of the two traits, not that they are mutually exclusive, the former needs the latter. This is why I believe IQ tests are an important gauge, it shows that someone can succeed (or fail) in a test environment, which of course is important in an academic atmosphere.

On the bold point, it is true that such a line of thinking is hardly revelatory, but I simply meant that highly complex fields are testing cognitive abilities to some degree, perhaps as well some of those that aren't heavily emphasized on IQ tests, such as intense, long-sustained attention, or social reasoning (a hellish academic environment due to poor social skills isn't conducive to degree attainment, though of course some do persist). These are just paltry examples off the top of my head, mind you.

The field of intelligence testing is actually moving towards an emphasis on working memory, which appears to share neuronal substrates with fluid intelligence. This subtle change was spurred by brain scans, Alan Kaufman and the KABC, cognitive exercises linking fluid intelligence and working memory (e.g., dual n-back), psychometrics and common sense. Clearly, among three or four advanced cognitive skills tapped during learning, working memory ranks quite highly. There are some researchers, though, who argue g and working memory are actually synonymous, and while it's true that working memory and fluid intelligence are correlated and highly related to g, the manifestation of intelligence is clearly more than working memory. Imagine someone with an extraordinary working memory, but drab expressive vocabulary skills, basically deaf, dyslexic and unable to comprehend thoughts expressed in print. See what I mean? As an aside, regarding your brother, he's probably consistently happier than I, perhaps you too, so it's hard to say who the existential fool is. There are numerous ways to measure success and fulfillment. Can your brother function reasonably well? Can he live independently? If not, is that a prospect?

 

[Antediluvian]

The field of intelligence testing is actually moving towards an emphasis on working memory, which appears to share neuronal substrates with fluid intelligence. This subtle change was spurred by brain scans, Alan Kaufman and the KABC, cognitive exercises linking fluid intelligence and working memory (e.g., dual n-back), psychometrics and common sense. Clearly, among three or four advanced cognitive skills tapped during learning, working memory ranks quite highly. There are some researchers, though, who argue g and working memory are actually synonymous, and while it's true that working memory and fluid intelligence are correlated and highly related to g, the manifestation of intelligence is clearly more than working memory. Imagine someone with an extraordinary working memory, but drab expressive vocabulary skills, basically deaf, dyslexic and unable to comprehend thoughts expressed in print. See what I mean? As an aside, regarding your brother, he's probably consistently happier than I, perhaps you too, so it's hard to say who the existential fool is. There are numerous ways to measure success and fulfillment. Can your brother function reasonably well? Can he live independently? If not, is that a prospect?

He perhaps has a five-year old mentality and cannot live on his own (he can do simple tasks). He's definitely happier than I am, in general, but I'd settle for the relatively unbridled happiness of the average person. I'm not claiming above average intelligence, but feel far below the average level of contentment. However, I've been estimated at different ranges by professionals, from the "definitely smart" range of close to 125, to well into the gifted end of the spectrum. Regardless, I'm doing decently in college. That's a separate thread, I guess


I agree that intelligence is more than working memory, and your example of understanding the written word brings me back to my point. The WAIS, (not sure about SB5 or Woodcock-Johnson), doesn't test for reading comprehension directly, through Vocabulary sure, but it is far from a thorough examination of one's reading skills. I've heard plenty boast of having a high IQ but then state that they have dyslexia. I mentioned in another thread I knew of someone with an IQ of 170, (took the RAPM, if I recall), but who also admitted to having ADHD/Dyslexia. I think IQ is in general an excellent measure, but would say that complete mental acuity is highly multi-faceted, especially highlighted within the rumbling industry of academia.

As a random recollection, there was a study that claimed working memory was a better predictor of academic achievement than IQ, however the test subjects were learning disabled children. Perhaps IQ takes the lead in college, when critical thinking skills are much more emphasized, just a hypothesis.

 

[snafupants]

He perhaps has a five-year old mentality and cannot live on his own (he can do simple tasks). He's definitely happier than I am, in general, but I'd settle for the relatively unbridled happiness of the average person. I'm not claiming above average intelligence, but feel far below the average level of contentment. However, I've been estimated at different ranges by professionals, from the "definitely smart" range of close to 125, to well into the gifted end of the spectrum. Regardless, I'm doing decently in college. That's a separate thread, I guess


I agree that intelligence is more than working memory, and your example of understanding the written word brings me back to my point. The WAIS, (not sure about SB5 or Woodcock-Johnson), doesn't test for reading comprehension directly, through Vocabulary sure, but it is far from a thorough examination of one's reading skills. I've heard plenty boast of having a high IQ but then state that they have dyslexia. I mentioned in another thread I knew of someone with an IQ of 170, (took the RAPM, if I recall), but who also admitted to having ADHD/Dyslexia. I think IQ is in general an excellent measure, but would say that complete mental acuity is highly multi-faceted, especially within the rumbling industry of academia.

