In my Defense: Amicus...

[Safe_Bet]

I am quite certain that if our estimable colleagues, as represented by most of the last two pages here, set their minds to it, they could obfuscate any measurement of any aspect of reality.

Were they but to apply their logic and reason and education and expertise to the average height of each gender, they could prove, by pure logic, and many, many erudite references, that both male and female are essentially equal in height, and probably weight and most likely upper body strength, because that would be both the socially and politically correct opinion to have and express.

This driving quest for absolute equality is truly humorous if one stands apart and questions the motivations for such intense devotion.

Most humans are rather ugly in physical appearance. They are gawky, lumpy, over-weight, mis-shapen and not appealing. We put our pretty ones on stage and gawk at them as movie stars, actors and actresses, take pictures and create statues of them.(You doubt me, open your eyes and look the next time you shop for your Broccoli)

The socially correct are horrified over that and, from time to time, labor to convince us the ugly is beautiful. I smile until the pendulum swings back and 'Twiggy', is in style again.

It is quite the same with racial and ethnic groupings; according to our fervid believers, every race, every ethnic group must be exactly the same, equal in all ways, with none superior or inferior in any way. After all, we are all and only, humans.

Many have poor vision their entire lives, but they are not 'blind as a bat', a social no-no, they are 'visually challenged', and not to be hindered in terms of equal treatment. (but they won't give them pilot's licenses).

There is a science fiction quality to this blindness that has been virtually unspoken for a half century...one day, with gene manipulation and selected procreation, they will create the absolute, 'average' human being, coffee mocha in skin color, of optimum height and weight and preferred eye color and gender, or hell, maybe no gender, as that in itself is an intolerable difference, "boys have penis's, girls have vagina's." Oh, and of course, they will breed for a non-disruptive level of intelligence, after all, we don't need any Stephen Hawkings or Albert Einsteins in our perfect social society of the future, now do we? We need to concentrate on that 'average' intelligence that is easily malleable.

So, do continue right along, dismissing the century and a half long scientific endeavor to measure intelligence and performance in a standardized test procedure, and do indeed continue ostracizing any who dare to suggest that there might actually be innate differences based on ethnicity, race and gender, that is possibly beneficial to comprehending the true nature of the species.

The left, the social apologists, as I keep pointing out, are most similar to their fundamentalist brethren in that their belief must not be challenged. By God there is a God and we will burn you at the stake if you dare disagree.

You are now free to keep your head in the sand.

Amicus...

*yawn*

 

[Pure]

a useful url

regarding hundreds of articles about the "g", or unitary intelligence, claim. jensen's case 'pro' and reviews of his book, often 'con'.

here is an extensive list of articles pro and con the alleged, single, "general intelligence" factor [g].

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?query=jensen
=============

here are some example "con" items:

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.046

INTELLIGENCE, PSYCHOMETRICS, IQ, G, AND MENTAL ABILITIES:
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY DRESSED AS SCIENCE
Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor

by Paul Barrett
The State Hospital and University of Liverpool

www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htm

it [jensen's book] appears to exemplify a truly fundamental mistake made by many psychologists, who assume that they are doing science when in fact they are merely observing and classifying phenomena with ever more complex quantitative statistical methodologies. Whilst I stand back in awe of Jensen's profound scholarship in this book, I feel he has inadvertently written the epitaph of g as a meaningful scientific construct.
===========================
also see,

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.075

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.060
(no proven links with constructs of brain science)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is the same Amicus who insists that all infants are born as totally blank slates, devoid even of emotions, all of which must be learned, and yet apparently they possess racial and gender characteristics and capacities that make them superior and inferior.

The contradiction in terms doesn't bother him. The fact that he supports both 100% nature and 100% nurture doesn't cause him any unease. It's never occurred to him there's a glaring inconsistency in his worldview and "philosophy". The man goes on gut feeling and calls it rationality.

 

[amicus]

The definition of insanity includes those who refuse to acknowledge reality as the arbiter of truth and fact and is at odds with the real world.

Tabula Rasa is not an opinion held by some, it is a conclusion arrived at through scientific method and as such, is fact, not subjective opinion.

The word and concept, 'emotions', has in fact, an absolute definition and does exist independent of opinion and subjective belief.

The 'nature/nurture' contradiction referred to is the refuted and now sophomoric concept of the old philosophical conundrum, 'mind/body dichotomy', that held up progress in the intellectual world for a generation.

