Is IQ a good system for measuring intellegence?

[frekk]

However, my point stands that if you cannot refute the claims made in a book or article, whether or not it was peer reviewed is nowhere near as important as that inability.

It's hardly all that important. Are you an expert in the field? Am I? This is what science relies on the peer review process for, in every field, even mathematics, because it helps ensure quality research so different disciplines can rely on each other's work, without having to become experts in those other disciplines themselves.

Peer review is more important than anything a couple of boobs in some video game off-topic forum are going to say, no matter how intelligent and well-thought-out it might be! So, yes, peer review is entirely MORE important.

And primarily, whether or not it was peer reviewed is just about the ONLY thing that matters at all if we're talking about whether or not the idea in question has any merit among experts in the field, who do that for a living. Both the works you cited were flunked not by sociologists but by statistical analysts, hardly a soft science - its a mathematical discipline. I have no pretensions to understanding it as well as people who have spent their lifetime doing it. Are you saying you do?

 

[bad_ronald]

It's hardly all that important. Are you an expert in the field? Am I? This is what science relies on the peer review process for, in every field, even mathematics, because it helps ensure quality research so different disciplines can rely on each other's work, without having to become experts in those other disciplines themselves.

Peer review is more important than anything a couple of boobs in some video game off-topic forum are going to say, no matter how intelligent and well-thought-out it might be! So, yes, peer review is entirely MORE important.

And primarily, whether or not it was peer reviewed is just about the ONLY thing that matters at all if we're talking about whether or not the idea in question has any merit among experts in the field, who do that for a living. Both the works you cited were flunked not by sociologists but by statistical analysts, hardly a soft science - its a mathematical discipline. I have no pretensions to understanding it as well as people who have spent their lifetime doing it. Are you saying you do?

I am not an expert in the field, but I certainly would not describe myself as a boob, nor you for that matter. What I'm saying is: if those studies deemed worthy by experts in a given field cannot stand up to the scrutiny within those that were rejected, then the "experts" made use of by various journals in this field are making errors (which, I believe, is due to their pro-egalitarian slant, but whatever the reason, it warrants the reanalysis of who is and who is not an "expert", which you must admit has the potential for abuse). True, whether or not you or I can refute a claim isn't all that important, but when those whose work is deemed unsuitable can: there is a problem.

 

[wit>trope]

If 2^2+2 actually equalled 5, then yeah, someone smarter than you might have got it. I continue to be in awe of both your math & logic skills. I'll say the next numbers are 373, 6934. Or 373, 15014. Depends which pattern I use.

As for the question, I don't think IQ tests are particularly useful. The thing they're best at is feeding egos.

You obviously do not know much about math. Math you learn like in elementary school unless you are very bright is initially just about calculation. Later on you will be doing more and more proofs and in advanced math there's no calculation and it's just proofs. Some people are good at caluclation and bad at proofs. Other people are good at proofs and bad at calcuation. And some people are good at both. Being good at calculation is not a sign of math genius. Sorry to burst your bubble

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

To broad to test, intellegence can be measured in every little thing that you can imagine. Cheese, mechanics, aeronautics, gems, hair. I mean as in knowledge in each category.

 

[frekk]

What I'm saying is: if those studies deemed worthy by experts in a given field cannot stand up to the scrutiny within those that were rejected, then the "experts" made use of by various journals in this field are making errors

It happens but in this case, I just don't see it occurring. What I see is people beginning with a conclusion and working their way backwards through the scientific method. The guidelines for methodology in statistics are pretty straightforward, I think what we have here is just people who really don't care, they are pushing an agenda and trying to give it the appearance of having a scientific slant because it's not really legitimate. Given the connections of the people involved, its really difficult to believe that they began their study without any expectations towards the result. If you've actually read it, it looks alot more like they simply included favourable data, skewed it when necessary, and arrived at the result they intended to before they even began their analysis. It's not the first kind of work of that kind in recent years, either.

it warrants the reanalysis of who is and who is not an "expert", which you must admit has the potential for abuse).

Not really, at least not in this particular case. The individuals in the particular fields involved are hardly uniform in their political views. Science really isn't as political as people seem to think, but everyone gets upset at the scientific establishment when it won't agree that aliens built Atlantis and then founded Egypt or whatever. The scientific community really doesn't care, they look at the methodology, and if the work that's done is bad, they reject it. Doesn't mean they are saying the conclusions are impossible, it just means that the work in that particular case is done wrong.

