Do ICQ Tests Measure Intelligence?

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you honestly think that real life, modern day eugenists want to breed humans like livestock? You're paying too much attention to Evo. --Mark

Hmmm, odd you would say that since I never have.

You are such a fruitcake. You've made this ridiculous statement in this thread:

originally posted by Nachtwolf - I don't view this bulletin board as a personality contest in which the more people like me, the better, since I don't derive my self esteem from the approbation of others and am perfectly comfortable when people say "you're a jerk, but I think you're right."

Gee Nachtwolf, I've looked and looked and NO ONE has ever said that you are right. You've made similar untrue and ridiculous statements in other threads. You do seem to have an inferiority complex.

(originally posted by Nactwolf) The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

I rest my case again.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf: 1. We don't need to know that [what the genetic precursors of g or IQ are]; we need only know that IQ has narrow heritability. It does.

hitssquad: *SNIP As to the latter, the point of testing IQs is to ascertain relative levels of functioning of general mental ability. If population conglomerates of these results are different from results found in other populations, that clue can be used as a raison d'être for further inquiry. Purposely making the results not appear, as you propose, would seem to be counterproductive to the end of establishing grounds for action -- such action as, say, distribution of IQ-boosting nutritional and pharmacological aid to low-IQ nations.

It has come to light through medical research -- especially that within the last decade -- that anti-senescence efforts, heavy-metal chelation, and anti-oxidant supplementation would have dramatic effects on the average IQ of the general population of the United States, and especially of the older members of that population. We could perhaps raise the average IQ of the US 20 points through modest efforts in these areas.

Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

 

[hitssquad]

Massive IQ boosting sans eugenics

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

If you can simulate and/or stimulate and/or evade (as in the case of phenylketonuira -- the Flowers for Algernon condition which can lead to mental retardation in babies -- where the brain-damaging process is silenced as long as the patient does not consume too much of the amino acid phenylalanine) the processes coded for by the genes, then, relatively speaking, specific genetic code is not necessary. However, the existence of a genetic blueprint makes it easier to document the effects of biological experiments, such as the one you seem to be proposing. For example, if you ordered a population to consume every day, for the rest of their lives, at regimented times of day, certain diets and pharmacological menus, it might be difficult to obtain a statistically reliable assessment of how many, if any, actually were doing what you ordered them to do. Hence, your experiment would be the equivalent of driving blind. For example, you might conclude from the data of your experiment that Brahmi does not raise IQ, when it instead could be the case that it would have except very few persons could stand the bitter taste.

Largely, the 20-some-odd IQ-raising effect that I was referring to in my previous post had to do with staving off reductions in IQ that normally begin in at the latest in young adulthood and progress continuously parallel with physical decline for the course of a typical American's lifetime until he is missing about 15 points of his former IQ by the time he is 60, 30 points of his former IQ by the time he is 70, 45 points of his former IQ by the time he is 80, and so on (this varies from person to person dependent on a. oxidant status and b. anti-oxidant status). In a healthy young adult, you might only see a typical 5-point rise in IQ resulting from administration of the antioxidants neutriceuticals and nootropics that are known about and available today.

So, right away, you would only see a small increase. A big advantage of this course of action, however, would be the sustenance of "elders" who would not only have a century's worth of experience and mental training, but would also have IQ levels matching those of their youths with which to put these thing to use.

Another issue to consider, though, if higher IQ really is better, is that once everyone standardizes on whatever the current "optimum" IQ-boost regimen might be, variance in IQ would be 100% accounted for by genes. The retarded population -- whether this population has the same average IQ it does now or whether this population has an average IQ equivalent to our IQ 145 -- would have no recourse to better IQ. They would have to live out their lives hospitalized and given special low-IQ work much as they do now, even if they would have been considered very superior in general intellect compared to the average general intellect of our present society.


-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I never said 'you're so evil'. YOU said that.

I was making fun of you. You have no idea what I represent.

You didn't address the fact that I disputed your 'tampering with nature' statement with a quote from your site.

Boy, you and Evo really like things you say to be addressed, don't you? It's like you need my responses to feel validated.

Look Tsunami, I thought your statement was silly. Gamete selection isn't the same as genetic manipulation. We're not talking about creating artificial genes in a lab. We're not talking about splicing nonhuman genes into people. We're talking about choosing some natural, pre-existing sperm to fertilize the egg. Is it unnatural to chose the ripest peach at the grocery store? Is it unnatural to pick the prettiest puppy at the kennel to be your pet?

Jesus Christ, we live in a society where half the kids wear braces. We live in a society where the primary form of entertainment is electronic. We live in a society where just about nobody is born without a team of doctors and nurses, thousands of dollars of computer equipment, and a nice long shot of painkiller to ease the mommy's special journey, where the first thing you get when you're born is a series of vaccinations, and you're taking issue with sperm selection on the grounds that it's "unnatural?"

You didn't answer my question about sterilization. You just rolled your eyes - a true indicator of superior intelligence.

Because - now hear this! - I'm not in favor of sterilization. *Gasp* In fact, I oppose it. *Double Gasp* If you'd actually paid attention to my website, you could have read this little gem:

Many people have simplistic ideas about what eugenics ultimately boils down to. The two main methods for effecting eugenic change which come to mind when you mention the word "eugenics" to someone is either mass sterilization or genetic manipulation, neither of which are seriously spoken of amongst modern eugenists regardless of religious or political affiliation. I will consider both in turn.

In many cases, I have prefaced discussion by stating my opposition to totalitarian sterilization schemes, only to find people angrily "debating" against the concept as though I somehow supported it. Now obviously, mass sterilization would work to effect eugenic change. But the amount of dissatisfaction and unhappiness caused by such a heavy handed solution is not only counterproductive, it is infeasible in a democratic society. As long as more humane and more effective measures exist, there is no reason to promote such a thing, which is why few eugenists bother discussing it anymore except with people who have no idea about what eugenics really is.

