Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Bootstoots, Aug 1, 2018.
yes, I understand he's a TV character.
no one is arguing that measured differences in IQ between populations don't exist, but it is a matter of fact that many IQ researchers have used faulty methodology, abhorrent sampling, and in general overrate the value of IQ as a predictor for anything.
IQ is a concept from the early 20th century, and that's where it belongs. it is a decent predictor for economic success and is definitely not the same as overall intelligence, even though you and your kind would love to believe that.
If you think iq test are not culturally biased or only test a very specific form of intelligence you are honestly beyond help.
If you are unaware of the thousands of reasons why people do better or worse than others in testing in general you probably wouldn't be spouting all this garbage.
(quality of diets/food/water supply, quality of sleep, distraction, family problems, problems at school, (noise) pollution, social circle, quality of the school, of the classrooms, of the personnel, pressure to perform, .. I could probably come up with a million more.)
all these factors heavily impact testing. guess which groups are affected more by these external factors?
honestly, **** off. it's very obvious from your posts that you sincerely don't give a solitary **** about refugees, rather you seem gleeful at the fact that people are dying and that others are forced to leave behind their family. in general, you just seem like an awful person. definitely someone that is not worth replying to.
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming with this paragraph. - Bootstoots
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
there are many obvious reasons as to why a country should not host that many immigrants. first and foremost are the conditions in the refugee camps. they're cramped, there is assault and rape and much suffering in general. those countries mostly responsible for the refugee crisis (USA, UK and others of course) are not taking in any or nearly enough refugees, and that is unacceptable. the fact that Greece, Italy, and many other MENA countries are hosting way too many refugees per capita is something utterly respectable and deserving of more recognition.
Ah, yes, exhibiting snark because some people don't want to die in a gas attack or be beheaded by ISIS. I'm sure you would gratefully sacrifice yourself for Finald, come the opportunity disgusting..
well, no. you can, infact, make many convincing arguments as to why "x amount" of reguees is too much. them being a burden is only one of them. have you visited a refugee camp? I've been to many, and the conditions range from good to subhuman. a country can only properly host a certain amount of people. it is not a question of our wellbeings, but of theirs. the more
Care to go into specifics? Where does the faulty methodology come in? Or are you simply outright rejecting things you simply do not want to believe?
Do you believe that intelligence exists? Do you believe that it varies between different people? How would intelligence manifest in people? What aspects of intelligence are not measured by IQ?
73,3% of experts do not think that IQ tests are culturally biased.
There are factors, such as conscientiousness, that really do influence success. But is it fair to assume that such traits are evenly distributed among different populations, and thus such factors even out?
As for this stuff about systemic racism, micro-aggressions, etc. there is zero proof for any of it.
Sure, my reply to Kyriakos was insincere. I was trying to get him to admit that refugees aren't exactly a financial benefit. But as far as refugees go, I do genuinely think that we should help them. Not by taking them in, but by sending aid to refugee camps. It would be much more cost effective to send aid where it is needed the most. I do not, however, think that we have a moral responsibility to become a welfare office for the whole world. I don't think that every person in the world is entitled to Finnish welfare.
As for that stuff about being forced to leave families behind, I guess this must be another one of those cultural differences. Last time we had a war, we sent men to the frontlines. Only refugees were children. Actual children, and not "I'm 17 I swear" bearded children.
Yeah, there is a lot of assault and rape. Those crimes do not magically disappear by letting these refugees live inside Europe. Do we even need to go over crime statistics? I don't like assault and rape either, which is why I don't want to take in refugees.
I'm sworn to protect my country, with my life if I have to. I spent 6 months of my life in the military preparing for that possibility. If the time comes, I do intend to honor that vow. I don't know what kind of battle gas Assad has, but I'm pretty sure that what the Russians have is worse.
No, I mentioned in some thread recently that my brother spent some time working at one in Greece. I agree that there can be too many refugees but I think that speaks more to the failure of the EU to provide necessary resources to deal with people. And the US not accepting enough refugees under our Dear Orange Leader is a whole nother problem.
Generally speaking the refugees and migrants should be considered by Europeans and Americans as a godsend, not a problem or crisis.