Let's say I publish a slew of books about how, perhaps, people with red hair make good sailors. Let's say there are alot of red-haired people who want to think of themselves as good sailors, and I'm one of them. So I set out to prove this. Well, first of all, that's just bad methodology right off the bat because you don't go out to "prove" something you've already decided is true. But leaving that aside, let's say I put out a work and it's flawed. Well, I'm on the Wal-Mart bookshelf already, I don't really give a damn because all the red-haired people who want to believe are going to buy my books, and they will argue till they're blue in the face that I'm Absolutely Correct. When my works get rejected, they'll be incensed and blame it on a darkhair conspiracy within the scientific establishment - regardless if the majority of experts see it as crank science, because now they will just say they are all part of the darkhair conspiracy that's oppressing them. It's a psychological self-defence mechanism. This kind of behaviour is so commonplace, its unfailingly predictable.

 

[sanabas]

You obviously do not know much about math. Math you learn like in elementary school unless you are very bright is initially just about calculation. Later on you will be doing more and more proofs and in advanced math there's no calculation and it's just proofs. Some people are good at caluclation and bad at proofs. Other people are good at proofs and bad at calcuation. And some people are good at both. Being good at calculation is not a sign of math genius. Sorry to burst your bubble

So the maths I do at uni isn't advanced then, as it still involves calculation? Or to pick a favourite example of yours, Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem isn't advanced, as there is still calculation involved? (I'm still waiting for your integer, non-trivial, non-zero solution of x^3+y^3=z^3 that you promised too, btw) Interesting.

In other threads, you have demonstrated your ability with proofs & logic. In this thread, you have demonstrated your ability with calculations (2^2+2=5). You've also demonstrated a few times your ability to make intuitive leaps "Obviously you have no idea about x" Therefore I continue to be awed by your ability at all 3.

Wonder what you'd score on an IQ test? Could be an interesting way to test their validity.

 

[bad_ronald]

What I see is people beginning with a conclusion and working their way backwards through the scientific method.

I would counter that those who hypothesize a 100% environmental cause for racial and ethnic differences in IQ are the ones guilty of “working their way backwards through the scientific method.”

The guidelines for methodology in statistics are pretty straightforward, I think what we have here is just people who really don't care, they are pushing an agenda and trying to give it the appearance of having a scientific slant because it's not really legitimate.

In the case of IQ and the Wealth of Nations the authors did not perform the IQ tests on their own; their data came from many studies done by others. The criticism comes from their attempt to extrapolate the IQ’s of nations that they had no data for by analyzing the data from surrounding nations (which I agree was a poor decision). But, in order to claim that there results are inaccurate (with regards to the nations that did have data) one would have to find errors in each of the individual studies that they got their data from (they were done by many different groups). If you throw out the stats that they provide for the estimated national IQ’s of nations with no data, most of their conclusions still hold true, and they have been substantiated by others.

In the case of the works done by Rushton and Jensen, no such statistical anomalies exist. If one attacks their work from the perspective of “working their way backwards”, it would be folly, because they arrived at these expectations from their prior works (note: I’m talking only about these two men).

Given the connections of the people involved, its really difficult to believe that they began their study without any expectations towards the result.

I would appreciate it if you state who you believe is guilty of doing this; I disagree that it can be applied to all in the hereditarian camp (see above). Attacking them because of their “connections” only warrants an investigation into their work, it does not refute it.

If you've actually read it, it looks a lot more like they simply included favourable data, skewed it when necessary, and arrived at the result they intended to before they even began their analysis. It's not the first kind of work of that kind in recent years, either.

The statistical errors in this particular book do not preclude their conclusions from being true.

Not really, at least not in this particular case.

Nothing you said after this suggests that you deny the potential for abuse.

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

If one accepts the notion that individual IQs have predicative value for a person’s success (most in this field do), then that places a burden on those who believe that average IQs of nations do not have predicative value for their respective economies to prove otherwise. Many of the criticisms launched against Vanhanen and Lynn’s book are made by people who still cling to the belief that all nations have equal average IQs, which even those who support the 100% environmental hypothesis would disagree with, albeit because of different reasons than hereditarians.

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

I would like to have your opinion on this particular idealized situation that I will describe; all that I ask is that you answer honestly. My hope is that it will provide common ground for future discussions.

