Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!

[mixed_biscuits]

And what does 'savant' mean? Is it not just an extreme example of someone who exhibits a type of intelligence the workings of which general intelligence can not understand?

It's not that 'general intelligence' can't 'understand' savants - g would just not have the same predictive power (which it does with the vast majority).

 

[noel emits]

You said 'intellectual capacity is by no means the only aspect of intelligence.'

What other aspects of intelligence are there?

Conceptual/verbal reasoning is not the only function of intelligence. I don't need to explain what other types of intelligence there are as much as you need to explain how there is only one kind.

I see no-one wants to take up the training-for-IQ-test challenge. :slanted:

How is this useful? Are there not 'nurture' aspects to how mental capacity develops? And why 40 points?

 

[noel emits]

It's not that 'general intelligence' can't 'understand' savants - g would just not have the same predictive power (which it does with the vast majority).

Predictive power to predict what? Performance to certain very limitedly defined standards?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Conceptual/verbal reasoning is not the only function of intelligence. I don't need to explain what other types of intelligence there are as much as you need to explain how there is only one kind.

Fine, don't explain them - just remind me of them.

How is this useful? Are there not 'nurture' aspects to how mental capacity develops? And why 40 points?

Well, the truth is I don't think a 10 point rise would be feasible, either. Just that, if you believe that intellectual capacity is mutable or its measurement a social game, then it should be easy to either a) change one's capacity or b) learn the rules of the game.

As far as I can tell, undernurturing has an effect on IQ (negative, obv); 'overnurturing'/hothousing much less so.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Predictive power to predict what? Performance to certain very limitedly defined standards?

Performance in all intellectual tasks.

Remember g is a statistical construct that may or may not be relating to something concrete (brain size, concentration of glial cells, whatever).

 

[noel emits]

Performance in all intellectual tasks.

Remember g is a statistical construct that may or may not be relating to something concrete (brain size, concentration of glial cells, whatever).

But again, how are these 'intellectual tasks' defined and measured? And again, how is that all there is? Do we place no value on emotional or physical intelligence? Poetic intelligence? Do 'intuitive' functions that cannot be measure by analytical intelligence have no value? These are just examples.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligence is a function of how a system interacts with it's environment.

An IQ test is usually a measurement of how a person interacts with a piece of paper on a desk.

Does this not make it clear how limiting it is?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But again, how are these 'intellectual tasks' defined and measured? And again, how is that all there is? Do we place no value on emotional or physical intelligence? Poetic intelligence? Do 'intuitive' functions that cannot be measure by analytical intelligence have no value? These are just examples.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligence is a function of how a system interacts with it's environment.

An IQ test is usually a measurement of how a person interacts with a piece of paper on a desk.

Does this not make it clear how limiting it is?

Poetic, emotional and physical intelligence all correlate positively with g. Writing good poetry is intellectually demanding. Social sensitivity and understanding correlates positively with g. Physical performance is probably mainly a function of innate motor ability and practice, but doubtless a base level of intellectual capacity is required to excel (which is why there are separate competitions for very low-IQ competitors).

Intuition is more to do with crystallised intelligence (ie the application of experience). However, the wisdom with which one applies the lessons of experience (other things being equal) probably correlates with g (fluid intelligence).

 

[Mr. Tea]

the following 2 quotes exhibit "superficial" surface differences that are ENTIRELY the products of culture and environment. the big, common mistake is to confuse such noticeable surface differences with something much deeper. and the racist agenda uses these frivolous differences to construct their idea of race as something fundamental, which it isn't.

Yes, exactly: they're products of the environment, as all evolutionary adaptation is.
When you talk about "something much deeper", I'm not too clear on what you mean by that. If you think I'm trying to say that you and I are 'different species' or something because (for example) I might be better able to digest milk proteins than you...well, that would ridiculous, and of course I don't think that. As I explained a few posts ago, humans (despite certain overall racial distinctions, which as you say, are superficial) are much more genetically homogenous than any of the other primates. (Edit: in fact there is so little genetic variation, relatively speaking, that some evolutionary geneticists think that some time after H. sapiens sapiens emerged as a distinct subspecies, we were nearly wiped out and the whole human population of the world (i.e. of some corner of central Africa, probably) was reduced to a tiny group, perhaps just a couple of thousand individuals, and that all humans alive today are descendents of these 'Noah's ark' survivors.)

I'd like to ask two questions of the no-such-thing-as-race contingent: one, what do you actually mean by race? (since I think we could be talking about different things here, and there may well be a bit of straw-man-construction going on, namely the word 'race' being loaded with a lot of outdated connotations) and two: what scientific evidence is there for there being 'no such thing as race'?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Ah, so that's why the Right are so thick (and racializing), evolutionary speaking ...