Game playing, obsequiousness and conformity will paradoxically get you further in academia then genius or advanced analytical ability. I really haven't delved into the Stanford Binet tests but the Woodcock-Johnson (poor name) Third Edition does many things correctly and many things errantly. Basically the Woodcock Johnson is an archetypical example of a test which sacrifices ecological implications for clinical and psychometrical utility. In other words, the test is unerringly faithful to CHC-Theory but extrapolation to real world functioning is more difficult than, say, with a test like the WAIS. The general intellectual ability (GIA) composite is composed of seven tests on the Woodcock-Johnson, each encapsulating a different CHC broad ability (e.g., crystallized intelligence). The problem lies with the subtests' emphasis and nature. For whatever reason, the GIA basically weighs auditory comprehension as commensurate with fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence and visual processing, while basically excluding good working memory measures. Moreover, some of the tests gauge receptive rather than expressive skills; for instance, the opening crystallized intelligence section basically asks the subject to spit out one word that encapsulates the synonym, antonym or identification. In my opinion, the WAIS provides a richer picture of the real world functioning of someone's intellectual ability because, although the scoring can be subjective (e.g., VCI), an intellectual is seen as an intellectual, you know? You have enough room to make yourself clear on the WAIS whereas the Woodcock-Johnson can overlook these things. Well, my critique of the Woodcock-Johnson is hardly fair because intelligence tests are conjointly normed with their achievement test counterpart, which assesses some of the areas intelligence tests can overlook (e.g., reading comprehension). Yeah I need to take the Cattell Culture-Fair or RAPM soon because I hit the ceiling of the WAIS and I've had to rely on sometimes wonky high range tests (e.g., CCAT and Titan) to approximate my true IQ score. From the wanting barometers I'd conclude that I equal your friend's score; that was at least the number which the Prometheus society came up with as regards an extrapolation of my WAIS-III raw score; then again, with the WAIS you have to worry about ceiling effects on particular subtests; the third edition of the Stanford Binet (i.e., Stanford Binet L-M) provided the most expansive range of IQ scores ever devised (ratio scores spanning ~ 228 points); that test fell by the wayside as ratio scores became entirely supplanted with deviation scores and when folks started emphasizing disability over giftedness; later versions of the Stanford Binet characteristically featured improved floors, for dull folk, and poor ceilings, to the detriment of discerning the extent of giftedness in youngsters. Anyway, when an intelligence test is taken in conjunction with its cousin achievement test, you obviously have more information to work with, and can therefore render more thorough decisions for learning disabled kids and whatnot. Anything around the gifted cutoff range is a fine score, though, and will get you most places you'd like to go.

 

[Antediluvian]

I do want to be clear on my stance that one doesn't need to be a genius to succeed in academia, I think the average physicist is closer to 125 (could be wrong, here). Also, it's my understanding that extremely high IQs, such as 160/170+ correlate less well with academic achievement. Auto-didactic methods, at least to me, are more suggestive of intelligence than anything. I would also say that creativity is seen as more cerebral as it is postulated to be reliant upon intact "executive functions" and I think needs to be taken into consideration as well.

Anything around the gifted cutoff range is a fine score, though, and will get you most places you'd like to go.

This seems to be a general comment. Anyway, I made the estimates of me by others a tad vague, especially the gifted label (which extends beyond the average gifted), as I didn't want to come across as arrogant without the necessary proof. The more flattering label was given by someone who had an IQ which was "too high to be measured accurately" very successful academically, which I found interesting given the downing effect (they are much better, but not flawless, at estimating IQ than the average population). Of course, I know there's more to the downing effect than that.

As far as your score, you seem to have the matching verbal density to the score you claim, so by my amateur estimation, it would make sense. In comparison to my friend, well, he was extremely spatially gifted, he even claimed an online score of 210 (possibly inaccurate, but who knows?), but he had a limited vocabulary, self-admitted, and you would most likely best him verbally. His description of his internal world was quite rich, in contrast. And I will readily concede that very few people could match his spatial prowess.

Also, I think the WAIS Vocabulary section is robust enough to test how someone picked up a word through context in that it allows for multiple right answers, if I remember, which is important, considering most don't look up the word in online dictionaries for alternative meanings.

Finally, I wonder, what is your opinion on Richard Feynman?, he claimed to have scored 125, which is respectable, but many believe that his score was underestimated considering his accomplishments.

EDIT: I was going to discuss the CHC theory, and how there was one aspect of "g" that was identified but the researchers couldn't find a valid way of testing it, but this edit will refresh my memory next time I visit the thread.

 

[cheese]

From what I've been reading recently, race is a very poorly-understood concept, and consequently attributing averages to different 'races' seems a bit dodgy. Some researchers have advocated dispensing with the notion of race altogether, as the genetic dis/similarities between and in groups are insufficient to constitute valid categories.

Blacks in particular are often a bit of a hodge-podge, and how people identify racially may be little reflection of their genes and their similarity with others of the 'same race'.

Aside from the fact that group averages in general are more or less meaningless in personal interaction - and unfortunately our brains tend not to notice that because we're tribal and don't look out for individual traits that differ from our preconception of That Group, which to me suggests that some knowledge really should be kept private, like a dangerous spell - I'm also wondering whether group [I forgot where this was going, whoops]

So what are your thoughts on what race averages *actually mean*? I doubt all the IQ tested were genetically tested and then cross-referenced with all the other testers, and the genetic relation between american blacks and african blacks (and even between different black races in africa) may be no greater than that between 'whites' and blacks. There isn't an inherent white gene or asian gene (and there are many different types of asians, as well, even within the one country) or black gene, iirc. There are clusters, of course, but the permutations vary within and between 'racial groups' (so a 'black' and 'white' man may be more similar than not) - you might have a dark-skinned man with a typical Celtic nose, Anglo lips, African hair, etc.