Background: Assume two businesses are set to enter the video game retail market in a large American city. The first group the Eighty8's will only recruit those whose IQ is exactly 88 as measured by a culture-fair Stanford Progressive Matrices IQ test; they contend that anyone below 88 is unsuitable for any position in the organization, and anyone above is a risk (again, it’s idealized ). The second group the One, Two, Fours will only recruit those with IQs of exactly 124 for similar reasons. Each group starts with exactly five store locations located right next to one another in various strip malls throughout the city, and each is allotted a budget of $800,000 for purchasing new games, marketing, etc.

Assumption: you have over $1,000,000 in disposable income and enjoy betting. You were about to bet $10,000 at a high stakes black jack table when...

Situation: A man describes the situation and offers you the opportunity to take the side of the One, Two, Fours in a bet for $10,000 where the business with a larger market share in five years or the last to go bankrupt will be considered the winner (he will of course be taking the Eighty8's). He offers to allow your best friend to hold the money for the duration of the five year period, because he has “an honest face.”

So, do you accept or not?

 

[frekk]

In the case of IQ and the Wealth of Nations the authors did not perform the IQ tests on their own; their data came from many studies done by others.

Many of whom were similarly discredited.

But, in order to claim that there results are inaccurate (with regards to the nations that did have data) one would have to find errors in each of the individual studies that they got their data from (they were done by many different groups).

This was exactly what was demonstrated. In one study alone, examiners found no less than 5 errors out of 19 reported tabulations, because the authors apparently misunderstood the scaling differences between different IQ tests.

If you throw out the stats that they provide for the estimated national IQ’s of nations with no data

Even if the data were accurate, their methodology is flawed - so no, the conclusions are still not valid. A difference in IQ test results between different nations could be caused by a variety of factors, and the data alone is insufficient to form any conclusions (especially when flawed methodology is applied).

If one attacks their work from the perspective of “working their way backwards”, it would be folly, because they arrived at these expectations from their prior works (note: I’m talking only about these two men).

"Prior works" don't override the scientific method. The methodology is bad, you simply don't go into a study seeking to find data that supports your position. You make a hypothesis, and test it, till it is ironclad - if that can't be done, you toss it. They have failed to do this. It is up to the researcher to produce a defensible conclusion, just as it is up to the referees (i.e., peer reviewers) to ruthlessly seek the holes in it. Normally - in papers destined for publication in journals or by University presses - one submits research to the peer review process, and they suggest changes, it is revised, submitted again, and so on. What these "researchers" don't seem to comprehend is that science is a social activity and a collaborative effort. Or, they don't care - pushing sales or an agenda is higher on their list of priorities.

Attacking them because of their “connections” only warrants an investigation into their work, it does not refute it.

No ... but it does help to explain why their methodology is so erroneous, and thereby gives a good explanation for the results they came up with.

The statistical errors in this particular book do not preclude their conclusions from being true.

No, it just renders it unproven, as it was before they began their study, especially when they haven't followed proper methodology nor, apparently, even understood the nature of the statistics which they employed.

If one accepts the notion that individual IQs have predicative value for a person’s success (most in this field do),

This is an erroneous statement. "Most experts" believe that IQ's predictive value to success is quite weak, compared to other factors (principally, parental income level, education, etc). IQ is definately correlated to success, but this does not mean it's a good predictor. For instance, schizophrenia is correlated far more strongly with IQ than wealth is correlated with IQ, but, IQ is not in any way predictive of the likelihood of schizophrenia.

Many of the criticisms launched against Vanhanen and Lynn’s book are made by people who still cling to the belief that all nations have equal average IQs

The differences in the success of nations arises from other factors - principally axis of diffusion of domestic animals, foods, technology, diseases, and so on. IQ does not play a large role, whether you look at it "environmentally" or "genetically" - leaving aside the fact that genetics are, of course, environmental!

Background: Assume two businesses are set to enter the video game retail market in a large American city. The first group the Eighty8's will only recruit those whose IQ is exactly 88 as measured by a culture-fair Stanford Progressive Matrices IQ test; they contend that anyone below 88 is unsuitable for any position in the organization, and anyone above is a risk (again, it’s idealized ). The second group the One, Two, Fours will only recruit those with IQs of exactly 124 for similar reasons. Each group starts with exactly five store locations located right next to one another in various strip malls throughout the city, and each is allotted a budget of $800,000 for purchasing new games, marketing, etc.