The plan was to have all eu countries take their share (according to their population or similar). But a few countries decided to just not accept any of this, because it is easier to sell to the (not racist, goes without saying) public there that it is a far better idea to keep the vast majority of the refugees to the eu in a couple of eu countries (Greece, and now also Italy) cause this way their own precious society won't be tainted by the brown folk.
Yet it is in no way realistic to expect one or two countries to host the majority of the refugees to the eu. Greece didn't even have anything to do with the wars which caused this exodus.
Re Iq tests: of course they have a cultural part: most iq tests have a linguistic part as well; what do you think that one is?
Furthermore, anyone who has taken an iq test will tell you that it is far easier to answer the math/schematics questions if you have taken such tests before. Ergo the score you get is highly dependent on having taken similar tests already. I really doubt that (eg) african kids had.
I don't think any of the IQ tests I've taken ever had a linguistic part. There are tests that specifically factor in your linguistic skills where that's something that is relevant, but standard tests don't seem to have them. Of course it would be really dumb if such tests were used to measure IQ differences around the world.
But why is the cultural part even important? Is anyone arguing that differences in IQ wouldn't exist without them? If not, then what's the problem with the cultural part? The relative differences in "actual" IQ might be different, but in the end, what does that mean? It just compresses the scale, the gaps that describe the actual differences in relative IQ are still there.
The cultural part, the way i meant it at least, has to do with coming up with precise analogue of words. This at the very least requires the person taking the iq test to be reasonably proficient in the language, and most iq tests aren't in dialects or less used languages (the majority would be in english, one has to suppose). There is also considerable difference between having to find a new way of dealing with a problem, during taking the test, and just drone-ing it because you had seen the same problem in other iq tests and simply compute a variation of it. A very young child, with the iq test language as their foreign one, or upon seing the math/schematic questions for the first time, obviously won't do as good as one who would have neither of those relative disadvantages, no?
It would be realistic to expect african kids to do worse, just on account of the above factors.
IQ is dumb and bad, and I have yet to encounter a Psych researcher who actually takes it seriously.
Because it biases results towards those with an upbringing which includes that cultural and arithmetic education. If the whole point is to measure *innate* intelligence (leaving aside the massive can of worms in assuming the question of "what is intelligence" to be a settled one) then what good does it do us to administer a test that requires learned knowledge to demonstrate it?
Wicherts et al. did their best to use non-culturally biased testing. They found African IQ to be around 81-82. But Wicherts et al. is a bit controversial, because it kinda supports the hereditarian view (if Africans living in US, Europe and Africa have similar IQs, it would suggest that the environment doesn't have that big of an impact)
Interesting. How familiar are you with the field?
Fairly familiar. Currently dating a girl who is a researcher at a psych lab here at UChicago. She's gone into a couple large rants about IQ. I could probably ask her to suggest the relevant literature if you want. But tl;dr: IQ is heavily flawed both in premise and in organization, and my experience interacting with psych researchers both here, at UCSC, and at Berkeley is that IQ is not really worth giving the time of day.
If you have relevant literature, then by all means, do share. My experience has been that there are a lot of people who do not want to believe that IQ is a meaningful metric, and that those people often grasp at straws to prove that point. I've had a lot of IQ-denying literature cited at me, and in my opinion, all of it has kind of fallen flat. But of course, perhaps your girlfriend can debunk a concept which has been validated over and over again, despite numerous assaults on it.
The major problem is (as others said) that even if an iq test somehow didn't have very clear cultural traits, it still would not be measuring overall intelligence. Eg people of african origin seem to - as a rule - do better at most sports. Take NBA players, for example. You can't have low iq and still be an amazing player. Still, i wouldn't count on (eg) Jordan scoring high on a typical iq test. In fact i wouldn't imagine any significant number (if anyone at all) of NBA players (ie regardless of "race") scoring high, cause it isn't something they are really using/focusing on.
In the end each person uses their own mental interface, so to speak. I have to suppose there is difference in degree of complexity (in thoughts OR emotions or similar) but an iq test isn't a good measurement of that, and probably nothing much will be, at least not for a long time.