Monkeys strike for better rewards

Our hairy relatives also know when they are being exploited, reports Roger Highfield

Humans aren't the only ones who go on strike when they get a raw deal.

Capuchin monkeys would go on strike if they felt hard done-by. In a recent research project, brown capuchin monkeys trained to exchange a granite token for a cucumber treat often refused the swap if they saw another monkey get a better payoff - a grape.

The monkeys would also throw tantrums or sulk because they feel hard done by.

In a follow up study to find out how much the outbursts were driven by greed, frustration that the rewards did not live up to what they had come to expect and so on, it has now been observed that the monkeys will also refuse to participate in trials after they see other monkeys receiving greater reward for making the same effort: in effect - they go on strike.​

Also:

Capuchins prove we are brothers under the skin

US police force to recruit capuchin monkey for 'intelligence' work
By Tom Leonard in New York

An American police force is planning to sign up a monkey to reinforce its elite special operations team.

Capuchins will be issued with radios and cameras. Members of the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) unit in Mesa, Arizona, believe that a capuchin monkey, dressed in a bullet-proof jacket and equipped with a two-way radio and video camera, could prove an invaluable reconnaissance tool.

[ ... ]

He said the monkeys, which weigh only 3-8lb and whose puzzle-solving skills are enhanced by tiny, dexterous human-like hands, could unlock doors, search buildings and find injured people upon command.

Their size could allow them into places that officers and robots could not reach, such as attic rafters, he said. "Everybody laughs about it until they really start thinking about it. It would change the way we do business."
​

And Change IQ tests too ... the Capuchin IQ Test: beats humans every time.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But has a monkey ever gone on strike for the right to retire at 50?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7051887.stm

 

[nomadologist]

A ten point rise is certainly feasible on an IQ test...I've been IQ tested several times, more than 5 or 6 that I remember, and you certainly can/do get better with repeated takings, especially if you practice with the most popular/standard IQ tests (sanford-binet, etc). Most people who are tested regularly have a range--even on one test it is perfectly feasible that a person could score within a 30-50 range, especially with x-factors like sleepiness, irritability, general level of hydration/nurishment, etc weighing heavily on a person's performance.

Anyway, Mixed_Biscuit claims there is some "g" factor to which IQ correlates, but I'd love to see any valid statistical claim to the effect that there is a "g" at all. Because there isn't and I wouldn't be surprised if you *couldn't* correlate IQ to one factor--such are pesky "irreducible" notions like "intelligence."

 

[nomadologist]

I'd like to ask two questions of the no-such-thing-as-race contingent: one, what do you actually mean by race? (since I think we could be talking about different things here, and there may well be a bit of straw-man-construction going on, namely the word 'race' being loaded with a lot of outdated connotations) and two: what scientific evidence is there for there being 'no such thing as race'?

I don't "mean" anything by "race" because the term is MEANINGLESS as anything but a socially constructed set of identity norms (or a way to classify people based solely on their skin color/a couple of facial features).

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't "mean" anything by "race" because the term is MEANINGLESS as anything but a socially constructed set of identity norms (or a way to classify people based solely on their skin color/a couple of facial features).

Are you telling me that it's "socially construted" that most people born in Norway are white and most people born in Kenya are black? Or are you going to admit that maybe, PERHAPS, POSSIBLY genetics has something to do with the way people look? Because that's what I mean by "race", nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to advocate treating white Norwegians and black Kenyans differently, or giving them different rights, well that makes them a racist idiot, doesn't it? But pretending that it's "socially constructed" to notice that people from different parts of the world look different is idiotic, too.

 

[turtles]

Are you telling me that it's "socially construted" that most people born in Norway are white and most people born in Kenya are black? Or are you going to admit that maybe, PERHAPS, POSSIBLY genetics has something to do with the way people look? Because that's what I mean by "race", nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to advocate treating white Norwegians and black Kenyans differently, or giving them different rights, well that makes them a racist idiot, doesn't it? But pretending that it's "socially constructed" to notice that people from different parts of the world look different is idiotic, too.

But why do you need to use the word "race" to describe the difference in skin pigmentations between different people? Why do you see different skin colours and a couple other physical features and say "i will call this race"? Why don't you consider short red-heads a race, or tall left-handed blue-eyed people? They certainly share physical characteristics that are genetically linked.

Edit: not to imply that left-handedness and eye-colour are genetically linked to each other, just that each trait is passed on genetically

 

[mixed_biscuits]

A ten point rise is certainly feasible on an IQ test...I've been IQ tested several times, more than 5 or 6 that I remember, and you certainly can/do get better with repeated takings, especially if you practice with the most popular/standard IQ tests (sanford-binet, etc). Most people who are tested regularly have a range--even on one test it is perfectly feasible that a person could score within a 30-50 range, especially with x-factors like sleepiness, irritability, general level of hydration/nurishment, etc weighing heavily on a person's performance.