Assumption: you have over $1,000,000 in disposable income and enjoy betting. You were about to bet $10,000 at a high stakes black jack table when...

Situation: A man describes the situation and offers you the opportunity to take the side of the One, Two, Fours in a bet for $10,000 where the business with a larger market share in five years or the last to go bankrupt will be considered the winner (he will of course be taking the Eighty8's). He offers to allow your best friend to hold the money for the duration of the five year period, because he has “an honest face.”

So, do you accept or not?

Your analogy is very flawed, because populations did not start out with similar advantages. Let's say the 88's start their business along a high traffic highway, and the 124's start theirs on a difficult mountain trail - then, you can see that IQ plays little role (and one would tend to bet on the 88's).

Other assumptions you've made include that nations have variable IQs or that developed nations have higher IQs. There are many more, much better studies which indicate that populations in underdeveloped regions actually have higher IQs, because selective pressures are stronger. This is a more "whole" explanation because genetics, of course, are themselves environmental (something the "hereditary" crowd seems rather clueless about). And while it takes a long time to evolve a new organ or the like, it does not take long for selective breeding to cause qualitative changes in different traits - as a dog breeder or a rose breeder might tell you.

 

[Rambuchan]

Voted without reading the thread, will join the discussion a bit later.

Voted for: No it's completely flawed.

I don't believe it is completely flawed. But I also don't believe that intelligence is so broad that we cannot take some kind of measure of it. I also don't believe that we should stick with it cos it's the best system we have. Option 2 was the lesser of these 'evils'.

 

[bad_ronald]

"Prior works" don't override the scientific method. The methodology is bad, you simply don't go into a study seeking to find data that supports your position. You make a hypothesis, and test it, till it is ironclad - if that can't be done, you toss it. They have failed to do this. It is up to the researcher to produce a defensible conclusion, just as it is up to the referees (i.e., peer reviewers) to ruthlessly seek the holes in it. Normally - in papers destined for publication in journals or by University presses - one submits research to the peer review process, and they suggest changes, it is revised, submitted again, and so on. What these "researchers" don't seem to comprehend is that science is a social activity and a collaborative effort. Or, they don't care - pushing sales or an agenda is higher on their list of priorities.

I specifically wrote: “In the case of the works done by Rushton and Jensen...”, then you applied the quote to Vanhanen and Lynn, truly shameful. Their works are published in peer reviewed journals and University presses (check the URL of the study I linked to, and you’ll find it’s from the University of Western Ontario not some dubious source). I agree that prior works don’t override the scientific method, but there is nothing dishonest about using validated prior works to provide focus for your next study or data for it to be based on. You say: “they have failed to do this”, but don’t say whom you’re talking about, please clarify (second request).

If one accepts the notion that individual IQs have predicative value for a person’s success.

This is an erroneous statement.

IQ is definately correlated to success...

You assume that I’m applying a quantifier to “predicative value” that is absent. You even admit that it is correct yet take issue with the statement. You proceed to compare it to other predictors of success while sidestepping the topic entirely.

Many of the criticisms launched against Vanhanen and Lynn’s book are made by people who still cling to the belief that all nations have equal average IQs

The differences in the success of nations arises from other factors - principally axis of diffusion of domestic animals, foods, technology, diseases, and so on.

Do you believe that all nations have equal average IQs or not?

IQ does not play a large role, whether you look at it "environmentally" or "genetically" - leaving aside the fact that genetics are, of course, environmental!

Except in the context of this debate environmental is a residual that encompasses all causes that are not genetic. If you’d like to define “genetic” as a form of “environmental” then substitute “genetically based environmental factors” for “genetic factors”.

Your analogy is very flawed...

That’s an interesting contention considering you have no idea what I want to compare it to.

Let's say the 88's start their business along a high traffic highway, and the 124's start theirs on a difficult mountain trail - then, you can see that IQ plays little role (and one would tend to bet on the 88's).

No, this does not prove that IQ plays little role, it shows that there are other factors.

Other assumptions you've made include that nations have variable IQs or that developed nations have higher IQs

Where!?

There are many more, much better studies which indicate that populations in underdeveloped regions actually have higher IQs, because selective pressures are stronger.

Provide links.