The basis for the rejection of reality is classified as extreme ego centrism, a form of insanity, an inability to deal with reality, as the victim continues to see himself as the center and creator of the universe, which exists only in his own mind.

A compassionate person would recommend treatment. I do not, I recommend confinement and isolation from the sane portion of society.

Amicus...

 

[jomar]

In 2005, Wendy Johnson and Thomas Bouchard investigated the structure of mental ability by administering 42 diverse tests of mental ability to 436 adults. The tests included "different uses" (generation of novel uses for specified objects), "object assembly" (reassembly of cut-up figures), "verbal—proverbs" (interpretation of proverbs) and "mechanical ability" (identification of mechanical principles and tools); factor analysis found a clear single higher order factor, g. In their report, published in the journal Intelligence, the study authors conclude:

In combination with our earlier findings regarding the consistency of general intelligence factors across test batteries, our results point unequivocally to the existence of a general intelligence factor contributing substantively to all aspects of intelligence.[23]

that conclusion is rather weak, "substantively". NOT substantially. "Sustantively" could mean 20%.

my posting made a number of arguments, independent of this alleged feat of factor analysis. factor analysis is a mathematical procedure whose outcome has no necessary scientific utility. wherever two scores have some correlation, even a mild one, "factor" analysis can "find", i.e. grind out, a "common factor" and (the program's user can) allege it to be "underlying". For example, test results for IQ and of physical attactiveness, as a pair; or results for height and attractiveness. The computer can grind out a "common factor" in both cases. In that limited sense, the factor "exists";-- same sense as in the quotation you give.

the problem is what [usefully] to "call" the factor (what it is), and how it integrates, if at all, with scientific theory. in the above cases, i can CALL it 'General Cosmic Meritoriousness' but that doesn't make it so. and GCM has no connection with the entities(proven constructs) in such relevant sciences as anthropology, brain sciences, etc. so the "existence" is of no consequence; it's rather like the "existence" if any, of leprechauns.

the failure of "g" to tie in with the constructs of biology is discussed by partridge at
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.060

the other basic point is that success in all known occupations cannot be well predicted using IQ tests, as JBJ concedes, re pediatric surgeons.

further, since this is an authors' forum, achievements in writing cannot be well predicted with IQ tests, since the creativity component is not measured.

SO EVEN IF a mathematical procedure seemingly indicates a "general intelligence super-factor", the utility of that measure is almost zilch.

and we can go further: it follows that any major reliance on IQ to assess potential in job or in artistic endeavor is unsound and unfair.
===


this same conclusion is buried in the paragraph you yourself cite:

the British philosopher Philip Kitcher wrote that "Many scientists are now convinced that there is no single measure of intellectual ability" and that "it is useful to continue to expose the myth of "general intelligence". Some researchers in artificial intelligence have argued that the science of mental ability can be thought of as "computationalism" and is "either silly or pointless,"

Kitcher wrote that in 1985. Jenson wrote his book in 1998. The study I cited was done in 2005. And yes, their g could be 20%, don't know what percent other factors were.

True, tests that predict performance on a job are different than IQ tests. I don't think anybody here has claimed that they're not.

On the other hand, one can predict an individual with a 130 IQ will be more creative than an individual with an 80 IQ. But you can't predict which of two individuals with 130 IQs will be more creative based on IQ alone.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Cory, varies between INFP and INTP

<---INFP/INFJ... married to an ENFP/ENFJ

 

[Pure]

no dice, jomar,

jensen's and your material does not supersede what i posted. the items on the list are often REVIEWS of jensen's book, his best shot, so to say.

i have already quoted barrett's conclusion, and it's dated 2000.

INTELLIGENCE, PSYCHOMETRICS, IQ, G, AND MENTAL ABILITIES:
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY DRESSED AS SCIENCE
Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor

by Paul Barrett
The State Hospital and University of Liverpool

www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htm

it [jensen's book] appears to exemplify a truly fundamental mistake made by many psychologists, who assume that they are doing science when in fact they are merely observing and classifying phenomena with ever more complex quantitative statistical methodologies. Whilst I stand back in awe of Jensen's profound scholarship in this book, I feel he has inadvertently written the epitaph of g as a meaningful scientific construct. [...]