A suggestion: In the future, if you want me to bother addressing your arguments, at least try to deceive me into thinking that you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

We don't need any kind of "breeding program" at all. But is socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish) really such a radical idea?


--Mark

 

[Tsu]

Natchwolf

Boy, you and Evo really like things you say to be addressed, don't you? It's like you need my responses to feel validated.

Well, let’s see… This is a forum is it not? Questions and answers? You make a proposal, we ask questions. How bad can it be to expect an answer from the one who has made the proposal? And trust me. Validation from the likes of someone like you is about the most undesirable thing I can think of. Ever.

Is it unnatural to chose the ripest peach at the grocery store?

No, but it IS unnatural to genetically alter the peach for increased size, brighter color, less fuzz… Usually there is a loss of something – like FLAVOR. How does eugenics address that? And tell us, what do you do with your 'mistakes'. The ones that don't quite measure up to your standards of intelligence... I mean, you won't let them have a driver's license or anything like that. What else is store for lower IQ range? (Have you ever known anyone with Down Syndrome? Have you NEVER learned ANYTHING from them? Obviously not and that's really too bad. You should pay better attention.)

Is it unnatural to pick the prettiest puppy at the kennel to be your pet?

It is for me. That’s not what I look for in a puppy. Personality, people skills…those are things I look for – things, which, I’m fairly sure, you wouldn’t understand.

I don't derive my self esteem from the approbation of others and am perfectly comfortable when people say "you're a jerk, but I think you're right."

Do you feel as perfectly comfortable when people say ‘you’re a jerk and I think you’re WRONG”?

Well, gosh Mark. No wonder eugenics is your thing. Since you obviously have absolutely no people-skills whatsoever, you might just NEED it in order to procreate.

A suggestion: In the future, if you want me to bother addressing your arguments, at least try to deceive me into thinking that you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

Now, why didn’t I think of that? (However, you DID address my arguments, now didn't you?) But, if you think you are the most intelligent person here, then deceiving YOU would be impossible, wouldn't it? No, I'll leave the deception to you. According to you, you’re the ONLY one with a clue. Well, dream on...

I’m done here.
Bye bye, troll!

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: We don't need any kind of "breeding program" at all. But is socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish) really such a radical idea?

No, it's not.

However, in an earlier post you wrote (despite the last para, and the per capita GDP figure, I guess your numbers refer only to the US):

Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.
The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.
The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.
IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.
The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.
The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.
We should expect that a shift of 3 IQ points downward (which at current rates of decline will occur before 2050) will increase the number of permanent high school dropouts, men prevented from working by health problems, children not living with either parent, men ever interviewed in prison, persons below the poverty line, children in poverty for the first 3 years of life, women ever on welfare, women who become chronic welfare recipients, and children born out of wedlock by approximately 20%.
The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

I'm not sure that "socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish)" would cut the mustard.

I'm trying to get to each of your assertions, but, as you well know from your participation in other threads, I don't seem to be able to get basic information about the studies which appear to form part of the foundation on which you make your assertions.

 

[Nachtwolf]

I apologize if I seem recalcitrant. I have a lot of other things going on right now, and in light of the garbage I have to put up with from other posters, I hope my low post volume recently is understandable. If you are genuinely interested in hearing what I actually represent, I'll be as clear as I can.

Some people (who accept the existence of dysgenics) do believe that "Kosher" eugenic reforms won't work to solve the dysgenic problem and that we should just give up, although they are generally in the minority. Bear in mind that dysgenics is happening pretty slowly, and it's just a result of current reproductive trends created largely by advances in birth control combined with the relaxation of natural selection on the lower class and disinterest in childbearing of the upper class inherent to any advanced civilization. In other words, dysgenics is going on because right now the incentives and social norms push it along. But there are a variety of ways to change these incentives and social norms; here are a few.

1. Some 60% of pregnancies in the lower class are unwanted. Since the lower class is generally low on IQ, distributing free birth control to poor neighborhoods would by itself have the theoretical potential to completely reverse current dysgenic trends. (It would have the additional effect of giving present generations of lower class citizens a financial break - they wouldn't have to pay for all the children they can barely afford right now. This would reduce financial inequality between upper and lower class citizens)

2. Advertizing. "Truth" commercials.

3. Immigration reform. If you have something to offer (hopefully a college degree) and can speak the dominant language, come on in. If you have nothing to offer, we don't need you. Immigration reform like this would not only insure an influx of high-IQ genes, but would help fix the wreckage of America's present national security.

4. Educate about basic dysgenics in Sex Ed and College so that people have a better idea of how their choices affect the gene pool.

5. Prison reform. No more conjugal visits. No parole for violent felons to father more children. The best available evidence (Lynn's figures, incidentally, taken from Great Britain's population) shows that criminals have a whopping 70% higher fertility than non-criminals. Criminality has a heritable component, being about 60% genetic and 40% environmental (from Eysenck's figures).

6. More research. More testing of IQ and outcomes. Identify those genes which affect IQ in order to better track their spread and get a better idea about what's happening. The more information we have about this, the more people will pay attention, and the better we will be able to combat dysgenics.


The most important element to all of this is simply spreading information to the populace at large. Obviously none of these reforms can happen unless the majority agrees that they are wise. This is why I am posting on this bulletin board.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't really disagree with much of your program, although you are going to have a tough time convincing high school teachers to teach that some of the students in the class are "inferior" (no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what you mean) to the other students and should be encouraged not to "breed".

On your item 1, the reform of welfare has reduce the unwanted birthrate in the least capable segment already. When you give women of any IQ capable of independent life a motivation not to have a lot of kids, they will take it. The former method, ADC, amounted to paying poor women to have more children.