This is based mainly on memory, so feel free to correct, but I have wondered about this for a long time - how we can genuinely say anything meaningful about race and IQ (or race and anything) unless we're talking in socioeconomic terms. Perhaps history is enough to account for the differences between social groups (eg blacks vs whites) - generations of malnutrition, perhaps; not sure how long it would affect the expression of genes (I'm really treading water here), but maybe it would be long enough to have an effect even a couple generations after a move upwards, class-wise, which would explain the lack of explanatory power social class has for the gap at the moment. Or even something simpler like inherited cultural-family tradition which negatively affects the environment necessary to maximise potential. Have there been studies on children adopted into racially different families? - although the numbers are probably too small to be significant.

I would be very interested if they did genetic correlations with IQ, and found genetic categorisations of people that were valid (and if that turns out to be more or less skin-pigment-based along with a few other quirks, then fine). So far iirc, the race given on an IQ test is self-identified, and it's fairly common for someone in the black community to have much more white ancestry than black but still identify as black. (Though the ratio of black to white ancestry doesn't concretely determine your genetic makeup.)

Apologies if this has been covered already; I did try to at least skim through most of the thread but I'm sure I missed a few spots. So far the numbers seem potentially quite ambiguous even after all the adjustments for other categories like age, though they are indisputably there (well, I think).

I'm still not entirely sure what the point of investigating this or even getting offended over it is since when comparing any two (or more) individuals, the only thing that matters is how the two compare against each other - regardless of what the stats say is likely, in that instance all that matters is the way the dice fell in that particular case.
But like I and many others have said, there is a socially dangerous element involved, because people tend to ignore new information in favour of preconceived categories and associated traits they can effortlessly paste onto themselves and the people they meet - still stuck in tribal thinking, where the advantages of the group can be an advantage to oneself, and therefore the power of the numbers really *is* yours in some sense. But this is no longer really the case except in instances where ignorant bigots try to force a mostly extinct solidarity and incorrectly assume group traits flow top-down. Unfortunately it's still troublesome enough to cause problems, even if the power/support they're wired to think is theirs by virtue of race doesn't really exist. They can individually still discriminate, beat up, maim, etc.

 

[snafupants]

I do want to be clear on my stance that one doesn't need to be a genius to succeed in academia, I think the average physicist is closer to 125 (could be wrong, here). Also, it's my understanding that extremely high IQs, such as 160/170+ correlate less well with academic achievement. Auto-didactic methods, at least to me, are more suggestive of intelligence than anything. I would also say that creativity is seen as more cerebral as it is postulated to be reliant upon intact "executive functions" and I think needs to be taken into consideration as well.



This seems to be a general comment. Anyway, I made the estimates of me by others a tad vague, especially the gifted label (which extends beyond the average gifted), as I didn't want to come across as arrogant without the necessary proof. The more flattering label was given by someone who had an IQ which was "too high to be measured accurately" very successful academically, which I found interesting given the downing effect (they are much better, but not flawless, at estimating IQ than the average population). Of course, I know there's more to the downing effect than that.

As far as your score, you seem to have the matching verbal density to the score you claim, so by my amateur estimation, it would make sense. In comparison to my friend, well, he was extremely spatially gifted, he even claimed an online score of 210 (possibly inaccurate, but who knows?), but he had a limited vocabulary, self-admitted, and you would most likely best him verbally. His description of his internal world was quite rich, in contrast. And I will readily concede that very few people could match his spatial prowess.

Also, I think the WAIS Vocabulary section is robust enough to test how someone picked up a word through context in that it allows for multiple right answers, if I remember, which is important, considering most don't look up the word in online dictionaries for alternative meanings.

Finally, I wonder, what is your opinion on Richard Feynman?, he claimed to have scored 125, which is respectable, but many believe that his score was underestimated considering his accomplishments.

Well, instead of divulging any sensitive test information about the words used on the WAIS, I can authenticate two things. In a few instances the uncommon second meaning is invoked and, indeed, the manual covers usually around a dozen correct answers for each point value, which is either one or two points for each question. The similarities section, also part of the VCI, gives more credit for answers that emphasize abstraction. For instance, if the issue was how are a plane and automobile alike, you would receive more credit for saying that they're both means of transportation or conveyance or something versus saying that they both have wheels or engines and basically delineating common features; I clearly made up the foregoing example. Yeah, your friend perhaps bests me in the pure visual manipulation department but I could undoubtedly give him a run for his money on a pure fluid intelligence or crystallized ability measure.