[final lines of review]
I wonder whether I have just made explicit what seems implicit throughout Jensen's book. That is, Jensen himself is recognising that this remains a scientifically sterile area while hypotheses remain at the level of the phenomenal description of the hypothesised outcomes of g (i.e. IQ). In using the term g and arguing that we should dropp the intelligence construct, Jensen is, I feel, still trying to evade the deeper issue of the meaning of the g.

If we stand outside the area of individual differences, and look into a world where computational scientists are trying to build "intelligence" (the Artificial Intelligence and Connectionist community), we see an entire field of endeavour without so much as a mention of g. It is here that the key question (in my opinion) is being asked - and practically answered in part - "what are the constituent properties of a system that are required for it to develop intelligent behaviour".

To answer this requires a completely different perspective on measuring intelligence as a within species and cross-species construct. Conway, Kane, and Engle (1999) propose working memory capacity as the determiner of g - but, why are they fixated on a single factor analytically determined latent entity as a causal variable? I find I am in total agreement with Anderson's (2000) last statement concerning the research ethos espoused in Jensen's book "as a strategy for the scientific understanding of human intelligence, it threatens to lead us into a wilderness from which there will be no return".




---
further, partridge is 1999:

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.060
THE g FACTOR AND THE ROLE OF BIOLOGY IN COMPLEX BEHAVIOR Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor
-n
Ty Partridge
Health Research and Policy Centers
University of Illinois at Chicago

1. The first half of Jensen's (1998) book provides a cogent and useful overview intelligence research. However, once Jensen leaves the the psychometric study of intelligence and wades into the biological foundations of intelligence, the book goes awry. Indeed, in reading the second half, I was reminded of a statement by S. J. Gould (1996) in "The Mismeasure of Man," referring to those who misunderstand science most profoundly "as any claim apparently backed by copious numbers".

The seeming rigor of the empirical findings relating biology to intelligence is plagued by overstated results and conceptually vacuous analyses such as the method of correlated vectors. More important, however, there are two fundamental assumptions of Jensen's formulations which are troubling: that biology is more valid than psychology and that there is a basis for strong reductionism in the relation of biology to behavior.

2. On a surface level there are several problems with the empirical evidence Jensen uses to demonstrate that g is a biological phenomenon. It is commonly accepted that brain structure and functional organization are related to the production of complex cognitive behaviors, such as intelligence. Several of the indices reported by Jensen are of questionable validity, however. For example, correlations between head circumference or global brain volume and intelligence are unreliably reported in the literature. Head circumference is such a gross measure of cranial capacity that it is hardly useful. [...]


3. More accurate measures of brain volume assessed by MRI techniques produce very small, if significant, relationships with intelligence. Indeed there is ample evidence that simple measures of brain size are of little utility in understanding individual differences in "intelligence". [...] However, there is no evidence for meaningful intraspecies differences relating these measures to cognitive behavior. Every aspect of ostensible empirical evidence reported by Jensen as supporting the biological nature of g appears to be plagued by similar overstatements and misinterpretations. [...]

5. It appears that Jensen's primary reason (leaving aside for the moment justifications for racial disparity) for trying so hard to find a biological foundation for general intelligence is that if it were a biological phenomenon then it would be a real phenomenon. Jensen claims that having physiological correlates proves that g is not just an artifact of factor analytic methodology, but rather a biological phenomenon.

Disregarding that this just seems to be a gross logical misstatement, there is an implicit assumption here that is quite troubling. Jensen seems to be arguing that biological phenomena are more "real" than behavioral phenomena. Since the primary focus of psychology is the study of behavior, and behavior is a process, it can be argued that psychology is a process-oriented science. That the observational properties of processes differ from those of entities does not necessarily imply that one is more valid than another. That a behavioral process, such as intelligence, is not isomorphic with a biological structure, does not imply that it is invalid.

6. Perhaps Jensen misunderstands the ontological relationships between structure and process, for he implicitly assumes a strong reductionism in relating biology to behavior. In relating biological factors to complex behaviors, of which a second order latent factor like Spearman's g is certainly an example, a model of strong reductionism simply does not work.

A much more coherent model is found in the concept of integrative levels (Greenberg, Partridge, Weiss, and Harroway, 1999). From this perspective, neural organization and function is one of a number of integrated factors that jointly influence each other. [...]

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Seriously? Captain Hook is still menacing Neverland? After all these years?

Oh my, Wendy should never revisit the nursery.

 

[amicus]

Don't be confused by the obfuscation and jargon of the discipline, let me explain, in english what is being said and not being said.

