IQ?



thank you test is a relatively recent invention of the last hundred years but that did not stop scientists from finding other ways to measure intelligence skull size skin pigment angled the face they didn't just argue or intelligence either morality sexual perversion mental illness were all explored with the most dubious of measurements under the guise of science essentially we have we look back is one constant blacks are inferior to whites the only thing that has changed is the way they justify this conclusion the most popular method now is the IQ test to put IQ in perspective consider the following when asked to rank personal qualities in order of desirability people put intelligence second only to good health an important question to address then is what is IQ now I'm going to assume that everyone watching this knows what an IQ test is if not I have a lot of links in the sidebar that discusses more detail but essentially the idea is the niq test is measuring our intelligence that is the IQ test is based on an assumption that intelligence and abstract and nebulous concept at best is a single identity its location within the brain and it's quantification is one number for each individual and the use of these numbers to rheank people in a single series of worthiness think about intelligence for a minute and all the various expressions linguistic intelligence logical-mathematical intelligence musical intelligence bodily intelligence spatial intelligence enter personal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence and doesn't it seem a bit curious to you that this wide range of abilities can we summed up by a single number to the phrenologist of a century ago who read each bump and knob on a skull as a measure of domesticity and made him miss or sublimity or causality the phrenologist divided mental function to rich congress of largely independent attributes with such a view no single number could express general human Worth and the entire concept of IQ is a unitary biological property comes nonsense this innate intelligence is usually referred to as G or the general factor of intelligence first identified by Charles Spearman in 1904 it remains central to stow tools our entire argument Marion herrnstein for instance simply proclaim that the issue has been decided as in this passage from their new republic article among the experts it is by now beyond much technical dispute that there is such a thing as general factor of cognitive ability which human beings differ and that this general factors measured reasonably well by a variety of standardized tests best of all by IQ tests designed for that purpose such a statement represents an extraordinary degree of deception achieved by defining expert as that group of psychometrician working in the tradition of G and it's avatar IQ the authors even admit later on page 14 through 19 the three major schools of psychometric interpretation do contend and that only one supports their view of G and IQ the classicist has championed in the bell curve intelligence structure they're also the revisionists intelligences information processing and the radicals the theory of multiple intelligence but you even understand G we have to delve into its theoretical basis factor analysis the matter received scant attention in here in stata Murray's massive 800-page book the bell curve about two paragraphs but you can't understand G without understanding factor analysis will try to give you some idea of what factor analysis is but it's not a simple concept and you'll be best to pursue the matter independently in brief a person's performance on various mental tests tend to be positively correlated that is if you do well one kind of test you tend to do well on others shouldn't be surprising but I should remind you that positive correlations say nothing in themselves about causes Charles Spearman used factor analysis to identify single axis which he called G that best identified the common factor behind positive correlations behind tests I was you trying to figure out what that underlying thing was lewis leong thurston these egham attrition who developed the statistical technique of multiple factor analysis later show the G could be made to disappear simply by rotating if the factors axis two different positions and one rotation thurston place the axis near the most widely separated of attributes among tests thus giving rise to the theory of multiple intelligences verbal mathematical spatial with no overarching G this theory has been supported by many psychometricians including JP Gilbert guildford in the 1950s and most prominently today by Howard Gardner also consider the fact that this discovery was made and were often referred to as the soft sciences psychology and sociology among social scientists there has always been a general envy of the physical sciences take Charles Spearman an eminent psychologists to find statista and the guy who discovered the so-called G factor of general intelligence Spearman is what we would call a reductionist he sees you know the externalities of the world is superficial guides very Plato very platonic and if you think I'm exaggerating scram I wrote the following in 1923 in these principles we must venture to hope that the so long missing genuinely scientific foundation of psychology has at last been supplied so that it can henceforth take its due place along with the other solidly founded sciences even physics they could be real scientists now experiment goes on Spearman called his work a Copernican revolution in point of view and rejoice at this Cinderella among the sciences have made a bold bid for the level of triumphant physics itself what I'm getting at is these scientists like spearmint like Cyril Bert and others had pretty strong biases in favor of reifying intelligence that is taking an abstract concept like intelligence and treating it as a were a real a concrete thing first it pulled psychology out of the realm of pseudoscience and placed it in the realm of the physical more respected physical sciences too it provided justification for their a pro I racist beliefs so we have seen that there are three major schools of thoughts and cycle metrics and that the reification of G is still hotly debated this brings us to the next major assumption and their illogical arguments heritability for their theories of race and IQ to mean anything largely depends on their claims of heritability unfortunately heritability is one of those words that I'm quite sure most people are going to misunderstand and I'm going to try to explain why there is a colloquial usage of the word the way most people use it that a trade is genetic in nature but when we enter the IQ race question we're talking about heritability we're talking about something very different we're talking about the degree of variance within a given population for a particular trait the concept of heritability deals with two variables genetic and environmental as a statistic it is subject to a very important restriction no two populations ever live exactly in the same environment if a trait with a genetic component is subject to environmental effects as most are these effects different value from one environment to another this well-known fact is largely ignored by pioneer fund by the Pioneer Fun Pack this was explored in great depth by Eric Turk heimer from the University of Virginia who discovered that socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ and young children from the abstract results demonstrate that the proportion of IQ variants attributable to jeans and a buyer environment very non literally with ses the model suggests the impoverished families sixty percent of the variance in IQ sixty percent of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment and the contribution of genes is close to zero in affluent families the result is almost the reverse in a dramatic shift from previous findings this analysis finds that for families at the very bottom of the socio-economic scale environmental factors have a much greater impact on the variations and children's IQ and jeans put simply once you reach a certain level of socioeconomic status or SES further environmental improvements don't seem to help much but at the lower end of SES we see that this change is tremendously and the environment actually plays a much larger role just in case you really think your IQ is important consider the 2002 study that examined the impact of non IQ factors on income and concluded that offsprings inherited wealth race and schooling are more important as factors in determining the income than IQ the inheritance of need equality the work of Howard Gardner other psychometrician seriously calls into question the assertion that G or the general factor of intelligence is a single entity its location within the brain its quantification one number for each individual and that the use of these numbers can right people in a single series of worthiness furthermore the basic assertion that the supposedly fixed and concrete thing called G was highly heritable and little influenced by environment is being undermined by more recent research into SES and the world very low end so on the speciality therefore there's little reason to think on black white deficit is genetic