 

[hitssquad]

The legend of scheming welfare mothers

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
On your item 1, the reform of welfare has reduce the unwanted birthrate in the least capable segment already. The former method, ADC, amounted to paying poor women to have more children.

What is presented here seems to be an explanation for why something might be occurring being used instead as evidence that it is occurring. Is that thing occurring, selfAdjoint?

selfAdjoint also wrote
When you give women of any IQ capable of independent life a motivation not to have a lot of kids, they will take it.

It has also been proposed that typical welfare moms might not take "a motivation not to have a lot of kids" if they can't understand why such prudence might be desirable. IOW, it has been proposed that welfare mothers may as a group largely get that way because of relative inability to long-term plan, regardless of offered financial rewards for failure to plan, and that the legendary scheming involved in seeing a potential reward in the form of ADC and formulating a long-term plan to reap that reward may in fact be beyond their limited mental capacities despite ability to live on their own as adults.

In a largely urbanized industrial and technological society, with its ever increasing information-intensive demands, life for those with IQs below eighty becomes a series of frustrating trials. Using a telephone directory, getting through a voice-mail system, reading bus or train schedules, banking, keeping financial records, filling out forms and dealing with the bureaucracy, using a VCR, cooking food in a microwave, following directions on prescriptions or over-the-counter drugs, passing drivers' tests, knowing where, when, and how to shop economically, and countless other routine demands of daily life in modern society are all cognitive challenges for individuals with low IQ, and are often beyond their capability.

The g Factor. p554.

Another hypothesis posits a more direct causal relationship between low IQ and most forms of criminal behavior. It claims that low IQ individuals have a short time horizon; that is, they are more present-oriented and more lacking in foresight than most people. Persons with low IQ fail to adequately and realistically imagine the future consequences of their actions. Their immediate behavior is therefore less thoughtful and more impulsive. And they are also less apt to be guided by the recall of past experience because long-range foresight, imagination, and recall of past experience are all g-loaded cognitive functions.

The g Factor. p572.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

don't really disagree with much of your program, although you are going to have a tough time convincing high school teachers to teach that some of the students in the class are "inferior" (no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what you mean) to the other students and should be encouraged not to "breed".

On the contrary - all they need do is continue their current intentions of decreasing teen pregnancies, and slip in a little extra reminder "to those of you who are going off to college," who may want to consider starting a family and why.

Part of the problem with the IQ debates is that the world average is 90. Less than 100. This is what comes from considering smarter races "average" or "normal." If it were up to me, I'd re-norm the IQ scale to reflect the world average, so that US Blacks had 95, Latinos 100-105, Whites 110, East Asians 115, etc. Unfortunately, it isn't up to me, and the numbers are what they are.

However, there's no need to phrase eugenic sex-ed in such negative terms. In truth, I'm more interested in raising the smart birth-rate than decreasing the dumb birth-rate - right now 1st world nations are sufferring from low fertility.

What is presented here seems to be an explanation for why something might be occurring being used instead as evidence that it is occurring. Is that thing occurring, selfAdjoint?

Hahahaha! That's the one question SelfAdjount doesn't know the correct answer to. That's quite understandable - he's surrounded perpetually by people who have trouble pronouncing hair it a bill it tee, let alone realizing that it has something to do with this eye kyoo stuff. I'm sure that all these debates with ignorant anti-eugenists have taken the zing out of some of my understanding of the situation. You can only simplify things for the willfully dense so many times before the simplified version takes on the colors of reality.

welfare mothers may as a group largely get that way because of relative inability to long-term plan

The un-sung sorrows of dysgenic erosion to Conscientiousness. If only I had figures calculating the genetic loss to that trait in CQ points, I would have enough to effectively explain why it's happening.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

why bother?

Nachtwolf,

Currently, the world's population is ~6.3b, and that of the US ~290m, or <5%. Why bother with a eugenics program in the US when:
- the US population, as a % of the world's, will likely continue to decline, for at least the next two generations
- the US' economic position in the world will also continue to decline, and sometime in the next two generations it will fall to #3 or #4.

Surely it would make more sense to concentrate on proven techniques of encouraging economic growth in the main developing economies and regions (Asia, Africa)? That way IQ levels, which seem to be your pre-occupation, will rise automatically? Even Lynn recognises that this is a valid approach!

"Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like."

Nereid

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.

Lynn wrote: Intelligence has increased considerably in many nations during the twentieth century and there is little doubt that these increases have been brought about by environmental improvements, which have themselves occurred largely as a result of increases in per capita incomes that have enabled people to give their children better nutrition, health care, education and the like.

Is the US one of the countries to which Lynn refers? If it is, why has the IQ stopped increasing? If you accept Lynn, why not institute a program which includes:
- better nutrition; aggressively work to reduce obesity
- total ban on all cigarettes, cigars, etc
- free medical care, at the primary physician level (IIRC, there are some 40m uninsured people in the US; when they get sick, they just put up with it)
- total ban on firearms (leading cause of death or injury among the young?)
- serious efforts to reduce the manifest inequality in primary school system

 

[Nereid]

Tried that, didn't work

Nacthwolf wrote: Educate about basic dysgenics in Sex Ed and College so that people have a better idea of how their choices affect the gene pool.

IIRC, those extremely intelligent folks in Singapore (National IQ 103, Lynn 1977; much higher now?) - lead by Lee Kwan Yew, or was it Goh Chok Tong? - tried something considerably more aggressive. They were worried that the really smart men and women just didn't seem to get around to getting married, and when they did, they tended to have but one child, and that quite late in their life.

The measure failed, dismally.

You might like to study up on it.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yea! Nereid!

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yea! Nereid!

DITTO!