Left wing liberal intellectuals striving mightily to deny the existence of any absolute knowledge in any field, are once again attempting to 'bait and switch', in such a way as to confuse the issue.

Quite the same with the abortion issue, all of a sudden a human fetus is not human until it is born and there are reams of articles to support that thesis.

Education is another area, wherein they attempt to destroy any effort to teach objective truth and forge ahead in a social, relativist, subjective manner, relegating education to the lower rungs of hell.

Different, but really the same with economics as they try to convince you that free trade doesn't work and never has and they have volumes and volumes rejecting the philosophical concept of human freedom and suggesting economic slavery without ever saying it or defending it.

It the matter of human intelligence, common sense tells each and every one of us who mingle, that some dudes are smarter than others. To think it cannot be measured is the height of left wing arrogance that they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes for the social goal of racial and ethnic equality.

The left intellectual community refuses to acknowledge that humans are born with different intellectual capabilities and that some of these are indeed racially and ethnically passed on, generation to generation.

You might wonder at the motivation of this mighty effort and it is simple, they wish to destroy all means of determining the nature of reality and the nature of the humans that we are.

They want a communal and collective world of drones, all of absolutely equal intelligence and a total lack of individuality and choice and free will.

It is the continuing dream of the collectivists to have all of you confined to their control and direction, because individual human life, in their eyes, has no value. Values lie only in the collective, the greater good and they work hard to make that come to pass.

It is akin to the religious argument of arguing how many angels could fit on the head of pin, and like that silliness, is totally useless and non productive.

Amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

Don't be confused by the obfuscation and jargon of the discipline, let me explain, in english what is being said and not being said.

Left wing liberal intellectuals striving mightily to deny the existence of any absolute knowledge in any field, are once again attempting to 'bait and switch', in such a way as to confuse the issue.

Let's just scotch this one with the single figure of John Maynard Keynes, a renowned Economist and Socialist.

Quite the same with the abortion issue, all of a sudden a human fetus is not human until it is born and there are reams of articles to support that thesis.

We won't mention the 2,000,000 spotaneous abortions that occur each year in the USA alone, those 'mothers' were not guilty of anything... were they Ami.

Education is another area, wherein they attempt to destroy any effort to teach objective truth and forge ahead in a social, relativist, subjective manner, relegating education to the lower rungs of hell.

Except the Ivy League Colleges

Different, but really the same with economics as they try to convince you that free trade doesn't work and never has and they have volumes and volumes rejecting the philosophical concept of human freedom and suggesting economic slavery without ever saying it or defending it.

Of course free trade works, which is why Lehman Bros went bust today and Merril Lynch sought refuge in Bank of America and 6.5million Americans will lose there homes, not to mention Freddie and Fannie - you must be proud

It the matter of human intelligence, common sense tells each and every one of us who mingle, that some dudes are smarter than others. To think it cannot be measured is the height of left wing arrogance that they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes for the social goal of racial and ethnic equality.

Actually, the left wing can spot the dumb asses just as easily as they can spot you.

The left intellectual community refuses to acknowledge that humans are born with different intellectual capabilities and that some of these are indeed racially and ethnically passed on, generation to generation.

You should be ashamed for spouting such appauling racism, however, left wing intellectuals, if we just take the New York Intellectuals (the New York Bloomsburys) include: Philip Rahv, William Phillips, Mary McCarthy, Dwight Macdonald, Hannah Arendt, Delmore Schwartz, William Barrett, Lionel Trilling, Diana Trilling, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Saul Bellow, Isaac Rosenfeld, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin, Robert Warshow, Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, Susan Sontag, Marshall Berman, and Michael Walzer.

Your proclamations are akin to the religious argument of arguing how many angels could fit on the head of pin, and like that silliness, is totally useless and non productive.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Seriously? Captain Hook is still menacing Neverland? After all these years?

Oh my, Wendy should never revisit the nursery.

Look who the cat dragged in! Staying a while or just stopped in for a quick chanson, Mademoselle?

 

[gauchecritic]

It the matter of human intelligence, common sense tells each and every one of us who mingle, that some dudes are smarter than others. To think it cannot be measured is the height of left wing arrogance that they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes for the social goal of racial and ethnic equality.

So what you're saying is that races other than white Caucasian haven't evolved. Or do you mean they evolved more and better than others?

That's what it boils down to because everyone's (including your) ancestors were black.