Funny you should mention Wicherts. He openly attacked Richard Lynn for his faulty methodology/sampling and started somewhat of a crusade against the "race realists". Very odd choice indeed. His average for a sub saharan African IQ was 82 (81.8 is the conclusion he came to in two different studies). But of course no good scientist would stop there. He (and others) tried coming up with an explanation
Even taking into account the research data provided by Wicherts et al, the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is still about 18 points lower than the British average. In the following section I will try to give a non-geneticist, non-hereditarian explanation for this phenomenon.
Aside from the cultural bias of IQ tests and the fact that they are influenced by the quality of public education, there is one factor that plays a detrimental role in IQ-testing in Africa: malnutrition during childhood. A study from the University of Southern Carolina linked low-scoring in IQ tests, aggressive and antisocial behaviour to malnutrition during childhood (Mednick and Venables, 2004). This is especially true for malnutrition in the early postnatal phase (Mednick and Venables, 2004). The authors followed the nutritional, behavioural and cognitive development of more than 1,000 children for over 14 years. One of the co-authors, Adrian Raine notes: “Poor nutrition, characterized by zinc, vitamin B and protein deficiencies, leads to low IQ, which leads to antisocial behaviour, these are all nutrients linked to brain development” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm 2004).
Another paper on the topic of malnutrition was published in the journal “nature” in the year 1971. Intelligence, measured at school age, was compared between 37 previously severely malnourished children and their siblings. The severely malnourished children suffered from Kwashiorkor, a case of severe malnutrition coupled with an oedema. Their siblings were likely malnourished, too, but not in a life-threatening way. The WISC-IQ test for the index-cases showed an average IQ of 68.5, the one of the control group was 81.5 (Birch et al, 1971). It is to note that the average IQ of previously severely-malnourished children comes very close to Lynn's average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans.
Of course malnutrition is just one of infinite factors, as I pointed out earlier and you ignored. Noise pollution massively decreases concentration and will severely hamper ones ability to test anything, as will stress, be it in school or at home.
The validity of IQ-testing as a measurement tool for general intelligence has been questioned by many scientists, especially in recent years. A study conducted by Professor Adrian Owen of the University of Ontario and Roger Highfield of the Science Museum of London showed that there are at least three factors that need to be taken into account for the evaluation general intelligence: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. Highfield claims: “For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html 2012).
However, scientists haven steadily been working on diversifying, expanding and updating IQ tests for today's needs. In a statement issued by the American Psychologist Association discussing the validity of IQ they comment:
“Since the 1970s, intelligence researchers have been trying to preserve the usefulness of intelligence tests while addressing those concerns. They have done so in a number of ways, including updating the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Stanford- Binet Intelligence Scale so they better reflect the abilities of test-takers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. They have developed new, more sophisticated ways of creating, administering and interpreting those tests. They have produced new theories and tests that broaden the concept of intelligence beyond its traditional boundaries.”
I'd be interested to see that literature too.
My understanding is that IQ actually is about as well-supported as anything is in the social sciences. It seems to be correlated at about r=0.4 with income, and similarly with other outcome variables; while r=0.4 would mean that it can only explain 16% of income variation, this is better than we get with any other single measurable/testable trait with the possible exception of conscientiousness.
At the same time, reducing everything about human intelligence to a single number, based on one of a few abstract reasoning tests, can be too reductive for many purposes - there's far more to cognition than that. Still, it seems to be a useful if somewhat flawed construct.
@yung.carl.jung - I'd seen Lynn's results for Africa before, where he found an IQ of ~70 is the continent-wide average, and figured that something like half of that difference was just malnutrition and/or pollution. Depriving children of iodine and exposing them to high doses of lead can each knock off ~10 points by themselves; throw in more nutrient deficiencies for even larger effects. Do you know of any studies on IQ or other aspects of cognition in well-nourished African populations?
At the same time, you don't know if you are measuring genetics, or environment.
I mean, you're always going to be measuring a mix of both with any measurable human trait, IQ absolutely included. I believe its heritability is estimated at about 70% +/- 10% based on twin studies, under conditions where there is nothing grossly wrong with the environment (like malnutrition or lead poisoning).
Heredity doesn't really solve the question. Because then the question becomes to what extent was the previous generation's results genetics v environment?
That's really hard to say unless this was specifically investigated or controlled for. After all even being malnourished for a few days or weeks in your childhood can significantly halter brain development, even if you had a normal diet for the rest of your life. Some people might not even be aware that it happened to them.
Separate names with a comma.