My weakest areas are usually processing speed and involved spatial reasoning in which the test taker is called upon to manipulate like five shapes into a cohesive whole mentally (e.g., WAIS visual puzzles or Woodcock-Johnson visual puzzles counterpart). I suppose the latter depends on the test but, as regards the former, I tend to be, perhaps overly, conscientious and methodical; actually, speed might play a hindering role with visual manipulation too; given at least two minutes I know that I could solve any puzzle. My strongest areas are matrix reasoning, arithmetic, expressive vocabulary and working memory. I'm certainly less than a spatial genius though; with a chess board in front on me, my play's competent but lacking traps and brilliant planning.

Anyway, with respect to Richard Feynman, I should say up front that my knowledge is limited and I often read physicists like Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind instead. From the smatterings that I know about his work and the interviews I've seen of the man, I would certainly give him more credit than that score would designate. I mean, the man studied quantum electrodynamics, received his doctorate from Princeton and won a fucking Noble Prize...I'd like to know what test for took and the circumstances surrounding that administration (especially age). To scroll all the way back to your opening, even Wechsler conceded that intelligence tests are most accurate within two standard deviations of the mean, which makes sense when you consider the subtlety and sophistication that a psychometrician can employ (e.g., item analysis) when staring at questions that necessarily implicate more of the standardization sample; that area (i.e., plus or minus two standard deviations from the mean) was Wechsler's self-described niche and forte. Yeah there are many issues like social adjustment and societal participation which experience diminishing returns when one's score exceeds one sixty; Arthur Jensen, author of The g Factor, apparently thought that past a certain point intelligence tests gauged esoteric cultural knowledge and academic skills rather than raw intellectual ability.

From what I've seen of Ronald Hoeflin's tests (e.g., Mega and Titan) that arrogation holds true: Hoeflin's tests appear to lend an advantage to test takers who have abstruse, impractically erudite literary and historical knowledge and advanced math skills; tests like the Titan Test, moreover, show dubious correlations, across ability levels, with accepted, standardized and individually administered intelligence tests. To touch on something else you broached, every really smart person (IQ > ~150) I've come across essentially eschews formal schooling in favor of more autonomous, intense and random research usually coupled with an idiosyncratic take on traditional views; folks in this intellectual range also tend to denigrate cherished institutions, holidays, personages, etc. as ridiculous, which might also account for the diminution of predictive validity with intelligence and education at the extreme right of the bell curve.

 

[Antediluvian]

I don't really disagree with anything of what you said, some quick notes on the CHC theory.

A tenth ability, Gt, is considered part of the theory, but is not currently assessed by any major intellectual ability test. For this reason, it does not appear in cross-battery reference materials.

McGrew proposes a number of extensions to CHC theory, including Gkn, Domain-specific knowledge, Gp, Psychomotor ability, and Gps, Psychomotor speed. In addition, additional sensory processing abilities are proposed, including tactile (Gh), kinesthetic (Gk), and olfactory (Go)

I'm not sure what you think about these as of yet non-tested aspects of g. Thoughts? (Well, the first isn't tested merely on major tests)

As for after a certain point IQ tests measure esoteric knowledge, this notion is probably true. I remember someone informing me, beyond 140 it is hard to distinguish who really is the most intelligent, partially due to the tests not being normed "that far out." Also, when multiple ceilings are hit, which are then attached to an overall high score, this does seem to truly obfuscate intelligence measures that don't allow for extreme displays of a particularly exceptional ability, at least to my mind.

I recall an article, where a 150 individual ascended to a score of 200 after taking the SB5. I wonder, do overall statistical aberrations favor those that already score in the smart/brilliant range? As in, are score jumps of this caliber (50 points) more common in this population? It would make sense, due to them being limited by stifling ceilings.

I'd like to expound more, but a Summer for the Gods awaits.

 

[snafupants]

I don't really disagree with anything of what you said, some quick notes on the CHC theory.







I'm not sure what you think about these as of yet non-tested aspects of g. Thoughts? (Well, the first isn't tested merely on major tests)

As for after a certain point IQ tests measure esoteric knowledge, this notion is probably true. I remember someone informing me, beyond 140 it is hard to distinguish who really is the most intelligent, partially due to the tests not being normed "that far out." Also, when multiple ceilings are hit, which are then attached to an overall high score, this does seem to truly obfuscate intelligence measures that don't allow for extreme displays of a particularly exceptional ability, at least to my mind.

I recall an article, where a 150 individual ascended to a score of 200 after taking the SB5. I wonder, do overall statistical aberrations favor those that already score in the smart/brilliant range? As in, are score jumps of this caliber (50 points) more common in this population? It would make sense, due to them being limited by stifling ceilings.

I'd like to expound more, but a Summer for the Gods awaits.

Adding reaction time to the core nine tested broad abilities seems like a mistake. Since working memory, which is correlated highly with fluid intelligence and therefore g, is subservient to the broad ability of short-term memory, there's little incentive to incorporate reaction time as a broad ability; the safest route would be to filter reaction time into the broad ability of processing speed. Processing speed historically has been by far the least g-loaded (~ .4) of the four broad abilities tapped by WAIS indexes, and for logical reasons. Higher abstraction is hardly required when quickly completing a relatively low g task like Coding or Symbol Search. Now consider this: speed is correlated with successful completion of a task up to IQ 140, which implies cognitive efficiency, but speed is increasingly negatively correlated with successful completion of complex tasks when intelligence exceeds the foregoing number. This has compelling implications for the proposal of reaction time as a fully incorporated broad ability. Since there's little indication that auditory processing or processing speed are more pronounced in gifted populations than in normal populations, assimilating more impertinent broad abilities would uniquely, and unfairly, maim the gifted. Tests already have ceilings which are too low, and sections that are irrelevant for the gifted, so this proposal promises to be a lethal blow to gifted scores.