What about the Japanese? or even Chinese? They outstrip your technical westerners and own all your financial westerners. Or are they just the exception to your rule?

Common sense also tells us (those that care to listen) that some dudes that are smarter than others are also of racial or ethnic difference to you.

Or perhaps your rule is a 'rule of thumb' otherwise known as prejudice?

Intelligence tests tell you no more than that an individual scored a certain percentage on the last test they took.

 

[jomar]

jensen's and your material does not supersede what i posted. the items on the list are often REVIEWS of jensen's book, his best shot, so to say.

...

Amid all the jargon and sentences meant to impress each other, they don't seem to be saying g doesn't exist, just we're thinking of intelligence wrong.

Here's and interesing one that links g to neural connections and brain plasticity. As other articles note, that while intelligence researchers see a g factor, they also admit that the nature of the general factor of intelligence has not yet been established. http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/rev1091116.pdf:

Titre du document / Document title
Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence: The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
GARLICK Dennis (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) University of Sydney, AUSTRALIE
Résumé / Abstract

The nature of the general factor of intelligence, or g, is examined. This article begins by observing that the finding of a general factor of intelligence appears to be inconsistent with current findings in neuroscience and cognitive science, where specific connections are argued to be critical for different intellectual abilities and the brain is argued to develop these connections in response to environmental stimuli. However, it is then observed that if people differed in neural plasticity, or the ability to adapt their connections to the environment, then those highly developed in one intellectual ability would be highly developed in other intellectual abilities as well. Simulations are then used to confirm that such a pattern would be obtained. Such a model is also shown to account for many other findings in the field of intelligence that are currently unexplained. A critical period for intellectual development is then emphasized.

Summary
The present approach has attempted to integrate the findings
from neuroscience and cognitive science with that of psychometric
intelligence research. These approaches initially seem to be contradictory
because neuroscience and cognitive science argue that
different intellectual abilities would be based on different neural
circuits and that the brain would require environmental stimulation
to develop these abilities. In contrast, intelligence research argues
that there is a general factor of intelligence and that it is highly
heritable. However, it was then observed that if people differed in
their ability to adapt their neural circuits to the environment, a
general factor of intelligence would result. Such a model can also
explain many other phenomena observed with intelligence that are
currently unexplained. However, acceptance of such a model then
necessarily also argues for a critical period in intellectual development,
with the implication that many children are not currently
developing abilities that they can attain. This is an issue that needs
to be addressed in future intelligence research.


It's interesting that some online IQ tests (be a Mensa) are still timed at this point. Even the Wechsler scales have discrete scores for processing speed as simply one component of the score, along with working memory, etc. Maybe we'll know one day.

If you haven't already read it, you might be interested in The Brain That Changes Itself, by Norman Druidge.

 

[amicus]

Without a derogatory tone, Jomar, only for you at this point, I ask you to compare the science of global climate change with the science of measuring human intelligence.

We know the weather changes on a global scale...we are beginning to have an understanding of some of the factors involved and we have accumulated rather a large amount of scientific data about past weather from numerous sources.

Human intelligence has also been the subject of study for perhaps longer than global weather. A great many debunked theories have come and gone, but as with the weather, some basic understandings have been gained.

The social scientists have corrupted the data around climate change with an underlying agenda that is founded on a basic distrust of the nature of man. Thus climate change has become man caused or anthropogenic to the point where the social science community is in agreement that the behavior of man must be changed to save the planet.

That really is silly when you consider the natural events that truly affect climate change, such as sun spots, natural cycles, volcanos, upwellings, deep current changes and the cyclical global changes that are a part of earth's weather patterns.

As a poster mentioned, she did not wish to know her intelligence quotient nor that of her children, and the reasons she gave were valid and rational, again, with my assumption that a basic measurement of the intelligence quotient can be assessed.

That holds true for the population in general and the public school system and most likely into the realms of higher education. I would suggest that very few people really want incontrovertible evidence that they are less intelligent than average and are essentially sentenced to a life of manual repetitive labor.

Racial and ethnic differences? What a bombshell that was and is and it is easily understandable why the data has been suppressed and repressed and discredited, almost across the board.

As I stated earlier, we all possess sufficient common sense to recognize those among us who are not quite playing with a full deck. Although the micro statistics may elude science, the macro determination of basic intelligence is well know. It is again the social scientists who do not wish to accede to the reality of the situation.