This is a more "whole" explanation because genetics, of course, are themselves environmental (something the "hereditary" crowd seems rather clueless about)

Rushton argues (within his R-k Theory) that the environment of East Asians and Caucasians caused selective pressure to favor those of high intellect, which over many millennia caused their average IQs to rise. I wouldn’t call this clueless. In fact, I’d chalk your allegation up to a misunderstanding of what is meant by “genetic”. They are not suggesting that certain races are simply endowed with higher intellects; they recognize that it is based on environment. But, the genetic makeup of a person is determined by that of his parents, and not affected by that person’s environment throughout his/her life. So, historically, it’s environmental, but not as it applies to one person.

And while it takes a long time to evolve a new organ or the like, it does not take long for selective breeding to cause qualitative changes in different traits - as a dog breeder or a rose breeder might tell you.

The important thing is that it takes more than one generation, that is what is meant. What you’re describing is eugenics / dysgenics.

Oh, please answer the original question:

So, do you accept or not?

 

[frekk]

You assume that I’m applying a quantifier to “predicative value” that is absent. You even admit that it is correct yet take issue with the statement. You proceed to compare it to other predictors of success while sidestepping the topic entirely.

What? My point was that a correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there is any predictive value. That's exactly on topic: it is, in fact, the nature of my first post in this thread! It's how we got started on this! Schizophrenia is indeed a classic example of why an IQ correlation with this or that group doesn't necessarily mean that IQ is predictive of an individual entering that group. There are many, many other factors, of which IQ is just one. High IQ does not indicate you will acquire schizophrenia, despite the fact that schizophrenics have, on average, an IQ much higher than the general populace. Hopefully this helps you to understand why a correlation doesn't necessarily have predictive value.

Do you believe that all nations have equal average IQs or not?

No. Nobody is sure what IQ measures. For instance, to say that nations are wealthy because you've demonstrated differences in IQ from one place to another makes little sense unless you can prove that the inverse is not true, i.e. that the wealth is not generating the high results (rather than the other way around). There is a failure here to demonstrate a causal relationship. I could do a study and determine that Africans have curly hair, Europeans have less curly hair, and Asians have straight hair and the curliness of hair would probably bear a closer correlation to GDP than IQ. Using the same logic as that of the "hereditarians" I might then write a book called "Straightness of Hair and the Wealth of Nations" ... sounds crazy? Yep. You bet it does!

No, this does not prove that IQ plays little role, it shows that there are other factors.

It fully explains the differences. Occam's razor cuts out the rest. Diffusion of various phenomena (tech, disease, domesticated plants and animals) is a sufficient explanation.

Provide links.

No. Both of us know that the studies showed East Asians did better on IQ tests than Europeans, and both of us know that East Asia is much less developed than Europe. Why do you want me to document this? Just to be difficult?

Rushton argues (within his R-k Theory) that the environment of East Asians and Caucasians caused selective pressure to favor those of high intellect, which over many millennia caused their average IQs to rise.

So what explains the Flynn effect then? Selective pressures in the general population have been much, much less in the nations where IQ has risen - and the majority of these nations were welfare states during this period, where the least succesful individuals reproduced more. This did not take thousands of years. The only reasonable explanation is that education and wealth are major causal factors for high IQ test results, and not the other way around.

Oh, please answer the original question:

I did. Your analogy is irrelevant because, as I outlined, it bears no resemblance to the subject we're talking about. That's my answer.

Now for another simplistic analogy, which nonetheless is more to the point.

You are given a choice between hiring two grous of individuals, who submit different qualifications. They are large groups of individuals, thousands of individuals. You must hire all of whatever group you choose, and cannot fire them.

Group A submits a complete resume, showing plenty of work experience as well as relevant education and so on. Some of Group A is less than suitable, but the average member is eminently qualified. However, you have no idea what their average IQ is, so you must presume it is about average.

Group B submits nothing but an IQ test, in which they typically perform very well. However, you know nothing else about them.

Which one do you hire? Does IQ play a big enough role you'd feel secure hiring group B? If you were the executive officer, would you feel comfortable with a proposal from your Personnel Manager to save time and money reviewing Group A's qualifications by simply hiring Group B, or would you think he needed a bit of time off?

More to follow; RL calls.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I have serious doubts about this system. I have many friends that are IMO intellegent and informed people, yet have low IQs, while I know several high IQers that are dull and dumb.

Do people think the system is a good one?

I've always been sceptical of Intelligence tests. They do not appear to test innate intelligence, but rather learned knowledge. Someone may be intelligent but may lack interest or education in certain areas, thereby scoring low on the test. Or a test may coincidentally test subject matter that the test taker knows well, and may score very high on, despite being pretty stupid otherwise.