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: 5. Prison reform. No more conjugal visits. No parole for violent felons to father more children. The best available evidence (Lynn's figures, incidentally, taken from Great Britain's population) shows that criminals have a whopping 70% higher fertility than non-criminals. Criminality has a heritable component, being about 60% genetic and 40% environmental (from Eysenck's figures).

Surely, to be true to your agenda, you should introduce a segregated prison population, somewhat along these lines:
- no congugal visits for fellows with IQs below 100
- congugal visits for those with IQs between 100 and 130, but only if their partners' (why limit them to just one?) IQs are >100
- special mixed-sex prisons, to hold all criminals with IQs >130; sentence reductions for successful breeding. No congugal visits unless partners' IQs are >130.

[Edit: fixed typo]

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote (my numbering): 1) The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.

2) The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.

3) IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

[...]

4) The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.

It seems to me Nachtwolf has overlooked a couple of key aspects of IQ; namely the fact that it's relative, and that there's a distribution.

Let's take the latter first. Suppose Nachtwolf's eugenics program is implemented, and the National IQ of the US is raised 40 points, but the distribution remains the same (relatively).

1) No change. The total incidence of criminality may drop markedly, but since the population's IQ will have gone up, we can also be sure their willingness to tolerate criminality will have dropped just as markedly, and Nachtwolf-III would most likely write words just as Nachtwolf did three generations earlier. Evidence? Is Singapore any less relaxed about criminality, despite the fact that the incidence is far below that in the US (except perhaps for 'white collar crimes').

2) '80' -> '120'; otherwise no change. Same story as for 1).

3) No change; the relativities won't be any different just because 40 has been added to everyone's IQ

4) '100' -> '140; '115' -> '155'; otherwise no change. In fact, if anything, the amount of time the average person would need to study before they could get one of the 'top jobs' would go up, perhaps to over 30 years. This would depress fertility even further (why should a highly intelligent woman not be able to become CEO? However, to do so, she would have to forgo having children, as she wouldn't otherwise have the time or energy to compete with others who had quadruple PhDs.)

 

[Nachtwolf]

Surely it would make more sense to concentrate on proven techniques of encouraging economic growth in the main developing economies and regions (Asia, Africa)? That way IQ levels, which seem to be your pre-occupation, will rise automatically

My preoccupation is dysgenics, which is a genetic, not a phenotypic, effect. I'll point out that increasing IQs environmentally has proven quite difficult (no, you're not talking about "proven methods" when you talk about euthenics), but more importantly, euthenics is "a temporary band-aid for a festering wound." It can only hide the underlying decay phenotypically, and even that only so well, and only for so long.

IIRC, those extremely intelligent folks in Singapore (National IQ 103, Lynn 1977; much higher now?) - lead by Lee Kwan Yew, or was it Goh Chok Tong? - tried something considerably more aggressive. They were worried that the really smart men and women just didn't seem to get around to getting married, and when they did, they tended to have but one child, and that quite late in their life.

The measure failed, dismally.

You might like to study up on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a while) but didn't they use financial incentives? Why would smart people have kids for money when they can earn all the money they like? Financial incentives are better suited to the underclass.

At any rate, I hope you realize that if everything I'm talking about won't bring about eugenic change, that won't make dysgenics disappear - it just makes the problem that much worse!

It seems to me Nachtwolf has overlooked a couple of key aspects of IQ; namely the fact that it's relative, and that there's a distribution.

Oho! Nachtwolf, overlooking key aspects of IQ? Surely not!

From the essay I wrote to educate laymen about the Flynn Effect, http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Flynn Effect

IQ tests are set up not to measure actual ability, but differential ability; that is, their purpose is simply to see who is smarter than whom. Imagine a race where the contestants weren't given actual times, but the clock was started as soon as the fastest runner crossed the finish line, and everyone's speed was measured relative to him. IQ tests aren't designed to measure generational changes, only population and individual differences within age groups, in a (sic) effort to see who is more or less intelligent than whom, to ensure that slow children can get the help they need in school, or to identify promising candidates for a scholastic scholarship. IQ is a relative measure; it is not an absolute measure.

(I'll have to edit the grammar on that one when I get home.)

Regarding what you said specifically about distributions, I'm pretty sure that I don't follow you. "No change." "No change." No change to what? Are you suggesting in #4 that only the 100-115 group would gain 40 points? Please be more explicit. All I can tell you right now is that a natural side effect of eugenics is a reduction to the Standard Deviation, which would thus tighten the IQ distribution.

Surely, to be true to your agenda, you should introduce a segregated prison population

*Snort*

To be true to my agenda, I have to push for practical measures. I can't just say "let's do the wisest, most efficient and sensible thing." How many people will agree to the solution you just suggested? You have of course noticed how irrational people become when the word "eugenics" appears in conversation.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

how many teeth does a horse have?

Nachtwolf wrote (re Singapore): Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a while) but didn't they use financial incentives? Why would smart people have kids for money when they can earn all the money they like? Financial incentives are better suited to the underclass.

Aren't you making the same absolute/relative mistake that you take pains to address on your own website? Could I suggest that you think through the financial incentives aspect a little more clearly? Also, please take the time to research the program; you really should give the Lee and Goh teams a bit more credit - after all, they are full of very, very smart people.

Also, reading your website, I learn that you and Lynn disagree about the extent to which g can be changed by better nutrition etc. And all about IQ and g, the Flynn effect, and more. Curious that you seem quite happy to accept Lynn's work quite blindly (it re-inforces your views about racially-based g differences?); why didn't you take the trouble to see if the "National IQ" and real GDP per capita relationship he claims in fact does say anything relevant to race and g? I submit that, had you done this, you'd have found the study badly flawed (see my comments on the other thread), but nonetheless it provides significant evidence to refute your race-g assertion.

Regarding what you said specifically about distributions, I'm pretty sure that I don't follow you. "No change." "No change." No change to what?