It is the usual ploy of the liberal left on this forum to bombard the readers with the complex jargon of a specific discipline, be it mathematics, physics, astronomy or psychological determinations, in order to cast doubt and what can be easily understood by many.

Each here may do and believe as they wish, of course, and if you are happy in your cocoon of ignorance, so be it. The casual reader here and elsewhere sees and understands the purposeful obfuscation, although they may not always understand why and may be taken in by it as beyond their understanding.

It is not.

Life is pretty much an open book...read it at your pleasure.

Amicus....

 

[Guest]

<snip>

As I stated earlier, we all possess sufficient common sense to recognize those among us who are not quite playing with a full deck. <snip>

Amicus....

*pats ami on his pointed little head*

We do, hon.

 

[jomar]

Without a derogatory tone, Jomar, only for you at this point, I ask you to compare the science of global climate change with the science of measuring human intelligence.

We know the weather changes on a global scale...we are beginning to have an understanding of some of the factors involved and we have accumulated rather a large amount of scientific data about past weather from numerous sources.

...

The social scientists have corrupted the data around climate change with an underlying agenda that is founded on a basic distrust of the nature of man. Thus climate change has become man caused or anthropogenic to the point where the social science community is in agreement that the behavior of man must be changed to save the planet.

That really is silly when you consider the natural events that truly affect climate change, such as sun spots, natural cycles, volcanos, upwellings, deep current changes and the cyclical global changes that are a part of earth's weather patterns.

No question it's getting hotter. But I'm not sold on man being the main culprit either. IQ research, while the profs are wanting to understand and further knowledge, does get status and ego involved (buy my theory and my assessment battery), which probably is the extent of their agenda. Global warming, though status and ego issues are present, is highly politicized, which takes it to a different level.

As a poster mentioned, she did not wish to know her intelligence quotient nor that of her children, and the reasons she gave were valid and rational, again, with my assumption that a basic measurement of the intelligence quotient can be assessed.

That holds true for the population in general and the public school system and most likely into the realms of higher education. I would suggest that very few people really want incontrovertible evidence that they are less intelligent than average and are essentially sentenced to a life of manual repetitive labor.

I've never wanted to know mine, I'm sure I would be devastated. But until the internet, very few people really got an IQ test, or facsimile. Most got 'measured' by grades and standardized tests, in countries that even do that sort of thing. How well you do what you do is what really counts.

Racial and ethnic differences? What a bombshell that was and is and it is easily understandable why the data has been suppressed and repressed and discredited, almost across the board.

In IQ? The differences have been measured and published. The reasons why and what it means are the questions of concern.

...

It is the usual ploy of the liberal left on this forum to bombard the readers with the complex jargon of a specific discipline, be it mathematics, physics, astronomy or psychological determinations, in order to cast doubt and what can be easily understood by many.

Some of us (certainly Pure and I) got off on a geeky tangent here, though not to cast doubt on your assertions. Apologies for the threadjack.

I will say that Bush was a master at simplifying complex issues into soundbites that rang true to middle America. Gore and Kerry didn't get that.

...The casual reader here and elsewhere sees and understands the purposeful obfuscation, although they may not always understand why and may be taken in by it as beyond their understanding.

It is not.

...

Amicus....

Depends on your g.

 

[sweetness6280]

*pats ami on his pointed little head*

We do, hon.

7up spew!

Have I told you lately that I love you?

 

[Safe_Bet]

*pats ami on his pointed little head*

We do, hon.

*Nospew* (I'm learning to put my coffee down now!)

 

[Pure]

comments

The present approach has attempted to integrate the findings
from neuroscience and cognitive science with that of psychometric
intelligence research. These approaches initially seem to be contradictory

because neuroscience and cognitive science argue that
different intellectual abilities would be based on different neural
circuits and that the brain would require environmental stimulation
to develop these abilities. In contrast, intelligence research argues
that there is a general factor of intelligence and that it is highly
heritable. However, it was then observed that if people differed in
their ability to adapt their neural circuits to the environment, a
general factor of intelligence would result.

interesting stuff, jomar. i think the point is conceded that the psychologists alleged 'g' does not figure in biological or brain sciences, neurology, etc.

your author *speculates* that a general 'plasticity' factor is linked with or identical with 'g'. as you know there have been various attempts to link some global brain related variables to IQ, e.g., reaction time, evoked potentials, etc. brain size is another one.

all remain entirely speculative.

on the surface, the ability to adapt their connections to the environment, does NOT seem to coincide with intelligence, but rather with what might be called 'skills in living'.

i remind you that Sternberg proposes at least three aspects of intelligence, some have to do with *selection* of stimuli, another to do with acting on such selection.