I don't think that written exams are a useful measure of actual intelligence.

 

[cgannon64]

The best system we have to determine someone's intelligence is to befriend them and know them for several years, at least.

 

[bad_ronald]

What? My point was that a correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there is any predictive value. That's exactly on topic: it is, in fact, the nature of my first post in this thread! It's how we got started on this! Schizophrenia is indeed a classic example of why an IQ correlation with this or that group doesn't necessarily mean that IQ is predictive of an individual entering that group. There are many, many other factors, of which IQ is just one. High IQ does not indicate you will acquire schizophrenia, despite the fact that schizophrenics have, on average, an IQ much higher than the general populace. Hopefully this helps you to understand why a correlation doesn't necessarily have predictive value.

You did say: “"Most experts" believe that IQ's predictive value to success is quite weak, compared to other factors (principally, parental income level, education, etc).” Which is an admission that it is playing some role, since even a “quite weak” value is present. Then, you suggest that it has no predictive value at all... I’m not suggesting that the things you note are not playing a bigger role (nor am I admitting it), but it seems that you’re using the potentially superior value of other predictors to completely invalidate the role of IQ (which isn’t logical).

It fully explains the differences. Occam's razor cuts out the rest. Diffusion of various phenomena (tech, disease, domesticated plants and animals) is a sufficient explanation.

If what you’re suggesting is that the historical context that caused various races/populations to evolve is the reason for the current differences in average IQ, then I’d imagine that most hereditarians would not disagree with you (I wouldn’t). What I don’t understand is why you think this disproves the hereditarian hypothesis, such factors (if proven true) would validate it. If you’re suggesting that the current distribution of tech, diseases and crops/livestock is the cause of the IQ disparity (which I doubt), only disease could really be playing this role. Crops and livestock are widely available and only climate or soil quality would prevent their use in a given area. “Tech” is not being witheld. Disease could explain some of the difference, but no one is saying that the differences are entirely genetic. The debate is over environment only vs. environment and genetics.

No. Both of us know that the studies showed East Asians did better on IQ tests than Europeans, and both of us know that East Asia is much less developed than Europe. Why do you want me to document this? Just to be difficult?

That is what passes as proof!?

Choose the correct answer:
Both of us know that Europe is more developed than sub-Saharan Africa, sub-Saharan Africans did (better, worse) than Europeans on IQ tests.
Both of us know that the U.S. is more developed than Mexico, Mexicans did (better, worse) than Americans on IQ tests.
Both of us know that Japan is more developed than Laos, Laotians did (better, worse) than Japanese on IQ tests.

I did. Your analogy is irrelevant because, as I outlined, it bears no resemblance to the subject we're talking about. That's my answer.

Well, that’s a poor answer. Just because you don’t see its pertinence doesn’t mean it’s not there. If you just answer, I’ll explain.

Which one do you hire? Does IQ play a big enough role you'd feel secure hiring group B? If you were the executive officer, would you feel comfortable with a proposal from your Personnel Manager to save time and money reviewing Group A's qualifications by simply hiring Group B, or would you think he needed a bit of time off?

I would hire Group A. Now, please simply answer my question, as you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what I’m getting at.

 

[frekk]

You did say: “"Most experts" believe that IQ's predictive value to success is quite weak, compared to other factors (principally, parental income level, education, etc).” Which is an admission that it is playing some role, since even a “quite weak” value is present.

A value which is sufficiently weak has no predictive value, because the causal relationship would be too obscured by other, stronger determinants (especially when the value itself is not strictly necessary to the end condition, and there are plenty of stupid, succesful people).

If what you’re suggesting is that the historical context that caused various races/populations to evolve is the reason for the current differences in average IQ, then I’d imagine that most hereditarians would not disagree with you (I wouldn’t). What I don’t understand is why you think this disproves the hereditarian hypothesis, such factors (if proven true) would validate it. If you’re suggesting that the current distribution of tech, diseases and crops/livestock is the cause of the IQ disparity (which I doubt), only disease could really be playing this role.

No. Disease isn't the "only really" possible answer. No one has managed to show that the inverse is not true, ie success (education and so on) causes IQ. The Flynn effect very much suggests that this is true. You're assuming IQ is a metric of intelligence, when it is difficult to prove that it is not actually a metric of education, learned skills and social factors.