To your two other points, I view bolstering the import of kinesthetic and tactile (olfactory?) abilities to bona fide tested, broad ability status as a huge misstep. That's Gardner's wet dream of invalidating traditional intelligence tests but a miscalculation for neuroscience, factor analysis, psychometrics, CHC-Theory and didactic innovations in the information processing model. Now to your second point, there are definitely discernible differences in the mental efficiency, breadth and depth of knowledge and reasoning capacity's of people with IQs of 155 and 183. Especially since outlawing and renorming (reforming?) the Stanford Binet L-M, and owing partly to the limited number of these individuals in the general population (standardization) and changes in emphasis of public educational policy (stupidity and politically correct stuff), psychologists are less able to figure out the quantitative, and often the qualitative, separators between these two high performing groups. I would, however, attribute most of the wildly statistically improbable jumps to these high performing folks underserved by modern tests.

 

[scorpiomover]

Would you care to arrogate the real average IQ score for blacks?

If you define what particular mental, physical and emotional skills are being tested and not tested by "IQ", and if you define what gene distributions and environmental distributions for the humans you refer to as "blacks", then we can probably work that out.

I mean, the presented findings encompass hundreds of papers, studies, researchers and methodologies. This isn't a lone madman besmirching the essence of a particular race.

Appeal to popularity.

From the embryonic statistics of Spearman to the tests and analyses of Kaufman the same message resounds.

All of the experiments of over 2000 years of evidence, showed the same message, that space was Euclidean. Doesn't make a solid argument.

Nonetheless, perhaps you would delineate, in plain language, your chief qualms with Spearman's hypothesis and the disparity between black and white composite test scores?

If we are testing for genetics, then we have to test for genetics, the genes. We can't look at melontonin skin concentration, and treat it like it is the major difference in genes. Especially not we know that many blacks have genes commonly found in whites, and many whites have genes commonly found in blacks.

The disparity is almost certainly due to differences in genetics and differences in environment between the groups.

However, the brain learns, and so it evolves, and small changes in the early part of a system, can exponentiate in later years, according to how the system evolves. The environmental differences between the groups, are of a nature, that the evolution of over several years of a human's growth, they could account for an extremely large difference in cognitive skills, even if the genes were identical between the 2 groups. This is not 100% certain to me. But it is clear to me that a good few of the differences that you cited, that I analysed, match the differences in cognitive skills that would come from the differences in environment between the 2 groups. So it does seem to be a likely cause.

Genetic effects in this regard remain uncertain, and probably will remain so, until we track by individual genes.

Now, we could say this is all speculation, while you have physical evidence. But fortunately, we have the Central Limit Theorem. Using it, we can then make the observation that the larger the data set, the more the data results will conform to the theoretically predicted possibilities. As a result, we don't need to rely on experimental data here, except to confirm what elements are still left open by the probabilities, and to confirm if our choice of experiments are correct, because if they are, they will exactly reflect the results of the probabilistic calculations that we do know.

BigApplePi and similar others,

The problem is that you come here with very basic questions and alternatives( as expected from people in a "multi-cult-we-are-all-equal" society).

Congratulations on formulating these questions,alternatives and scenarios, they are logical and valid. But don't think the scientists we mention here never thought about that...Its their work!
They made studies with adopted children in excelent SES families. There are IQ tests with no language bias. They did neutralize the equivalent of your "chemical engineers" scenario. Of course they know IQ changes with age; and let me surprise you:it does not grow forever in a lifetime. It grow untill a certain age and then you might lose some points...
They did all this, and much much more; they are professionals!

Appeal to Authority

If you read this thread, snafupants posts, they are full of answers to questions like these.

I suggest, that you let me be the judge of whether or not I think what snafupants posted, makes sense to me or not. If it makes sense to you, it does not mean that it makes sense. If it makes sense to you, it just means that it makes sense to you, and nothing more.

Do you want a "scenario" to think about? They even did studies with identical twins. Same genes and guess what? Same IQ.

FYI, it's only an 80% similarity in IQ scores between identical twins, as opposed to about 50% in fraternal twins. They are NOT the same for identical twins.

The studies they did STARTED with identical twins, and that is what the rest of the popular theories on IQ were based on. It has been revealed recently, that much of the data on those original twin studies had been falsified, because the scientists would had claimed to have done studies on the data they made up, were totally convinced they were right, and that later experiments would justify and validate their theories anyway.

I know, the thread is not full of links; but its full of names. Do your research.

I know. I cited quite a few of them. Do yours.