Let's take just one of your four points: "IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born." First, your eugenics proposal aims to save the world ("The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world") by halting the decline in national IQ (you actually meant g).

Leave aside for now the fact that national IQ in the US has actually been increasing (the Flynn effect), so you haven't yet clearly demonstrated that there is a problem to fix. Assume your eugenics program was implemented and was successful. Assume that "National IQ" (or some variant of g) was raised by 40 points; even assume that "a natural side effect of eugenics is a reduction to the Standard Deviation, which would thus tighten the IQ distribution".

In the brave new world, would IQ still be "a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born?" Yes it would; there would be no change; the world would be exactly the same.

Go through the other three points; the world will be no different if your eugenics program was successfully implemented, at least in respect of your four points (I'll need to check about the reduction in SD). Since these appear to be the reasons (your stated reasons) for needing to engage in a eugenics program, yet if they were implemented there'd be no change, I conclude that you must have some other reason for making your proposal. Please explain.

 

[hitssquad]

Super duper cool online IQ tests

Originally posted by Nachtwolf in regards to online Matrix tests
I just tried that and found 566 hits for sites about it or sites advertizing versions for purchase, and I have no idea which would offer a free online test. Do you remember anything else about the site? Which terms would narrow the search?

This european guy Nico has a bunch of really cool nonverbal multiple-choice tests which he designed himself.
http://nicologic.free.fr/

He seems to be well read in the IQ liturature (Jensen, etc.):
http://nicologic.free.fr/FAQ.htm
http://nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htm

And he claims that he tries to design and norm the tests to some degree of scoring parity with reality.


The Mega people have had this page of Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests up for a while. Most of the stratospheric tests require a $20 or so scoring fee (you have to send your answers into the test author so he can score it).
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html


The Queendom dot com Matrices rip-off test is a really cool test, also. I took it when it was free a few years ago, and it was always the one I would use to introduce people to the concept of the Raven's Matrices and nonverbal IQ tests. They charge now, but it's only a couple of bucks (in the form of credits that they sell).
http://www.queendom.com/tests/iq/culture_fair_iq_r_access.html



-Chris

 

[Nereid]

A summary

Nacthwolf wrote (in response to Evo's comment "My opinion? Worrying about IQ scores is silly"): Your opinion is predicated on ignorance. The facts are anything but silly - in fact they are of grim importance.

Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.

The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.

The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.

IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.

The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.

We should expect that a shift of 3 IQ points downward (which at current rates of decline will occur before 2050) will increase the number of permanent high school dropouts, men prevented from working by health problems, children not living with either parent, men ever interviewed in prison, persons below the poverty line, children in poverty for the first 3 years of life, women ever on welfare, women who become chronic welfare recipients, and children born out of wedlock by approximately 20%.

The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

The above is Nachtwolf's own words, on the importance of IQ.

As has been shown in this thread and others, each of his points is either wrong, irrelevant, or quite unsubstantiated.

Evo 1, Nachtwolf 0.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Hahaha!

Just because I have better things to do than compose endless posts on this board endlessly doesn't mean a jot of what you just said. Pay attention, I'm only going to say this once:


In 1982, Vining took a sample of 2066 whites and 473 blacks and grouped them by fertility and IQ. Here are the results for the white group:

<= 71 IQ: 1.59 children
71-85 IQ: 1.68 children
86-100 IQ: 1.76 children
101-115 IQ: 1.44 children
116-130 IQ: 1.15 children
>130 IQ IQ: 0.92 children

Notice, that no group with an IQ above 100 has higher fertility than any group with an IQ below 100. Notice further that the group with the very lowest fertility is the above-130 group. I go on to provide the results for the black group:

<= 71 IQ: 2.60 children
71-85 IQ: 2.12 children
86-100 IQ: 1.79 children
101-115 IQ: 1.63 children
116-130 IQ: 1.20 children
>130 IQ IQ: 0.00 children

Vining's information was reported by Jensen in his The g Factor who wrote on page 486:

"The predicted overall weighted mean IQ, then, turns out to be 98.2 for whites and 82.6 for blacks, a drop of 1.8 IQ points and of 2.4 IQ points, respectively."

So what is this dysgenic decline, representing an average drop of around 2 points per generation, going to do for us? Well, let's go to The Bell Curve, page 365

Suppose we select a subsample of the NLSY, different in only one respect from the complete sample: We randomly delete persons who have a mean IQ of more than 97, until we reach a sample that has a mean IQ of 97 - a mere three points below the mean of the full sample.

How different do the crucial social outcomes look? For some behaviors, not much changes. Marriage rates do not change. With a three-point decline at the average, divorce, unemployment, and dropout from the labor force rise only marginally. But the overall poverty rate rises by 11 percent and the proportion of children living in poverty throughout the first three years of their lives rises by 13 percent. The proportion of children born to single mothers rises by 8 percent. The proportion of children living with nonparental custodians, of women ever on welfare, and of people dropping out of high school all rise by 14 percent. The proportion of young men prevented from working by health problems increases by 18 percent.

When we consider Lynn's data showing that low-scoring nations all have problems with poverty, education, health, and so forth, it becomes apparent that these numbers aren't statistical artifacts but are quite applicable to real life. Granted that I should have said these factors increase by around 15% rather than around 20%; darn, I mistook the column of factors that increase when IQ increases with the column of factors that decrease when IQ increases from where they're written down on my website at http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

But hey let's take a look at that web-page because it shows something else which is really quite interesting at the moment!

The UN did a http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ac/Qundp-index-list.RpLZ_Dl8.html on which nations were best to live in, and which nations were awful to live in. I said to myself, "Well this is very interesting; how does this report line up with IQ data on these countries supplied by Lynn?" Here's how.

Twenty best countries to live in, when IQ data exists for them:

Nation / IQ
Japan 105
Austria 102
Germany 102
Sweden 101
Switzerland 101
Belgium 100
New Zealand 100
United Kingdom 100
Australia 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Norway 98
United States 98
Canada 97
Finland 97
Spain 97


Thirty worst nations to live in, when IQ data exists for them:

Nation / IQ
Zambia 77
Uganda 73
Kenya 72
Tanzania 72
Nigeria 67
Guinea 66
Congo (Zaire) 65
Sierra Leone 64
Ethiopia 63
Equatorial Guinea 59

So yes, tell us, Nereid, about how this is all wrong, irrelevant, or unsubstantiated!

Nereid, the trouble is that you're woefully uneducated on this subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

You've never read IQ & Wealth of Nations.
You've never read either of The g Factors.
You've never read The Bell Curve.
You've never heard of Marian Van Court, Linda Gottfriedson, or

Because if you had, none of this stuff would be at all new for you. I wouldn't have to sit here for 45 minutes (yes, how long this post took to look up and compile) giving you information you don't really want to have. I feel like I'm trying to spoon feed a recalcitrant child. I have better things to do with my time; if you don't want to eat, don't! But don't sit there in ignorance and tell me that this is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, or quite wrong, because you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Now if you'll excuse me, reality calls.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

Double posting? I thought you were only going to say it once.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Natchwolf this/these is/are "statistics" hence they are 'indicators' NOT 'dictators'...you would do what to the worlds populations to try to save a 1.8% IQ number? something that can be bettered, simply through educational means, nutritional fulfillments, and you want to do what? to Cure this non-ailment??

Then again reality called you, so please, if you would wish to respond, please, if possible, keep it short...

 

[Nereid]

Point by point then

Nachtwolf (note the verb tense): Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.

From Nachtwolf's reply we learn that his statement is a prediction (or, being charitable, an unsubstantiated estimate), not an observation.

In fact, we learn from his own website that the data show that IQ is increasing; it's called the Flynn effect, and has apparently been observed in a large number of countries.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf wrong.

Nachtwolf, taking four points together: The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.

The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.

IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.

No support provided by Nachtwolf; questions put to him to show the relevance of these points - in terms of his eugenics proposal - remain unanswered.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf irrelevant.

Nachtwolf: The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.

The strength of Lynn's work - which presumably underlies Nachtwolf's assertion here - is being discussed on a different thread; hitssquad has attempted a defence but his efforts have exposed many inconsistencies, contradictions, etc in Lynn's work.

In this thread Nachtwolf defends his position by quoting some figures from Lynn, but doesn't address the flaws in Lynn's work.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf unsubstantiated.

Nachtwolf's cry to arms: The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

To support these assertions? The points examined one-by-one above.

I note in passing that Nachtwolf generalises from the US to the whole world, without any data to show that the predictions he makes for the US have any relevance to any country outside the US.

Just because I have better things to do than compose endless posts on this board endlessly *SNIP

Well excuse me, I was under the impression that you were keen to bring your ideas to the attention of PF members, with a desire perhaps to win some converts to the cause?

You're leaving us? Don't let me detain you. Mind the platform gap.

 

[recon]

Originally posted by hitssquad
This european guy Nico has a bunch of really cool nonverbal multiple-choice tests which he designed himself.
http://nicologic.free.fr/

He seems to be well read in the IQ liturature (Jensen, etc.):
http://nicologic.free.fr/FAQ.htm
http://nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htm

And he claims that he tries to design and norm the tests to some degree of scoring parity with reality.

-Chris

I'm wondering how reliable these tests are. Can anyone who already has a known IQ (as tested officially) try it out and tell me how optimistic the test is?

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by recon

Originally posted by hitssquad
This european guy Nico has a bunch of really cool nonverbal multiple-choice tests which he designed himself.
http://nicologic.free.fr/

He seems to be well read in the IQ liturature (Jensen, etc.):
http://nicologic.free.fr/FAQ.htm
http://nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htm

And he claims that he tries to design and norm the tests to some degree of scoring parity with reality.

I'm wondering how reliable these tests are. Can anyone who already has a known IQ (as tested officially) try it out and tell me how optimistic the test is?

IQ test construction is a process of invention and culling. Nicologic's tests demonstrate the concept of invention of nonverbal test items. Unless statistical analyses show that these tests smoothly and reliably differentiate along some non-zero-length section, the scores obtained on Nicologic's tests cannot, within a statistical worldview, be taken as reliable. Given that it is unlikely Nicologic has access to the resources necessary to cull his tests to a point of smoothly reliable differentiation of test subjects on a parity with professional IQ tests, Nicologic's tests are unlikely to be as reliable as professional IQ tests.

For a more-indepth exploration of the subject of mental test construction, I recommend Arthur Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing.




-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Natchwolf

Please learn to spell my handle, Mr. Robin Parsons.

if you would wish to respond, please, if possible, keep it short...

Hopefully this wasn't too long for you, Mr. Robin Parsons. I look forward to future conversations!

From Nachtwolf's reply we learn that his statement is a prediction (or, being charitable, an unsubstantiated estimate), not an observation.

This is a simple prediction of the genetic component to IQ declining. You are aware that environmental gains can mask genetic declines. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

In fact, we learn from his own website that the data show that IQ is increasing; it's called the Flynn effect, and has apparently been observed in a large number of countries.

And which you learn from my own website seems to be over now. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either.

No support provided by Nachtwolf; questions put to him to show the relevance of these points - in terms of his eugenics proposal - remain unanswered.

I told you in my last post that my time was limited. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either. If you would like me to substantiate these other facts I can of course pull them straight from The Bell Curve. But you don't want me to substantiate them - you want them to disappear. Somehow I suspect that my substantiating them will only result in perfervid denial from you.

Nachtwolf irrelevant

I can't help but be curious - If I'm so irrelevant, why are you so busy responding to me? You seem absolutely desperate to attack and discredit the facts I present here.

The strength of Lynn's work - which presumably underlies Nachtwolf's assertion here - is being discussed on a different thread

Why are you so desperate for me to run around reading your posts on other threads?

I note in passing that Nachtwolf generalises from the US to the whole world, without any data to show that the predictions he makes for the US have any relevance to any country outside the US.

Well I know we have a very strange spelling system over here, but it seems that these "generalizations" are generally borne out no matter which country you generally look at.

Well excuse me, I was under the impression that you were keen to bring your ideas to the attention of PF members, with a desire perhaps to win some converts to the cause?

That is indeed one way of spinning it! But what makes you think I'm so interested in winning you as a "convert?" Either you are reasonable enough to grasp the simple and rather obvious implications of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or you are not. Thus far, you have made every effort to make the facts disappear by picking and poking at irrelevant details, so why don't I strip away the details in order to make this simple and uncomplicated for you:

Any time members with a trait reproduce more than members without that trait, the trait will spread.

If you wish to deny this, feel free - I know lots of people who deny the Theory of Evolution. But is this really what you want to do, Nereid?


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

This is a simple prediction of the genetic component to IQ declining. You are aware that environmental gains can mask genetic declines. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Please get back to us when you've got solid observational data confirming your prediction.

And which you learn from my own website seems to be over now. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either.

Please get back to us when there's a broad consensus that it's "over"; until then we will continue to be able to say "as yet not confirmed by any studies."

If you would like me to substantiate these other facts I can of course pull them straight from The Bell Curve.

Well, it's your choice; but then it's your proposal too.

You seem absolutely desperate to attack and discredit the facts I present here.

I'll be happy to discuss the facts you present. I'm even more interested in seeing how you use facts to support your proposal. So far the facts you have used are either wrong (Lynn's "National IQ" is the main determinant of national per capita incomes), irrelevant (the four points), or unsubstantiated (which you have just admitted, thanks for the honesty).

Well I know we have a very strange spelling system over here, but it seems that these "generalizations" are generally borne out no matter which country you generally look at.

Not everyone yet uses American English; your generalisations may be borne out "no matter which country you generally look at", but as you've not presented any evidence ...

Either you are reasonable enough to grasp the simple and rather obvious implications of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or you are not.

Huh? Where did this come from?? We haven't even started to discuss whether IQ (or g) is a 'trait'; I've been looking at the internal consistency of your proposal, and whether the 'facts' you present are (and if, then the extent to which they support your assertions).

More broadly, I'm keen to look at the 'g-race' claims; however, only hitssquad has posted any data, and his links are dead. To be clear on this, you deferred to hitssquad when I asked you to provide support for your assertions; jerryel has quoted a newspaper ad (from 1994?) which seems to contain one hard data point ... and that's it so far.

To repeat Tsunami: "Well, let’s see… This is a forum is it not? Questions and answers? You make a proposal, we ask questions. How bad can it be to expect an answer from the one who has made the proposal?[/color]"

 

[hitssquad]

Arthur Jensen's *The g Factor* 143399

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm keen to look at the 'g-race' claims; however, only hitssquad has posted any data, and his links are dead.

The Questia link to The g Factor was posted, and it works.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

If you want to know about g and race, The g Factor is the source.


The links to the genetic-linkage diagrams (from Chapter 12 of The g Factor) are now fixed:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=139764#post139764




-Chris

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nachtwolf my apologies if my 'typo' off-ended you, must be a sign of a low IQ, I guess...But could you please use the quotation system properly so we know who you quote...it is quite simple there's a button above the box we all type in, or you could simply type it all out as I attempt to do regularily as it affords me typing practice...and it is practise, that makes you better, not eugenics...

Short is due to a want of something concrete that actually helps people, (AKA 'others') not just your ego...

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by hitssquad The Questia link to The g Factor was posted, and it works.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

[...]

The links to the genetic-linkage diagrams (from Chapter 12 of The g Factor) are now fixed:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=139764#post139764

Thanks Chris. Please see the 'wealth of nations' thread for my initial comments.

 

[Ejderha]

Hello all, (sorry to jump n like this)
The words IQ, genius, clever, brilliant, intelligent, intellectual have different meanings other than their common definitions. And their meanings are changing...Esp. Genius. What does genius mean ? Ok, everybody has an idea. Genius is just a renaissance term. There are some tests prepared to measure people's let's say mental abilities in numbers. Don't you think this is a little bit archaic and unsufficient for our time. Especially if you consider the communication skills a child introduced in his early stages. IQ tests includes some 'patterns' and 'basic mathematical situations' decided to be the basic of all in one, a couple of thousands of years ago actually. Some contains questions, one can only answer if he's a devoted reader of any kind. I don't think it has a point. We start to teach kids Eucledian geometry when they are 6 (at least here) and a history every nation made for themselves.

And the funniest thing is 'National IQ' !?

We live in a Western dominated world. Which's being westernized as the time goes. This is not something wrong or right. And eventually the IQ and its terms are based on the dominant culture.
I see this IQ thing as an industry. Not talking about academic researches, but to try to see our specie from outside -with formulas-doesn't convince me either. Honestly it looks to me a lame excuse to some group of people pointing themselves out. 'I am superior' And every human on this planet would be delighted to learn to be better than the rest. And most of the high IQ clubs looks like high society clubs you can only be a part of it, if you are coming from this or that wealthy family. You know what I am talking about.
In my opinion, being superior is to dare to be sickeningly objective with a passion to understand. To be crazy enough to get infected of any idea and never to be burried in one. So you can do something. Isn't it scientific enough ? Probably not :)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Ejderha
(SNIP)[/color] The words IQ, genius, clever, brilliant, intelligent, intellectual have different meanings other than their common definitions. And their meanings are changing...Esp. Genius. What does genius mean ? Ok, everybody has an idea. Genius is just a renaissance term. (SNoP)[/color]

To take analogy from the present understandings of evolution, on of the pathways is called punctuatd evolution wherein evoloution progresses in a natural pace/speed with punctuation points, or bursts, of activity, Knowlede is a little like that, scientific research paces along, and every so often out pops a person capable of advancing it all a giant step forward, those are the Geniuses of history...the only difference today, is the ability of people to rip off anyone who would be that because they would be unknown (hidden) to/from the general public...if there was one alive, today...

 

[russ_watters]

The IQ->income relationship seems pretty self-evident to me: Higher IQ = higher income. Individually, you can test someone's IQ in childhood and get a pretty good idea if they will succeed.

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship and as a result draws the wrong conclusions as to what the problem is and how it can be fixed.

And that's even before you get into the moral aspects of the proposals.

Nereid, you speculated that Nachtwolf may have a secondary (or rather a hidden primary) objective. I tend to think so and think I know what it is. Disturbing.

 

[selfAdjoint]

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship and as a result draws the wrong conclusions as to what the problem is and how it can be fixed.

The purpose of the research reported in The Bell Curve was to fix the direction of causation. The data set was not ideally perfect, but it was sufficient to show that causation flows from g to ses and income, not the other way around.

 

[hitssquad]

G nexus cause-effect relationship

Originally posted by russ_watters
Individually, you can test someone's IQ in childhood and get a pretty good idea if they will succeed.

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship

What is the nature of the cause-effect relationship?





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

clarification

What I have established - at least until hitssquad et al respond - is that Lynn and Vanhanen's work is deeply flawed, and that they fail to make a case that "National IQs" are a leading cause of either current 'national wealth' (real per capita GDP) or recent economic growth, for the ~60 nations they report on.

It has also been clearly stated - by hitssquad, for example - that Jensen's work on the hereditability of "IQ" (this is shorthand; it's more complex than this) is limited to the US, and further limited to 'blacks' and 'whites'.

I've started a thread to explore some of the fundamental concepts (e.g. 'race', 'population group') here in Social Sciences, and noted that at least some racist claims (as reported in a thread in Biology) are patently false.

Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda - he has a website where it's laid out in some considerable detail. PF readers can judge for themselves how convincingly he presents his proposal, at least here in PF (please take the time to read the threads and posts; there's quite a number of them).

 

[Nachtwolf]

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship

The only thing I'm missing here is where Nereid suddenly became someone who knew what she was talking about when it came to IQ.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Nereid, you speculated that Nachtwolf may have a secondary (or rather a hidden primary) objective. I tend to think so and think I know what it is. Disturbing.

Hidden? What's hidden? My allegiance to a pro-eugenic religion, the symbol of which is my avatar? My design of a pro-eugenic website which I'm constantly linking to, www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm[/url]? My moderator status of a [url=http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/phpBB2/index.php]bulletin board[/URL] devoted to eugenics which I have linked in my sig (and which, I'll add, I invited Nereid to in order that we could discuss the issue where it belonged rather than swamping physicsforums, as you see has occurred)? My being on first name terms with pro-eugenic researchers in the IQ field, like Marian Van Court? My incredible sexual prowess? Well, granted, not everybody knows about that, but I'm quite open about it, really!

If you think this stuff is [i]hidden[/i], I can't help but conclude that you have a poor grasp of the obvious, Russ.


--Mark

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda

There we go; thank you, Nereid.

--Mark

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: The only thing I'm missing here is where Nereid suddenly became someone who knew what she was talking about when it came to IQ.

I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for asking questions, challenging proposals, and refuting assertions.

What rather puzzles me is why you feel the approach you've taken to make and defend your assertions is an effective one. Would you care to share those reasons with us?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
- - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda
- - - - - - - - -
There we go; thank you, Nereid.

You're welcome.

Some answers on your agenda would be nice too, e.g.:

[Nereid:]"Let's take just one of your four points: '[Nachtwolf] IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.[/color]

First, your eugenics proposal aims to save the world ('The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world[/color]') by halting the decline in national IQ (you actually meant g).

*SNIP

Assume your eugenics program was implemented and was successful. Assume that 'National IQ' (or some variant of g) was raised by 40 points; even assume that 'a natural side effect of eugenics is a reduction to the Standard Deviation, which would thus tighten the IQ distribution[/color]'.

In the brave new world, would IQ still be 'a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born?[/color]' Yes it would; there would be no change; the world would be exactly the same."

(From: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12789&perpage=12&pagenumber=6)

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid
Jensen's work on the hereditability of "IQ" (this is shorthand; it's more complex than this) is limited to the US, and further limited to 'blacks' and 'whites'.

It might seem more likely that some of Jensen's conclusions are limited to the U.S.


For example:

--
Cross-Cultural and Cross-Racial Consistency of g. Here we are not referring to differences between groups in the average level of g factor scores, but rather to the similarity of the g factor obtained when different groups are given the same battery of tests. Most of the relevant studies have been reviewed and referenced elsewhere. [13] The general finding, even when quite disparate cultures are included (e.g., North America, Europe, and various Asian and African subpopulations), is that there is a remarkable degree of consistency in the factor structure across different racial and cultural groups. All-positive correlations among ability tests, a large g factor, and most of the well-established primary mental abilities all show up in virtually every cross-cultural factor analysis. The g factor is certainly the most ubiquitous and invariant feature of all these analyses.[/color]
--
(Arthur R. Jensen. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. p87.)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874





-Chris

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

IMHO, this may be one of the places where a distinction between the g-factor and the g-nexus is important. Perhaps it is moving down (genes, race) and up (crime, SES) - or, worse, confusing the three levels - that takes what might otherwise be relatively unexceptional into a swamp full of mines (if you can imagine such a thing).