Crops and livestock are widely available and only climate or soil quality would prevent their use in a given area. “Tech” is not being witheld.

Huh? Now you're tossing the historical background as it is no longer convenient. Crops and livestock were far from equally available to all regions prior to the modern age. Same goes for tech. Or are you asserting that the Aztecs knew about iron, and could have had horses and cattle, but didn't make use of any of it because their IQ was too low? Lol. The New World really marks the ascendancy of European power far beyond its competitors, and even our present success derives from the "compound benefits" over time.

The debate is over environment only vs. environment and genetics.

The debate is bigger than that - it's also about what IQ is. You're just casually assuming it is intelligence, when this is probably not true. It is likely a mix of intelligence and other, acquired factors.

Choose the correct answer:
Both of us know that Europe is more developed than sub-Saharan Africa, sub-Saharan Africans did (better, worse) than Europeans on IQ tests.
Both of us know that the U.S. is more developed than Mexico, Mexicans did (better, worse) than Americans on IQ tests.
Both of us know that Japan is more developed than Laos, Laotians did (better, worse) than Japanese on IQ tests.

Both of us know that Europeans have straighter hair than sub-Saharan Africans. Sub-Saharan Africans did (better, worse) than Europeans on IQ tests.

Both of us know that Japanese have straighter hair than Mexicans. Mexicans did (better, worse) than Japanese on IQ tests.

ROFLOL. Methinks there is a little problem with your understanding of how to show a causal relationship. You seem to think science is like Judge Judy or some sort of televised legal drama. "Did you like beating your mother? Yes or No? Answer the question!" ... haha.

Well, that’s a poor answer. Just because you don’t see its pertinence doesn’t mean it’s not there. If you just answer, I’ll explain.

Lol. I see its pertinence, and it is not relevant - it is founded on unacceptable premises. You don't need to explain, it is entirely obvious. The companies are the nations, the employees are the populations etc etc. Right? But you have all the companies on an equal footing, apart from their hiring practices, which nations are not in any way, shape, or form. Even within a nation some regions are more advantaged than others! Your analogy is simplistic and flawed. Why would I answer a silly construct built of your own false premises in a circular fashion? You minimize the role of environment, give it no role as a premise of your analogy, and then construct a question intended to prove your conclusion - which is the same as your premise. That's called a circular argument (aka Fruit Loop Logic). You can't use a premise as proof of your conclusion, and using an analogy to try to make it work simply doesn't make it any less irrational. Construct an analogy that factors in a role for environment and models the Flynn effect somehow, and I'll answer it.

I would hire Group A. Now, please simply answer my question, as you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what I’m getting at.

It's quite simple - IQ tests are irrelevant compared to other factors.

All in all, the primary, and most basic necessity to proving your argument rests on demonstrating that the IQ test results are the cause, and not the effect, of wealth. You can't go anywhere without doing that first. If you can't falsify the inverse, you can't claim to have demonstrated causality. And the first thing you'd have to get over is the Flynn effect, which demonstrates that, in a fairly large sample (14 nations comprising how many millions of people) a rise in wealth is followed by a rise in IQ levels in a very short period of time - less than a single generation. There's no question that heredity doesn't play some role. It's a question of whether that factor accounts for the differences, or if it plays little to no role and other factors account for the differences.

Just showing a correlation is nothing.

 

[bad_ronald]

A value which is sufficiently weak has no predictive value, because the causal relationship would be too obscured by other, stronger determinants (especially when the value itself is not strictly necessary to the end condition, and there are plenty of stupid, succesful people).

One can, however, determine the value of a smaller factor, if the other variables can be controlled for. The two most important factors that would play a role are: socio-economic status and level of education. If you confine a study to people with the same level of education and from similar socio-economic background and still find a difference in either IQs predicative value for success or racial differences in IQ, then IQ is predicative (unless you suggest some other factor, because variables which are controlled for can obviously not be the cause of a still existent difference).

Flynn effect very much suggests that this is true.

It does not. Secular gains in IQ are based on a factor other than g (e.g., The "Jensen Effect").

Huh? Now you're tossing the historical background as it is no longer convenient.

No, I am not. I stated earlier (in that which you quoted right before this) that I was discussing only the current distribution of "tech, diseases, and crops/livestock".

Crops and livestock were far from equally available to all regions prior to the modern age. Same goes for tech.

I agree.

Or are you asserting that the Aztecs knew about iron, and could have had horses and cattle, but didn't make use of any of it because their IQ was too low

Of course not.

The New World really marks the ascendancy of European power far beyond its competitors, and even our present success derives from the "compound benefits" over time.

Yes.

The debate is bigger than that - it's also about what IQ is. You're just casually assuming it is intelligence, when this is probably not true. It is likely a mix of intelligence and other, acquired factors.

This is why the g-loadedness of a given IQ test is such an important issue. In fact, one finds that the disparity in average racial outcomes on IQ tests increases as the g-loadedness of a test increases.

ROFLOL. Methinks there is a little problem with your understanding of how to show a causal relationship. You seem to think science is like Judge Judy or some sort of televised legal drama. "Did you like beating your mother? Yes or No? Answer the question!" ... haha.

I do not; you suggested that since East Asia is "less developed" than Europe, yet East Asians have higher IQs on average than Europeans that this shows that less developed environments are conducive to raising average IQs. These are counter-examples.

Lol. I see its pertinence, and it is not relevant - it is founded on unacceptable premises. You don't need to explain, it is entirely obvious. The companies are the nations, the employees are the populations etc etc. Right? But you have all the companies on an equal footing, apart from their hiring practices, which nations are not in any way, shape, or form

This is why I described it as idealized. Placing one store in an out-of-the-way location and another in a prime location is also idealized. And for the third time, you're wrong.

Your analogy is simplistic and flawed.

You are making this assumption without knowing what I'm relating it to.

That's called a circular argument (aka Fruit Loop Logic). You can't use a premise as proof of your conclusion, and using an analogy to try to make it work simply doesn't make it any less irrational.

Do you believe that it is rational to attack someone's analogy before knowing what their point is? (guessing what their point is does not count )

It's quite simple - IQ tests are irrelevant compared to other factors.

Let's go about determining which ones.

 

[frekk]

*deleted* - duplicate post

 

[frekk]

One can, however, determine the value of a smaller factor, if the other variables can be controlled for. The two most important factors that would play a role are: socio-economic status and level of education. If you confine a study to people with the same level of education and from similar socio-economic background and still find a difference in either IQs predicative value for success or racial differences in IQ

Lol. The humanities are not a hard science, and cannot be. There are too many values which cannot even be identified, let alone quantified. So you can't "control for" them. Secondly, it has already been done to the point it can be done by analyzing families and the results defy your hypothesis: the variance between individuals in a family is, on average, about 20 points, while the variance between nations is, on average, only about 2 or 3 points. If genes bore a large role in IQ test results, then this should be the other way around. Note also, that adopted children display no greater variance than genetic relatives.

Secular gains in IQ are based on a factor other than g (e.g., The "Jensen Effect").

Exactly.

I stated earlier (in that which you quoted right before this) that I was discussing only the current distribution of "tech, diseases, and crops/livestock".

You're still ignoring the role of history in a nation's wealth. A historical factor is no less important than a current one in generating wealth. It doesn't generate itself overnight - infrastructures develop over decades and centuries, particularly institutional infrastructures.

This is why the g-loadedness of a given IQ test is such an important issue. In fact, one finds that the disparity in average racial outcomes on IQ tests increases as the g-loadedness of a test increases.

The "g factor" is not a cognitive factor:

http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000041/

It's about ability variance, and does not deny environmental factors like education (which have an obvious role in ability variance). So it is not at all surprising that as the "g-loadedness" of a test increases, different nations show greater variance (and conversely, as the "g-loadedness" decreases, the variance vanishes).

These are counter-examples.

A couple of counter-examples doesn't prove a trend. And I ask again, how is the logic behind these studies any different than the logic behind a curly-hair correlation? Again, you're not answering very basic points here. A correlation behind wealth and IQ is not any more indicative of one being the cause of the other than a correlation between curly hair and wealth is.

This is why I described it as idealized. Placing one store in an out-of-the-way location and another in a prime location is also idealized.

It's idealized to suit premises that we do not mutually accept.

You are making this assumption without knowing what I'm relating it to.

Your analogy is hardly so cryptic as you seem to think. It's rather obvious.

Do you believe that it is rational to attack someone's analogy before knowing what their point is? (guessing what their point is does not count )

When it's that obvious and they have, so far, utterly failed to outline any mistake in the interpretation? Yes. Being cryptic is not helping your case any. You may as well just admit, that it is too simplistic to be representative of anything at all, other than your unaccepted premises.