 

[snafupants]

Although written nearly two decades ago, Arthur Jensen's critique of Charles Murray's work in The Bell Curve, and the popular (almost stridently incomprehensible) uproar over the statistically robust claims and correlations made therein, perhaps elucidates the chaos that some members are attempting to engender: name calling ("neo-nazi," "pseudo-scientific," "racism"), sidetracks ("but does IQ really measure intelligence?"), non-sequiturs ("specific genes for IQ have not been identified, so we can claim nothing about its heritability"), red herrings ("Hitler misused genetics"), falsehoods ("all the tests are biased"), hyperbole ("throwing gasoline on a fire"), and insults ("creepy," "indecent," "ugly"). The following excerpt was from an article which Jensen wrote ("Paroxysms of Denial") directly following The Bell Curve's publication. The words are as poignant for this thread and the libelous ejaculations of some of its contributors as they were in the nineties for the United States' refusal to accept prevailing conditions, black/white IQ differences and statistical outcomes. Blacks report IQ scores, on average, one standard deviation (15 IQ points) lower than whites; consistent findings show that low IQ - irrespective of its provenance and creation (e.g., environmental factors) - is associated with childbirth out of wedlock, welfare, criminality and educability. The negative aspects of these correlations essentially disintegrate as one moves simply to average IQ levels. This is the current landscape of knowledge, which has been thoroughly studied, chronicled, disseminated and understood for generations, but enclaves of the lay audience appear to have their own narrative of enduring conditions.

 

[Antediluvian]

Adding reaction time to the core nine tested broad abilities seems like a mistake. Since working memory, which is correlated highly with fluid intelligence and therefore g, is subservient to the broad ability of short-term memory, there's little incentive to incorporate reaction time as a broad ability; the safest route would be to filter reaction time into the broad ability of processing speed. Processing speed historically has been by far the least g-loaded (~ .4) of the four broad abilities tapped by WAIS indexes, and for logical reasons. Higher abstraction is hardly required when quickly completing a relatively low g task like Coding or Symbol Search. Now consider this: speed is correlated with successful completion of a task up to IQ 140, which implies cognitive efficiency, but speed is increasingly negatively correlated with successful completion of complex tasks when intelligence exceeds the foregoing number. This has compelling implications for the proposal of reaction time as a fully incorporated broad ability. Since there's little indication that auditory processing or processing speed are more pronounced in gifted populations than in normal populations, assimilating more impertinent broad abilities would uniquely, and unfairly, maim the gifted. Tests already have ceilings which are too low, and sections that are irrelevant for the gifted, so this proposal promises to be a lethal blow to gifted scores.

To your two other points, I view bolstering the import of kinesthetic and tactile (olfactory?) abilities to bona fide tested, broad ability status as a huge misstep. That's Gardner's wet dream of invalidating traditional intelligence tests but a miscalculation for neuroscience, factor analysis, psychometrics, CHC-Theory and didactic innovations in the information processing model. Now to your second point, there are definitely discernible differences in the mental efficiency, breadth and depth of knowledge and reasoning capacity's of people with IQs of 155 and 183. Especially since outlawing and renorming (reforming?) the Stanford Binet L-M, and owing partly to the limited number of these individuals in the general population (standardization) and changes in emphasis of public educational policy (stupidity and politically correct stuff), psychologists are less able to figure out the quantitative, and often the qualitative, separators between these two high performing groups. I would, however, attribute most of the wildly statistically improbable jumps to these high performing folks underserved by modern tests.

Yeah, I didn't endorse those suggestions, but merely wondered how you viewed them. Olfactory testing is interesting though, in dogs the part of the brain that analyzes smells is typically 40% larger than it is in humans, but testing for such an innate ability would prove problematic. While I'm not saying that mental ability is akin to reasoning, it would be interesting to test for, at least.

About blurriness at higher IQ levels, if I understood your text correctly, while there are differences at these separate levels, they are simply harder to define? There was one psychologist who claimed 140+ was immeasurable genius. However, there was someone with extensive knowledge on IQ that explained it better, I wish I had saved the messages.

A question I'm naturally lead to then: would you automatically assume a 150 is less intelligent than 183? Certainly the latter would be more advanced in certain areas. Also, how do you feel about domain-specific knowledge being incorporated into these tests? If you already answered this, my apologies.

I'll try to find that .pdf document concerning jumps in IQ, it did back up what you said, on the issue of certain subtests being irrelevant for the gifted. However, if I recall, it stated while those specific portions may be unnecessary, most likely a gifted child or adult will perform at a high score.

I forgot to bring up the VCI, you stated it was subjective, do you mean subjectively tested, or merely accounts for subjective answers?

 

[snafupants]

Yeah, I didn't endorse those suggestions, but merely wondered how you viewed them. Olfactory testing is interesting though, in dogs the part of the brain that analyzes smells is typically 40% larger than it is in humans, but testing for such an innate ability would prove problematic. While I'm not saying that mental ability is akin to reasoning, it would be interesting to test for, at least.

About blurriness at higher IQ levels, if I understood your text correctly, while there are differences at these separate levels, they are simply harder to define? There was one psychologist who claimed 140+ was immeasurable genius. However, there was someone with extensive knowledge on IQ that explained it better, I wish I had saved the messages.

A question I'm naturally lead to then: would you automatically assume a 150 is less intelligent than 183? Certainly the latter would be more advanced in certain areas. Also, how do you feel about domain-specific knowledge being incorporated into these tests? If you already answered this, my apologies.