28 Comments

  1. REASONINFUSION said:

    @buddhagem I applaud you for your efforts. There is only so much time in the day and our lives and you chose to spend some of it on a subject that has justified much blood and tears. Good job,

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  2. Chuck Anton said:

    The argument should be that any minority would preform the same as any other group if raised under the same conditions. Since there are so many variables for each ethnic group it does vary the average scores. IQ does measure intellegence but it does not mean minorities have a lesser learning capacity, it just mean under their current condition the average intellegence is lower

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  3. Ztech said:

    I appreciate the authors criticism, but I feel all of this to be a deeper bias that is rarely touched on. The taboo of the Right-Brainer, has long been ingrained in the Western mind.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  4. Ztech said:

    The purpose of fluid intelligence is to set a person up to perform problems which are difficult (in the age-relative sense). And in all fairness, IQ usually is a very good predictor of this 'peak', but nonetheless training has been shown to increase fluid abilities (and it's not even clear how smart children understand how to increase EF). But the idea of Intelligence has been monopolized by social darwinists, who have essentially taken an evolutionary quality, and turned it into a constant.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  5. Ztech said:

    It is said that the average age of a person who solves a world class math problem is 20 years old. This is somewhat in conflict with IQ theory, which proposes that our 'intelligence' peaks at 25-30. But neuro-imaging has shed light on what explains this discrepancy, revealing peaks in fluid intelligence at 20 years old, and a decline throughout life. The significance of this is that age-relative performance is never entirely thouroghly demonstrated by conventional measures.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  6. Ztech said:

    There is a substantial amount of evidence that fluid and crystallized intelligence are largely independent, and follow unique developmental profiles. The latter is what is measured by conventional tests (IQ) (WAIS,WOODCOCK, SBINET). The former is composite of both Short Term Memory and what is known as Executive function, which appears largely a manifest of overall Pre-frontal efficiency. Fluid intelligence = 'novel problem solving ability is', and it is NOT always synonymous with IQ.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  7. partilov1 said:

    g can be justified biologically . there are several genes that contribute generally to ones g loading. For example the genes of the volume of the prefrontal cortex, neuronal speed, and rate of interconnection or how neuroplastic ones' brain is can be considered general biological contributing factors that account for generally better performance and they do account for a substantial portion of individual variance in g and have a causing relationship with g.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  8. partilov1 said:

    the studies on the heritability of IQ or g among young children is flawed for a couple of reasons.