===

all this is remote from public policy. perhaps you will agree that the existence of 'g', and its measurement being lower for certain groups does NOT, as ami and the right suggest, mean 'it's useless to spend public money educating these groups.'

in fact, given your excerpt, TIMING of interventions may be essential, e.g. preschool programs to bombard and stimulate this 'plasticity.' a plausible conclusion, would you agree, is that public policy should consider spending MORE education funds (and not just for training in carpentry) on those groups testing below white norms.

the rest of the hoopla about 'g', from amicus and the right, simply reflect political agendas favoring wealthy white males.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

*Nospew* (I'm learning to put my coffee down now!)

I bet learning that trick ups someone's IQ by two points!

 

[jomar]

interesting stuff, jomar. i think the point is conceded that the psychologists alleged 'g' does not figure in biological or brain sciences, neurology, etc.

your author *speculates* that a general 'plasticity' factor is linked with or identical with 'g'. as you know there have been various attempts to link some global brain related variables to IQ, e.g., reaction time, evoked potentials, etc. brain size is another one.

all remain entirely speculative.

Well, the whole article is about neuro-plasticity and neural connections being the explanatory mechanism of g. But it's true it needs more research.

all this is remote from public policy. perhaps you will agree that the existence of 'g', and its measurement being lower for certain groups does NOT, as ami and the right suggest, mean 'it's useless to spend public money educating these groups.'

in fact, given your excerpt, TIMING of interventions may be essential, e.g. preschool programs to bombard and stimulate this 'plasticity.' a plausible conclusion, would you agree, is that public policy should consider spending MORE education funds (and not just for training in carpentry) on those groups testing below white norms.

Agreed. If truly research based and not a political feel-good exercise.

 

[incubus666]

Now that we have proved/disproved/ignored the IQ theory.

Is anyone interested in why Blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate then Whites?

Is it because Blacks actually doing more crime? Because Blacks are more involved in drugs? Because White cops just want to lock up more Blacks?

Why do Blacks riot when they do not get their way. Think Rodney King verdict vs. O.J Simpson. Why do blacks reise hell about Shania Twally even after it is proven to be false? Why do
Black crimes against Whites get ignored by the MSM? (I'll get the citation on that later.)

Why is the fact that Blacks have over 70% of the unwed teen births ignored?

What has happened to Black Society? Why is having a drug dealer sent to jail not shameful in the Black community.

Why do black collage students get hugh coverage in the MSM when they claim a noose was hung on their door, even after it is proven the student hung the noose themself?

The Duke University rape case. It endes with the prosicuter was disbared and everything was disproved.

The NYC case when a young man who may or may not have under stood English was shot multiple times. He was told to stop and not to move. He reached behind him and came up with something shinny. Two of the officers who shot him were Black. Yet it was made out to be a race crime.

Just my personal opinion. I wonder how and why the Blacks in America have changed?

Why is selling drugs acceptable whrn a it did not used to be?

Why is having a child by a teen unwed mother considered considered acceptable? I am not condeming some but, when 73% of unwed mothers come from the Black community.

So departing rrom the I.Q. part . What the hell is happening or has happened to the Black community.

Mike S.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Hey Dr. M!

I miss you guys, so I thought I'd pop in and see what was new.

...

There's a modicum of comfort in knowing that some things never change! >:.D

 

[Guest]

Now that we have proved/disproved/ignored the IQ theory.

Is anyone interested in why Blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate then Whites?

Is it because Blacks actually doing more crime? Because Blacks are more involved in drugs? Because White cops just want to lock up more Blacks?

So departing rrom the I.Q. part . What the hell is happening or has happened to the Black community.

Mike S.

See post # 10 in this thread.

 

[Pure]

Hi

MLLE: Hey Dr. M!

I miss you guys, so I thought I'd pop in and see what was new.

All of us have missed you, too. Fancy meeting you in this thread! Can you tell something--following Gardner-- about the special "intelligence" of musicians? Some score on other scales (you do), others don't.

I'm reminded of the anecdotal observation that a fair number of mathematicians and phsycists are not bad musicians--e.g. einstein on violin. Yet the reverse, apparently, does not hold: Most musicians do not exceed the 'average' for mathematical talents.