Yeah, you're probably right about being able to improve - that's why people aren't meant to take the same kind of test within a short period of time.

People could underperform for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that the ceiling of their ability changes.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Okay, in the interests of undermining my own argument and embarrassing myself, I'm going to slog my way through all the aptitude tests I can find and get wildly different marks in each.

Here's the tests wot I've done so far:

MENSA (age 10): 138
11+: pass
private school entrance exam (age 11): 1st/120 = 140+ (?)
BBC 'Test the Nation' (supposedly set by MENSA) - first two tests: 136+

Internet stuff:
http://iqtest.dk/main.swf (Ravens Progressive Matrices stylee): 109
http://www.intershop.it/testqi/testqi1/iqtest1.htm (Ravens again, but taken second): 126 (practice effect? - matrices are a pain in the ass )
http://www.iqtest.com free test: 151 (hmm beginning to get a bit of a spread here)
http://uk.tickle.com/test/iq/intro.html 140
http://www.intelligencetest.com 135 (apparently = 137 Stanford-Binet; 156 Cattell)
http://www.testcafe.com/iqtest/iqfree.cgi 162 (speed test!)

Feel free to send on any links, even matrices!

 

[Mr. Tea]

But why do you need to use the word "race" to describe the difference in skin pigmentations between different people? Why do you see different skin colours and a couple other physical features and say "i will call this race"? Why don't you consider short red-heads a race, or tall left-handed blue-eyed people? They certainly share physical characteristics that are genetically linked.

Edit: not to imply that left-handedness and eye-colour are genetically linked to each other, just that each trait is passed on genetically

Mainly because there is (AFAIK) no geographical correlation to left-handedness. And while there is a geographical correlation to features like red hair and blue eyes, there has never (in historical times, at least) been an identifiable group of people who all have red hair or blue eyes. Whereas all people native to Europe have pale skin, all people native to Japan have straight, dark hair and so on and so forth. So I guess what I mean by 'race' is "a collection of hereditary physical characteristics shared by all people who originate from a certain part of the world (that is not shared by others)". I mean, it's patently obvious that this is the case, isn't it? If other people think I meant something different by the word, then I'm sorry for causing confusion - but that's all I mean, and nothing more.

Edit: turtles, why are you so keen not to use the word 'race'? Is it simply because it's become a politically incorrect word, since people tend to associate it with racism?

 

[noel emits]

Yeah - we are just arguing over the definition of a word that some people feel has become too problematic to use. I hate this bloody oversensitivity, it makes me want to crack the most offensive jokes.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

http://www.switchbackfair.co.uk/2004/iq_test.php

*chortle*

 

[vimothy]

having lived in different environments for the past 10,000 to how ever many years is accountable for these different, again, surface attributes. similar to the thing with asians as a whole not able to drink as much alcohol because we developed a different method to kill the bacteria in drinking water (your name sake).

I'm not sure what you mean by "surface attributes", but isn't this idea -- differing developmental trajectories according to environment -- merely what the mean IQ controversy suggests, even before issues of genetics?

it is a very different thing to posit that any "race" is inherently this or that. and attempting to legitimize differences in "intelligence" (whatever the hell that means) is hugely problematic.

But I don't think anyone is. A strain of crop or breed of animal isn't inherently one thing or another, but has evolved as such in conjunction with its environment (obviously including any human action -- such as selecting for useful characteristics).

europeans might be more adapted at survival in a european way of life the same way a New Guinean is more adapted at survival in their environment. but to use a system rooted in one lifestyle to measure qualities of people of another, is absurd and racist.

Would it really? I'm not actually sure that this is what IQ tests represent, but I don't think that, even if it was, this would be "absurd and racist". You obviously recall Diamond saying that he thinks that the average intellegince of a New Guenian is higher than your average western urbanite, because environmental pressure is higher and selection is more stringent in New Guenia. Is that an absurd and racist statement? How is that different to saying, for whatever reasons, one group of people scores better on IQ tests than another?

and that is exactly what the bell KKKurve people are trying to do, using trivial physical differences as well as different adaptive behaviors both deriving from (relative to the history of human species) recent development, as "proof" of fundamental differences, in order to construct a racist doctrine and contaminate the population with racist ideas.

While it might be the case that race has no basis in biology, that differences in mean IQ scores are not genetic, that IQ tests do not measure anything meaningful, I think that this paranoia over a supposed racist agenda makes your arguments much less convincing.