I can. The shapes used are universal. The representations as they appear on the test are not. If you get to have a good education, you will spend time looking at squares, circles and triangles in pictographs as part of that education. If you are not in a setting where education is a premium commodity, you will not. So those who have seen said pictographs before have a distinct advantage over those who have not.
There is no way to accurately diagnose intelligence without a level playing field educationally. And since that will never happen, we will never be able to accurately measure IQ across sociological categories.
Whether he accepts it or not is irrelevant. This is the case, it’s the fact of the matter. You can accept it or not. Acceptance will not change the facts.
I am not after raj to accept it, I actually like him regardless because of his commitment to his convictions, whether or not I agree with them.
There are plenty of classrooms in America where blacks, whites and Asians all receive the same education. Under this explanation, shouldn’t they all have reasonably close iq scores?
Are you serious? It’s been explained at least 20 times already in this thread–you’re forgetting home environment, prenatal nutrition, neonatal nutrition, nutrition status in general for that matter, single parent/2 parent home, home and parental values, parental discipline or lack thereof, verbal communication during formative years, economic status, and a million other things.
All else being equal, yes.
The problem with social sciences is the inability to isolate variables. The problem with standardized tests is they are in very early and primitive stages of development. Therefore the level of imprecision is extremely high especially when you try to expound it to represent a large group, something it was never intended to do. These tests are to be used in conjunction with other measures to tell you something about that individual. Secondly, particularly with intelligence testing, it’s not just to be done on paper, there is a interactive component as well as creative, which is to give you a broader picture of what talents a person has and where those talents lie. The multiple choice questions are all that are being considered because that’s all that can be given en masse. You need trained professionals to carry out the other parts of the test.
So it’s impossible to judge the intelligence of a given demographic as compared to other demographics. It’s a misuse of the test, and it’s a partial test to boot.
I’ve never had an issue, not trying to make one. Just getting clarification as that point confused me.
To clarify, I have a lot of respect for people I disagree with when they can articulate their point in an evidence based way, be objective, and be civil with the conversation. For example, I disagree with @EyeDentist on quite a few things (agree on some too), but have a lot of respect for his point of view around here. I’m honestly confused that somebody respects intellectually dishonest people like raj and Zep because of their ability to stick their head in the sand and believe what they want regardless of how ridiculous the position is.
You asked whether or not I respected another poster given that he has controversial views. I can like and respect others even if I don’t agree with their views on certain topics. I don’t agree with raj’s ‘bell curve’ arguments, but I respect the fact that he has the courage to make them and defend them.
These are conversations worth having because if nothing else it should help oneself, understand their position and why they hold that view better. And if it exposes a weakness, it’s an opportunity to shore up that weakness.
Conversation is good. Nobody is shooting each other and nobody is dying and ideas are being exchanged. And the good news is if you don’t like a topic you don’t have to participate, its completely voluntary.
No, that was not what I said. You said you respected him because of his convictions. Nothing to do with whether those convictions were controversial or not. I agree with you on the controversial premise, if the view can be supported.
Sure, agreement there. But defending and being dishonest are two different things.
Agree with most, but I also think when a weakness is shown in one’s views, they should perhaps re-evaluate to make sure their opinions still make sense based on the new information. Nobody knows everything, and with new knowledge, re-evaluation is a good thing. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the new knowledge doesn’t exist because it doesn’t align with your views is not something I can respect.
Ok, let’s return to this statement. Stating what you did “genes on the other hand explained about half the variation in the traits” can also be flipped–one could say that “environment on the other hand explained about half the variation in the traits”. So your statement is not very strong at all because a simple flip in the word choice can yield an equal and opposing statement to yours. In other word I could make the claim “environment is what’s important! It explains half of all the variance!” based on the study abstract, which is essentially the mirror image of what you’ve been saying for hundreds of posts now.
Further, I know you didn’t read the text for a variety of reasons but notably because they state in their results:
“Of the top 20 most investigated specific traits, we found that for 12 traits the majority of individual studies were consistent with a model where variance was… due to [both] additive genetic variance and non-shared environmental variance, whereas the pattern …was inconsistent with this model for 8 traits, suggesting that, apart from additive genetic influences and non-shared environmental influences, …[other influences] are needed to explain the observed pattern of twin correlations (Table 2). These eight traits were conduct disorders, height, higher-level cognitive functions…”
So we have the following:
“The majority of individual studies”–means there are studies not consistent with, although the reasons for inconsistency are not known. This means that while suggestive, the majority of studies might be wrong. It ALSO does not mean there is not another actual explanation for this consistency. One can fit many different models to some data sets, so this is not proof of causality although it is suggestive of the most fruitful immediate areas of research.
They found them due to BOTH additive genetic influences AND non-shared–i.e. unique to an individual–environment (cough what we’ve been saying all along is important for intelligence).
They also found that specifically regarding higher level cognitive functions–i.e. the functions tested for on IQ tests and also considered “intelligence”–the solution you so avidly crowed about DOES NOT explain the results. They include conduct and hyperkinetic or ADHD type disorders, social values, cognitive function, height, and several others in this category.
Let’s repeat that again—this meta-study of 50 years of research and thousands of publications DID NOT find that high level cognitive function is fit to a simple additive genetic variance model, let alone the model you have espoused repeatedly.
Again, for emphasis, this says their huge analysis of 50 years of data doesn’t support your position.
You want to win and there is nothing wrong with that. But you will never change anybody’s mind by accosting and scorn, so be aware of your goal. When you confront people they defend themselves, it’s natural. So you may very well win, but you will not change his mind.
A personal example of this is my ‘Sarin Gas Attack in Syria’ post. The goal of that thread was tragic gloating on my part. It was proof of a long had argument regarding the ‘Red Line’ and subsequent negotiations was not only the wrong move, but also a spectacular failure that came full circle. Something I had been arguing for years from the moment it happened, was going to end up exactly how it did. My sole goal was to prove that I was right the entire time and the proof is in the pudding. Those I was shoveling it on, know who they were. I wasn’t going to call out names.
My point is, when going into an ‘argument’ know what your goal is, adjust if necessary. It’s something I am still trying to learn to do better. This forum helps me out tremendously by testing methods and seeing what works and what doesn’t.
Just know that if you are participating, the one thing you will not accomplish is nobility. None of us are noble, most of us are petty and that’s OK.
Are you talking in generalities or about this discussion (between you and me)? I was confused by a point you made, and asked for a clarification. There is nothing to “win”.
I thought the statement was pretty ridiculous, so wanted to clarify if you actually meant it or if you meaning it in a different way. It appears to be in a different way, as you mentioned you like how he’s controversial, but you said yes to the original statement so not sure, but at this point the derail has probably gone on long enough.
I’m here to learn by hearing people articulate their positions and defend themselves. Some do it very well, and I can respect that. Others resort to name calling, moving the goal posts, and dishonesty. I do not respect them.
I only observed what was happening in this thread. If you don’t like people calling you dishonest, don’t be dishonest. If you don’t want to be called on for plagiarizing, don’t plagiarize. If you don’t want to be called the resident Nazi, don’t quote, support, or espouse white supremacist views. Related to this topic, I can’t add more than Aragon, ActivitiesGuy, and ED have done so far.
Making arguments is what matters, only idiots such as yourself have to use terms like “Nazi” because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about