    1.) The heritability of IQ increases with age. Genes become more important with age and thus, ses or environmental factors tend to fade out.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  9. Clyaton said:

    Good points.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  10. forexnoob said:

    I remember reading some studies on the role of nurture on iq. At young age, environment has a bigger role on iq and at old age, genes have a bigger role in determining iq.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  11. hitssquad said:

    Hi, Buddhagem.

    Could you please post a review of Arthur Jensen's "The g Factor"?

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  12. buddhagem said:

    It's pretty clear that I understand psychometrics a great deal more than you and that's probably because I understand it within its historical context. You've simply been misguided by people with an agenda. If you ever take the time to study the matter you'll begin to see through the smoke and mirrors. Good luck.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  13. Ruby502 said:

    I have an IQ of 130.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  14. Ztech said:

    4) IQ tests assume that we develop at a relatively constant rate. So a 9 year old child that locks him self in a white room for three years, would be just as 'intelligent' as a child who locks him self in a library. This is because the problem set on conventional IQ tests are limited. This is backwards and ,generally, more experience can be equated with higher intelligence.(As relational problem solving, solving problems, with unknown solutions, increases with experience).

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  15. Ztech said:

    2) IQ tests do not test for relational/creative problem solving. These are problems that we have acquired the ability to solve by searching for parrellels in solutions that we have been taught.
    3) IQ Tests are breadth biased. If a person can solve 100,000 problems that 50% of the population can solve, they are 'smarter' than a person who can solve 500 problems that 1% of the population can solve. Because the latter case, is far more uncommon, there is reason to assign a higher score.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  16. Ztech said:

    The major problems with conventional tests of intelligence are:
    1) IQ tests de-factor random chance potential. While the option to remove the enviornment may make the test fair to minority groups, it acts as a bias against people who have made the best from their enviornments.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  17. Ztech said:

    But there is a lot more than just 'speed' and random chance that could be factored in. Curiosity, motivation, persistence, confidence, faith, autism, creativity, ect…..are all potential indicators of higher potential/intelligence. All of these are manifestiations of our bio-enviornmental state. All of these factors could be considered in any 'intelligence' model. However, the concept of 'intelligence' has been monopolized by our governments, to fuel their idealogical agenda.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  18. Ztech said:

    Just consider how different the world would have been, if an apple had never fallen on sir Isacc Newton's head. It should be clear from this that two people can begin life at the exact same location, under the same enviornment, and hit different 'intellectual' peaks.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  19. Ztech said:

    There has always been an unruly, widespread agreement among psychologists (and the general public) that 'intelligence' is purely a biological phenomena. Of course, such a position is understandable, as the preservation of good genes via selective breeding (Eugenics), has long been an agenda of our governments (not to mention that high IQers, naturally, hold such a view). But no one can deny that the uniqueness of our experiences is component to mental productivity.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  20. Ztech said:

    Interestingly, high range intelligence tests, such as the ones used by High Intelligence societies, do not correlate very well with 'IQ'. Yet, the problems on most of these tests, resemble real world problems far more than the shallow, fire-and-forget, type problems on conventional IQ tests (which in my opinion were better indicators of regurgitation ability).

    The 'business' of IQ testing has never aimed to understand the art of solving problems with 'unknown' algorithims.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  21. Ztech said:

    While IQ is clearly related to 'intelligence', as almost anyone would define it, there is no single protocol that could be used to measure intelligence.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  22. buddhagem said:

    As I made quite clear in my first response the entire enterprise is completely meaningless unless you adopt a racist viewpoint that an individual is to be judged as the mean for some capacity based on what population he belongs to. Without that assumption, if we are to judge people based on their own merit and accomplishment this "population" research is completely meaningless. What scientific merit is there?

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  23. buddhagem said:

    This isn't about Stodles; it's about a much larger issue that's been going on for hundreds of years. Stodles hasn't brought up anything new in his videos. His racist views are very old and they rest on invalid assumptions.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  24. buddhagem said:

    I didn't know you have to approve video responses. I know people have responded to my videos without approval by me, not that I care. Is that a new thing? Oh well you're certainly approved.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  25. buddhagem said:

    Oh I'll go check.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  26. buddhagem said:

    Posting what response under what video?

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  27. buddhagem said:

    Believing something is meaningful and believing it should be reified are two very different positions.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply
  28. buddhagem said:

    Turkheimer is a small piece of the puzzle.

    June 28, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *