Significance of 'intelligence' - to the industrial revolution

[NoahAfrican]

The fact that you all can note statistics, point to studies that break statistics down by race, then use statistical theory in regards to mean, averages, standard deviation and other mathematical models and concepts proves NOTHING.

I have no problem accepting the fact that blacks have lower IQ scores and college placement scores. Moreover, I have no problem accepting the fact that the GPA of black high school students are probably lower than most other groupings as well. However, the statistics are not in question, what is in question is the conjecture that is being exposed in regards to the WHY of these statistics.

Honestly, what is the relevance of bringing up the racial breakdown of IQ and test scores, if one is not trying to use that information as the bases for logically deducing or rationalizing other things in regards to races? If any of you think that I would be credulous enough to accept that you are simply presenting science, with no ulterior motive, I will disappoint you.

Humans, as most other animals live in social structures centered on rank. Rank is paramount in competitive constructs. Thus, for humans to say that their individual rank or team/group/race/tribe rank is not of psychological importance is likely void of self introspection of their own humanity. Certainly it varies from one degree or another, but all humans are conscious of rank or status, which is a relative phenomenon that can only be gauged by juxtaposing with others. Consequently, these studies on IQ simply give rationalization of the current order of the world, which is essentially white domination. Thus, one can rationalize the poverty of the masses of blacks and other non whites to be the produce of inferiority, while ignoring the history of imperialism, colonization, slavery and cold war geopolitics which adversely affected blacks and other non white peoples.

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect. It did not measure my genetic intellect. I know this for a FACT. I cannot speak in regards to others experiences or extrapolate my experience to be true for all. However, the fact that these test were an invalid means of measuring my genetic intelligence level, leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority. You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…because your thinking falls directly in line with the racist ratings of my parents generation, their parents engraftation and so on and so forth. What makes you folks who rationalize these things any different from the folks who did in the 1800’s? They used state of the Art science to come to their conclusion and studies and so are you. The truth is that there is little difference. The only likely difference is in emotions. Many of you might not accompany your theories of black genetic inferiority with any hatred, where as in the past…most racist were guilty of being emotional, as well as rational, racist.

The primary reason that people hate to be called racist is simple. It is born from the phenomenon captured in the old adage “The truth HURTS”.

Furthermore, stating ones group indentity (white Christian) does not give one any more credibility in regards to ones motives. In fact, given the history of whites and christians in regards to the slave trade...stating that you are a member of these groupings my hurt your credibility more than help it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well there are two reasons for studying differential IQ distributions in society. One is that they are a demonastrable, and objective, fact, and we ought to sit down before a fact like a little child. The other is that understanding it prevents policy disasters like the No Child Left Behind Act. Here is the shorter NCLB: We will give all the schoolchildren a heavily g-loaded test. And if any school's pupils score below average on that test, it is the school's fault, and the school will be punished, by being denied funds. The framers of that act refused to believe that there was any inherent reason why one population would score lower than another, except bad teaching. We are now reaping the whirlwind that this blindness sowed.

 

[Prometheus]

Well there are two reasons for studying differential IQ distributions in society. One is that they are a demonastrable, and objective, fact,

I wonder what you mean by objective. Are you saying that IQ tests provide an objective measure of absolute intelligence, or that they provide a useful guide even though the inherent bias is not well understood?

 

[Prometheus]

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect. It did not measure my genetic intellect.

I am not disagreeing with you. Could you elaborate as to what you mean by genetic intellect.

leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority.

I place little value on tests that claim to determine the genetic inferiority of blacks. It is not that I consider that they are wrong in an absolute sense, but that they are right only within a narrow context of use which is typically not recognized or exagerated.

You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…because your thinking falls directly in line with the racist ratings of my parents generation, their parents engraftation and so on and so forth.

Surely you must recognize that when you claim that those who have opinions that are different from you are racist, you do not promote respect for your ideas or forward your cause. Not everyone is a racist. Since you are the one who is calling so many others a racist, my only conclusion is that either you are extremely defensive, or that you are a racist. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that word.

 

[Mandrake]

Honestly, what is the relevance of bringing up the racial breakdown of IQ and test scores, if one is not trying to use that information as the bases for logically deducing or rationalizing other things in regards to races?

Some people have an interest in understanding human behavior as a science, not as an emotion. There are large variances in human performance in virtually every category, from lung capacity, to muscular strength, and on to many other factors, including _g_. We can seek to find the root causes of these things or we can try to intimidate those who seek truth. It is obvious that you have thought about this and made a choice.

Consequently, these studies on IQ simply give rationalization of the current order of the world, which is essentially white domination.

That seems to be the way things have turned out. It is very difficult to imagine how a group can dominate another group when the former has not met the demands of developing the important features of modern civilization.

Thus, one can rationalize the poverty of the masses of blacks and other non whites to be the produce of inferiority, while ignoring the history of imperialism, colonization, slavery and cold war geopolitics which adversely affected blacks and other non white peoples.

The above comment seems very restrictive and lacking in world perspective. There has been no slavery in the US since 1865, yet slavery has been practiced as recently as the 1940s by both Germany and Japan. Before slavery was seen in the US, it was commonly practiced throughout much of the world, especially in Europe. The experience of slavery in the US has been a minor piece of the history of slavery. The primary outcome of US slavery has been that it resulted in an admix of 25% white genetic composition for US blacks, which has translated into a significantly higher mean IQ for US blacks than is found in Sub-Saharan nations. However reprehensible slavery was in the US, the long term impact of it has been the largest IQ boost that has been recorded for any population group.

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect.

How do you know this? Are you a psychometrician? If not, can you direct us to any psychometric papers which show that any standard IQ test "mostly measures formally learned intellect?" (Whatever that is supposed to mean.) Intelligence cannot be learned. IQ tests can be degraded by study, but the effect is not one of increased intelligence; it simply causes an increased _s_ loading, which amounts to a lowered test validity, since that causes the _g_ loading to decrease.

It did not measure my genetic intellect.

How did you determine that? The value of h^2 by late adolescence is about 70% and increases to about 80% late in life. The remaining variance is divided between environmental factors and error. Of the environmental factors, virtually all are due to the micro environment and are chemical and biological in nature.

I know this for a FACT.

Your emphasis on "fact" does nothing to increase the validity of your assertion. How do you know this? If you really know it as a fact, this would be good material for a peer reviewed psychometric journal, since it would represent a new finding.

However, the fact that these test were an invalid means of measuring my genetic intelligence level, leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority.

Do you mind listing the tests in question by name? We should know if they are standard IQ tests or something else. What means did you use to determine what they were measuring? What means did you use to determine your "genetic intelligence?" Are the procedures you used for these two determinations standard within psychometric science, or known only to you?

You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…

Yes. Please call anyone a racist. It will intimidate some and not others. In any case, it adds nothing to the discussion and does not establish that you have any grounding in the assertions you wish to advance.

Many of you might not accompany your theories of black genetic inferiority with any hatred, where as in the past…most racist were guilty of being emotional, as well as rational, racist.

When logic and knowledge fail, the best nest step is to resort to name calling. It does not require any proof or defense. Can you think of some additional insults to make your rant even more effective?

The primary reason that people hate to be called racist is simple. It is born from the phenomenon captured in the old adage “The truth HURTS”.

Perhaps the primary reason people use name calling is that they lack any other means of communication. In this case the issue is indeed about truth. It apparently hurts you so much that it drives you into a frenzy of name calling. Were you sweating when you wrote the "racist" remarks?

 

[Mandrake]

I place little value on tests that claim to determine the genetic inferiority of blacks. It is not that I consider that they are wrong in an absolute sense, but that they are right only within a narrow context of use which is typically not recognized or exagerated.

Intelligence is best represented by _g_. Virtually all of the external validity of IQ tests comes from their _g_ loading. What we know about _g_ is that it correlates strongly with various physiological conditions: nerve conduction velocity, pH, brain volume (and more specifically we now can see that particular areas of the brain are the actors and that their volumes correlate strongly with _g_), myelination, and information intake speed. These factors influence working memory which is now known (seen the most recent issue of the journal Intelligence) is predicted almost perfectly by _g_. All of the physiological measurements are seen between the population groups that are known to differ in mean IQ scores.

It is possible to measure _g_ by elementary cognitive tests (which are based on response time chronometrics), with a result that correlates as well with standard IQ tests as those tests correlate with each other. It is likewise possible to determine _g_ by electroencephalography using several different techniques and with similar accuracy. Both of these techniques are essentially passive, not subject to practice effects, and are totally blind to all social factors.

 

[Evo]

Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it. It would be foolish to restart the endless postings, it gets nowhere.

There is truth on both sides and only looking at one side will not give you the whole truth.

When people try to go against people using "science" as a weapon, I have a problem with it.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

I’m so sorry but I think that NoahAfrica is totally right with his argumentation.
With less knowledge and effort he has shown that he has understand more then all his opponents.

To come back to the historical path:

All the developments witch have been mentioned were made in a area witch is much larger then the Are of Africa witch was Information-Isolate from the rest of the world. So it would be a very big surprise if they were as developed in the culture as we are.

The only Parts of the world we can compare are Africa and America… And you see that they were nearly at the same level. ( Just for fun: After the white destroyed The Incas, Mayas and Aztecs they were it certainly. Perhaps because the with thought they haven’t invented the wheel… )

 

[marcus]

Well there are two reasons for studying differential IQ distributions in society. One is that they are a demonstrable, and objective, fact, and we ought to sit down before a fact like a little child. The other is that understanding it prevents policy disasters like the No Child Left Behind Act. Here is the shorter NCLB: We will give all the schoolchildren a heavily g-loaded test. And if any school's pupils score below average on that test, it is the school's fault, and the school will be punished, by being denied funds. The framers of that act refused to believe that there was any inherent reason why one population would score lower than another, except bad teaching. We are now reaping the whirlwind that this blindness sowed.

there is truth and morality here
it reminded me of something which is a little off topic
I'm thinking of two wonderful people who used to be in my chorus 5 years ago until they moved----a man and his wife and they both sang tenor, which is so important nowadays.

the man is a cagy little guy, very smart, and he devised a series of games for innercity Oakland (which means black) schoolkids to play which essentially prepare you to do well on IQ tests. In his retirement now, he is very active and always getting grants and also being directly hired to come into schools to take over a class and teach the children to play the games.
When he told me about this 3 or 4 years back he never said "IQ test prep game" he said a game "to teach them how to think".
When he goes into a class he trains some of the children to teach others the game and then he personally goes and works with the 4 or 7 or howevermany real tough cases. And he is so good that he claims that
he gets as much measureable improvement in the tough cases as his
trainees get with the rest.

I didnt make the connection until this moment. The NCLB act is fundamental to this business. It makes the schools want to hire a special "thinking coach" essentially to beat the test. but it could have a real productive spinoff for the kids (as well as the school principal who is protecting his/her bottom)

PS everybody I am staying hors de combat (having had blackeyes enough) I am not saying anything about why or whether there is room for testscore improvement in the local schools. I am just saying this guy saw a really good business opportunity which also does good for society---and i was too dumb to understand the NCLB angle at the time. When was that passed?

[edit: I should not say IQ test, I should say "heavily g-loaded test"]

 

[marcus]

why can't PF simply ban all talk of race-related IQ scores?

I don't know if I am playing Devil's advocate or whether it's a real question.

Selbtsueberschaetzung------self-overestimation
did they not let you put the N in your name?

why is the N missing?
--------

have to think some more about that deviladvocate question

 

[Mandrake]

Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it.

I am very impressed with your foresight and throughness. Can you provide me with links to your insightful refutations of chronometric and electroencephalography measurements? Thank you.

 

[marcus]

... I am white and of Christian background. I view with equinamity and even pleasure the fact that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ didributions than my folks do. I feel that high IQ people have a duty to support low IQ people , whatever "variety" or "subtype" they belong to. One of the warmest relationships I've ever had was with a Down syndrome individual.

This person or voice in this post is issuing a moral challenge. Can I marcus honestly say that I am glad that Ashkenazi average smarter than my folks and more successful in the professions. No I cannot. I cannot today rise to that challenge. Quite frankly I can understand a half-civilized German peasant resenting it and wanting them to die because they were smarter. Approve? No. Understand? Yes. The challenge is to rise above all resentment.

Furthermore, stating ones group identity (white Christian) does not give one any more credibility in regards to ones motives. In fact, given the history of whites and christians in regards to the slave trade...stating that you are a member of these groupings my hurt your credibility more than help it.

We all know this resentful half-civilized German peasant and he is not only German. He could be a Redneck or an African, whatever. He could live in California like me. He could even be inside me. He talks resentfully for days on end. He does not notice that he has been given a moral challenge. He thinks the other has asked for credibility. The other tribe is hated. The other tribe must die. Nothing changes. Man remains the same.

BTW Mandrake, Evo is my friend and whatever she says goes double.
Screw people who harp on IQ scores and race.
I am going to pay attention to dogs and forget about all this.

 

[NoahAfrican]

I don’t give a fart if people discredit my thoughts because I call out racism when I see it, Prometheus, or whomever made that point. The only people you have a problem with others noting racism are generally the ones guilty of some degree of it. You think that I am going to let people put down the black people of this world on the bases of some kind of science that NONE of the people on this forum can reproduce the resultant of these studies independently? You must be out of your mind.

I would like someone…anyone, who is a proponent and advocate of the rationalization of genetic black intellectual inferiority to explain to me how they are different from the known racist of the past who did exactly the same thing? You don’t have to own a black save to be a racist you know…that seems to be the modern standard for determining whose a racist. By the current standards, no white person in the USA is racist because they currently do not own any slaves. A racist is like a pedophile…they will never admit to what they are…and if you start talking about pedophiles around pedophiles…watch them get defensive.

Some of you even have the audacity to question my ability to know what I have learned formally. I remember one IQ test question that ultimately created a story problem that resulted in a right triangle. Thus, I had to employ Pythagorean theorem to figure out the resultant. Now, please, where are all the studies that show Pythagoreans theorem to be an inherited part of genetic memory and not the product of learned intellect. That is total BS. I could not have answered that question in the allotted time had in not BEEN TRAINED.

There it is right there. That is what I meant by genetic intelligence. Genetic intelligence meaning the capacity for cognitive reasoning and pattern recognition that comes from ones genetic code. That differs from TRAINED intellect, that is the product of formal education and training. What?

 

[marcus]

I don’t give a fart if people discredit my thoughts because I call out racism when I see it, Prometheus, or whomever made that point. The only people you have a problem with others noting racism are generally the ones guilty of some degree of it. You think that I am going to let people put down the black people of this world on the bases of some kind of science that NONE of the people on this forum can reproduce the resultant of these studies independently? You must be out of your mind.

I would like someone…anyone, who is a proponent and advocate of the rationalization of genetic black intellectual inferiority to explain to me how they are different from the known racist of the past who did exactly the same thing? You don’t have to own a black save to be a racist you know…that seems to be the modern standard for determining whose a racist. By the current standards, no white person in the USA is racist because they currently do not own any slaves. A racist is like a pedophile…they will never admit to what they are…and if you start talking about pedophiles around pedophiles…watch them get defensive.

this is ridiculous. I could well be the only one listening to you. I love it when you talk about farting and pedophiles
but it is boring when you go on about IQ and race.

I think people should stop talking about IQ and race because its boring.
Mandrake especially. But you too Noah.

As far as farts go, I don't give a fart if you give a fart,
but let's talk some more about pedophiles

 

[NoahAfrican]

Thanks for your obviously subjective analysis of what is ridiculous. I am sure your opinion is the benchmark standard setter for all human kind

 

[Nereid]

I've not been looking in on this thread as much as should have, and it's gone way off track from where I was hoping this thread would go; things which have happened since the Industrial Revolution are, of course, very interesting and well worth discussing, but I had hoped to limit discussion in this thread to times before then.

For example, if you think that the people in some social, or population, group somewhere in the world, in (say) 500 AD, or 1500 BC, had a higher or lower intelligence than some other group, I'm interested in a) how you would go about forming a hypothesis and testing it, and b) what existing research programs would assist.

 

[Evo]

I am very impressed with your foresight and throughness. Can you provide me with links to your insightful refutations of chronometric and electroencephalography measurements? Thank you.

Actually, those were addressed in another thread. If you look, you will find them.

For example, if you think that the people in some social, or population, group somewhere in the world, in (say) 500 AD, or 1500 BC, had a higher or lower intelligence than some other group, I'm interested in a) how you would go about forming a hypothesis and testing it, and b) what existing research programs would assist.

Interesting challenge Neried.

There are so many variables to consider in comparing different groups of people, necessity would be a major driver, available materials would be another. Let me think about this.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I personally don't think there was much difference in IQ, certainly not at the population level. The few who made the industrial revolution, Newcombe and Watt, the handful who pioneered accurate machine tools, and so on were at the one in a million level; you would have a very hard time deducing the population IQ distribution from them. They caused a tipping point, after which further developments could be achieved by much less extraordinary minds.

Even evolutionary psychologists lay more stress on cultural factors than genetic ones in explaning why Europe took off and China, for example, did not.

 

[Nereid]

I personally don't think there was much difference in IQ, certainly not at the population level. The few who made the industrial revolution, Newcombe and Watt, the handful who pioneered accurate machine tools, and so on were at the one in a million level; you would have a very hard time deducing the population IQ distribution from them. They caused a tipping point, after which further developments could be achieved by much less extraordinary minds.

Even evolutionary psychologists lay more stress on cultural factors than genetic ones in explaning why Europe took off and China, for example, did not.

This is kinda like what I have been thinking, and my intention was (is!) to explore this the four parts - how did agriculture and animal husbandry get started? what were the key factors behind the development of social groups once agriculture was well established? what role did 'intelligence' play in these developments? An important factor is, of course, the extent to which change in a population happened independently of what was happening in other populations. For this reason, once Europeans reached the Americas, Australia, etc, independent local history stopped. Much earlier, similar independent local histories also stopped, e.g. when agriculture spread across Eurasia (e.g. from the Levant east and west; from China west).

Unfortunately, my reading isn't keeping up with how fast just two of the threads are unfolding, and I haven't even started the really big one yet

 

[Evo]

Evo is my friend

marcus, you honor me.

 

[marcus]

marcus, you honor me.

Of course, that is what I meant to do.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

@Marcus: Sorry I just had forgotten to put the N in my Name.

@Nereid: Perhaps you questions are not so complicated to answer as we could hope for:

I would say in the communication-network of Eurasia it was simply a time and religion problem.

More time was better to develop the Civilizin, more Religion worse. The Egyptians had, to give a example, food to have free time but they spend it with religion witch had to be done to put the empire together. The Greeks (to give an other example) were the commercial competitors of the Egyptians and wanted to be different from them. But they also had less use to spend so much time in put their state together because of the barbarians, and other Greek-States which made that in state of Religion. Therefore it was more important to put the free time in new thoughts most of them were made to give the geeks a direct advantage (weapons, tactics and so on)….

 

[marcus]

The few who made the industrial revolution, Newcombe and Watt, the handful who pioneered accurate machine tools, and so on were at the one in a million level... They caused a tipping point, after which further developments could be achieved by much less extraordinary minds.
...

If you say this, then you should celebrate Columbus Day this October.

the quality that Einstein had a lot of was not intelligence but independence of mind.

what made Watt one in a million was not his IQ

there were men in China with more IQ than Watt, no doubt. And I would guess they were mandarin bureaucrats in service to the Emperor.

Forget about accidents like Climate or Geography or the Historical Need for a Steam Engine or some lucky Rabbits Foot of Westernism.

the quality that Columbus had a lot of was not intelligence but independence of mind.

the stubborn misfit originality Kepler had to beat his head against
the wall until he made the planets fit their tracks
was more than enough to cause the Industrial Revolution and
everyone in the world would celebrate Columbus Day if they knew
what was good for them.

After that one discovery, of a whole other continent, Europe did
not look back. they knew anything was possible and they got busy
imagining it. Davinci dreamed of going to the moon.
Of course everybody did that. Huygens sketched a gunpowder powered
internal combustion piston engine, long before Watt. He schemed of flying and perfected the telescope. Everyone knew the planets were inhabited and Bruno went so far as to declare that the stars had planets with people on them. That was too far as it turned out.

In such a climate why wouldn't some canny Scots build a steam engine?

If the Chinese had had someone like Columbus with enough imagination
to sail across the Pacific and come back and tell them "there's a whole other continent over there and the Kingdom you thought was in the Middle really isn't," well...probably some Chinese would have built a steam engine too.

(they had windmills and blast furnaces etc etc and bigger oceangoing ships and got to Africa circa 1350 etc etc they just didnt have anyone with the audacity that reached epidemic proportions in Europe after 1492)

the quality that Galileo had wasn't "one in a million" IQ it was audacity and determination. Guts. So celebrate Columbus Day on October 11.

We owe that guy a lot.

 

[hitssquad]

Face validity vs practical validity in the employment of scientific instruments

The problem emanated in going from the abstract to the formal education and culturally biased questions used as the conduit. The less biased question were the ones which did not use words, but rather, pictures or numbers.

Test bias and cultural loading are not directly related concepts. A test might be highly culture loaded and still be low on bias if it is applied to a population familiar with the culture corresponding to the test.

Still, If you take a bushman from Kenya who has never been formally educated about number and math, despite having a high IQ, such an individual would not recognize the mathematical patterns, because the concept is foreign to his or her environment.

In that case the test in question might be inappropriate for the population in question. Inappropriate matching of test to population would result in poor test predictiveness and, ultimately, low criterion validity and low practical validity. Either a test written (or revised, as has been done in some cases with the Wechslers and Stanford-Binets) with the local culture in mind should be used, or a culture-reduced test should be used, in order to assure high criterion validity and practical validity.

In essence, the IQ test measures one formal education, culture, environment and the ability to recognize the patterns that manifest their of.

An "ability to recognize the patterns..." would be a mental ability. As far as they measure g, IQ tests do not measure individual mental abilities at all (g being a common factor of abilities and not itself an ability).

This whole TESTING as a means of measuring aptitude and capacities is almost completely bogus.

Yet, "The g factor (and highly g-loaded test scores, such as the IQ) shows a more far-reaching and universal practical validity than any other coherent psychological construct yet discovered." (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p270. Chapter 9: The Practical Validity of g.)

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

I read the preview of capture nine: I’m sure that’s very correct what is written.

But I can tell you: If you are doing well in school and job, you aren’t coactive more intelligent then others. This I know to well because I have it to do with good students in my live. Actually the stuff witch is learned in schools is not more then an extended IQ test and facts witch can be learned with just a good memory. But that’s not a surprise: the primal-IQ-Test was invented around 1900 to do just that and not more.

 

[Mandrake]

Actually, those were addressed in another thread. If you look, you will find them.

I have used the search feature to read your past posts. I did this because of your dismissive boast. I did not find anything from you which addressed these two items. Do you understand them and have you actually addressed them as you implied?

FWIW, I will post more concerning what I found when reading your posts. Your boast suggested that you were knowledgeable and had actually taken on and discredited the entire field of psychometrics. You didn't. What I found was that you offered a lot of confrontation, to the point of badgering some people. It appears that I am your latest target. I noted that your comments were not based on deep knowledge of the subject material nor on broad knowledge of the literature. Are my observations correct, or do you think you are really an expert in psychometrics?

I was unable to find even one message from you that added constructively to the thread in which it was posted.

 

[marcus]

Everybody should shut up about intelligence and celebrate Columbus Day.

 

[Evo]

I have used the search feature to read your past posts. I did this because of your dismissive boast. I did not find anything from you which addressed these two items. Do you understand them and have you actually addressed them as you implied?

They were addressed. It started with a discussion about brain scans. Hitssquad may remember it. Hitssquad is a good example of someone that can post his information without making denigrating statements about a population. I often do not agree with him, but I admire him.

FWIW, I will post more concerning what I found when reading your posts. Your boast suggested that you were knowledgeable and had actually taken on and discredited the entire field of psychometrics. You didn't. What I found was that you offered a lot of confrontation, to the point of badgering some people. It appears that I am your latest target. I noted that your comments were not based on deep knowledge of the subject material nor on broad knowledge of the literature. Are my observations correct, or do you think you are really an expert in psychometrics?

I said that the information you had posted in this thread, I had already countered in other threads, this is true. Yes, I regret losing my temper with some people, but I have changed. I'm not targeting you, I'm letting you know that so far everything you've mentioned has all been mentioned before, repeatedly, and it's tiresome, which is why I am not reposting rebuttals. I don't have much faith in psychometrics.

You are continuing to take this thread off topic.

 

[hitssquad]

Working memory capacity as a predictor of g

These factors influence working memory which is now known (seen the most recent issue of the journal Intelligence) is predicted almost perfectly by _g_.

Are you referring to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236546%232004%23999679995%23514457%23FLA%23Volume_32,_Issue_4,_Pages_321-430_(July_-_August_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000029364&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=576687&md5=d69aa2c7d7c5d6b98acb2fe3a8355fb2 article?:

• The restriction of the models to working memory as single predictor led to an insufficient result.

Karl Schweizer and Helfried Moosbrugger. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence. Volume 32, Issue 4 , July-August 2004, Pages 329-347.

 

[Mandrake]

Are you referring to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236546%232004%23999679995%23514457%23FLA%23Volume_32,_Issue_4,_Pages_321-430_(July_-_August_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000029364&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=576687&md5=d69aa2c7d7c5d6b98acb2fe3a8355fb2 article?:

• The restriction of the models to working memory as single predictor led to an insufficient result.

Karl Schweizer and Helfried Moosbrugger. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence. Volume 32, Issue 4 , July-August 2004, Pages 329-347.

No. That issue of Intelligence has not arrived in the mail (here at least) yet. The paper in question is from the prior issue, starting on page 277: "Working Memory is (Almost) Perfectly Predicted by _g_"

BTW, I am happy to see that someone here is actually reading the literature and actually knows the subject. There is no shortage of opinions and inane beliefs when it comes to the subject of intelligence, as we found out when The Bell Curve was published. All of the liberal journalists and uninformed PC people immediately attacked it, often without reading more than a few lines from Chapter 13. In reviewing the comments from Evo, I see that she is among those who think they can dismiss the book without first understanding it. I have posted a thread of questions for her and would like to add questions pertaining to her comments about the book. It may be hoping for a lot to imagine that she has actually read it (all of it) and surely asking too much to expect that she has done the same for The _g_ Factor. I don't see how anyone could have read The _g_ Factor (assuming that they understand what they read) and then proceed to admonish the science of psychometrics.