I'll try to find that .pdf document concerning jumps in IQ, it did back up what you said, on the issue of certain subtests being irrelevant for the gifted. However, if I recall, it stated while those specific portions may be unnecessary, most likely a gifted child or adult will perform at a high score.

I forgot to bring up the VCI, you stated it was subjective, do you mean subjectively tested, or merely accounts for subjective answers?

Well, the residing psychologist's grading of the verbal component of Wechsler's tests (i.e., WAIS/WISC) is subjective in the sense that there are undefined answers (i.e., absent in the manual) which would nonetheless garner a full two point categorization. I suppose your latter conjecture is more to the point. In the vocabulary section, for instance, there are some esoteric synonyms, which are totally valid, but unchronicled in the manual because a large chunk of the standardization sample didn't answer in that particular way. An astute psychologist, nevertheless, would, per administration rules, accept an unspecified yet apt synonym as fully acceptable. The converse would be absurd because a really smart kid would be beholden to the lexical dexterity, or maybe unpretentiousness, of the standardization sample. Regarding the higher ranges of intelligence, over the last two generations the quantitative differences between levels of giftedness (moderately, highly, exceptionally, profoundly) have necessarily been impossible to credible define because of ceiling effects on individual subtests and inadequate ceilings on the overarching intelligence batteries. Consider the third and fourth editions of the Stanford Binet in which the ceiling went from IQ 228 (third edition), albeit with ratio scores, to IQ 160 with the inception of the fourth edition. The reason the tests have narrowed their testable range essentially boils down to public opinion and the extent to which it influences test developers. With the Stanford Binet L-M, researchers like Merrill and Terman were highly invested in discovering particular degrees of giftedness and genius; I believe this appetite was partly fueled by the concurrent public and governmental need to locate and shortage of good engineers and scientists during the Cold War, satellite installations and space explorations. That's a diverting issue though. The point is that during and after the seventies, the public became more concerned with identifying and rectifying disabilities than locating and exploiting giftedness and genius.

When new proposals for testable broad abilities come up, the important thing to realize is that they must pass a crucible of factor analytic and multivariate analytic studies before they can be endorsed and incorporated into novel editions of intelligence tests. I wouldn't posit that olfactory sense is markedly related to g but with enough insistence we could run the tests and discern the degree of relatedness. I also wouldn't conjecture that olfactory sense has much to do with functional intelligence in industrialized nations. In other words, testing for olfactory aptitude probably wouldn't enhance the content validity and practical range of most intelligence tests nor would it lend helpful information to the test taker or the psychologist interpreting and acting on her scores. I mean, one could test for acuteness of smell, but that doesn't seem like it should belong on an intelligence test. As regards higher IQ levels, the chief psychometric drawback for the test developers in identifying scores in the fourth, fifth or seventh standard deviation is the limited number of kids and adults in these ranges from the standardization sample. So in that sense there's hardly a conspiracy or warrant for ejaculations of protect. With your questions about the qualitative differences between ~ IQ 150 and ~ IQ 180, like lower scores, we should perhaps look at what skills and tasks were assessed by that particular test (a high score on the RAPM would yield dissimilar findings from an extrapolated score on the WAIS) while being cognizant of confidence intervals and profile disparities. I mean, if you were hiring mathematicians, and the higher composite score showed a verbal predilection and poor time management skills and poor math achievement test scores, then looking elsewhere might be a prudent idea. When dealing with scores over three standard deviations from the mean, other factors than sheer aptitude should weigh more heavily in job placement. With a stratospheric score though (~ IQ 185) you can probably make some inferences about intellectual striving, depth and breadth of knowledge and mental efficiency which you couldn't necessarily make with someone two standard deviations lower and highly gifted.

 

[WARchitect]

Snafupants,

About "the chaos that some members are attempting to engender", I think you forgot 'misdirection on purpose' like the post below. Seriously, from his collection of posts on this thread I can only think of it as 'engineered to mislead' material.

If you define what particular mental, physical and emotional skills are being tested and not tested by "IQ", and if you define what gene distributions and environmental distributions for the humans you refer to as "blacks", then we can probably work that out.

Appeal to popularity.

All of the experiments of over 2000 years of evidence, showed the same message, that space was Euclidean. Doesn't make a solid argument.

If we are testing for genetics, then we have to test for genetics, the genes. We can't look at melontonin skin concentration, and treat it like it is the major difference in genes. Especially not we know that many blacks have genes commonly found in whites, and many whites have genes commonly found in blacks.

The disparity is almost certainly due to differences in genetics and differences in environment between the groups.

However, the brain learns, and so it evolves, and small changes in the early part of a system, can exponentiate in later years, according to how the system evolves. The environmental differences between the groups, are of a nature, that the evolution of over several years of a human's growth, they could account for an extremely large difference in cognitive skills, even if the genes were identical between the 2 groups. This is not 100% certain to me. But it is clear to me that a good few of the differences that you cited, that I analysed, match the differences in cognitive skills that would come from the differences in environment between the 2 groups. So it does seem to be a likely cause.

Genetic effects in this regard remain uncertain, and probably will remain so, until we track by individual genes.

Now, we could say this is all speculation, while you have physical evidence. But fortunately, we have the Central Limit Theorem. Using it, we can then make the observation that the larger the data set, the more the data results will conform to the theoretically predicted possibilities. As a result, we don't need to rely on experimental data here, except to confirm what elements are still left open by the probabilities, and to confirm if our choice of experiments are correct, because if they are, they will exactly reflect the results of the probabilistic calculations that we do know.

Appeal to Authority

I suggest, that you let me be the judge of whether or not I think what snafupants posted, makes sense to me or not. If it makes sense to you, it does not mean that it makes sense. If it makes sense to you, it just means that it makes sense to you, and nothing more.

FYI, it's only an 80% similarity in IQ scores between identical twins, as opposed to about 50% in fraternal twins. They are NOT the same for identical twins.

The studies they did STARTED with identical twins, and that is what the rest of the popular theories on IQ were based on. It has been revealed recently, that much of the data on those original twin studies had been falsified, because the scientists would had claimed to have done studies on the data they made up, were totally convinced they were right, and that later experiments would justify and validate their theories anyway.

I know. I cited quite a few of them. Do yours.

I was not going to answer your other post. As I said in my first post, we should separate the people in this thread into levels of acceptance of race differences (you believe race is skin colour).

But you keep saying things like:

However, keeping a stress on genetics alone, seems to be quite common, in TV science documentaries, in books by scientists, and in internet forums. Seems to be everywhere.

Appeal to popularity / Appeal to authority

And many others.

You are trying to paint a picture for us that the scientists we cited here are the authority, that they are popular, that genetics is everywhere...
When in fact its the other way around. We live in a society that is in fear and its a reaction of WW2, Nazi, eugenics, etc... No reasoning, just reaction.

"Some bad stuff happened in that period with some policies, so today we are going to do everything thats diametrically opposed to those old evil things and silence/isolate everyone that slightly touches that stuff with a neutral perspective. And by doing this we should be fine"

This is political correctness. And this is the authority and popular thing today.
The scientists we present here are the ones questioning the authority. And they are not popular at all doing this. Maybe in the scientific community (in a neggative way), but not for us the people. If snafupants didnt open this thread, lots of people here would never know about these guys.
Well of course you know about Darwin, but you just use him to give Christians a hard time here. You are not prepared for all implications of the Evolution Theory as you believe race is just skin colour.

But I'm suspecting you know all this, you know that race is much more than skin colour; and your work here is to misdirect people.
The only 3 names you provided for this thread are misleading. Richard Lynn and Kevin MacDonald are scientists that use the valid data we are providing here to write books with their own perspective/interpretation which might be anti-semitic, nazi,etc, whatever you may call it. Satoshi Kanazawa, I never heard about him, but I read your link, hes a joke in my opinion.

The thread is full of Darwin, Galton, Spearman, Rushton and Jensen references. And you come here with these 3 guys?

The thing is, if you were really interested in debating our data, you would have cited the other scientists you encounter in your own links. The ones that are criticizing Lynn and MacDonald works at least. Or the famous and typical citation in threads like these: Jared Diamond, Richard Nisbett, James Flynn, etc.

Your mission here is to associate our data with anti-semitism, nazism, racism, slavery,etc. Mislead people.
And also negate race differences. You have a good strategy; if you keep repeating "melatonin" in every post in this thread I will eventually get tired and not post anymore.
At the same time I think you are all people from First World Countries and may have in your TV everynight some CSI-crap. Do you think the forensic scientists there are lying when they say "from the skull analisys: negroid male"? They are guessing? Its a blind bet cause race is just skin colour?

 

[WARchitect]

Snafupants and Antediluvian,

... sections that are irrelevant for the gifted.

I've done just one IQ test and it was 10 years ago. I have no specific knowledge in IQ tests like you do, so I will just give my opinion based only in this one experience.

It was a timed test, with a psichologist. Started with the "Horse-Tail" thing and ended up with some 3000 lines arranged in some very complex strange pattern. (By the way, do you know what test is this? No words, just images in 30 to 50 exercises, i dont really remember more...)

Well, I could say the first exercises were really easy and somewhat "irrelevant". And I scored "gifted" (she told me I was the second high score she ever measured, but when I asked for a number she told me a number so high that I felt she was testing other stuff in me. Although I was wrong in just 2 or 3 exercises).
And I remember in those first exercises thinking: "Wait a minute! A horse with no tail... This is too easy, there must be a trick somewhere!" And by doing this the first page of exercises got a lot of undeserved time.

But thinking about it now, this "irrelevant" part may be usefull functioning as a "warm-up" section. I mean... I might be "gifted", but for sure I could not do the test backwards. I need to get in the "mood" to do the late exercises.
My question is: how can we get rid of irrelevant sections if different individuals are going to be "warmed-up" with different quantity and quality of exercises?

Also, could the same reasoning be applied to races? Maybe blacks just need more exercises to be warmed-up.

(Thats right! I'm so INTP that I am counter-argumenting myself after all I've said in this thread)

But then again I know nothing about the "architecture" of the tests.