1 user browsing Discussion: tomman | 2 guests | 3 bots  
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
Pages: First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Last
Posted on 19-06-12, 19:22
Post: #48 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
and appears very likely not to say proven considering identical twins reared apart display similar levels of it, and the adopted's do not correlate well to their adoptive parents.


At what age though? We know the first six years of a child shapes that childs intelligence.
Therefore, it needs to have been *one egg* twins separated at birth and placed in a low SES, medium SES and high SES at random. Anything else would contaminate the result.

If you can point to a study that has done just that, fine.
Posted on 19-06-12, 22:20
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #384 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon
At what age though? We know the first six years of a child shapes that childs intelligence.
Therefore, it needs to have been *one egg* twins separated at birth and placed in a low SES, medium SES and high SES at random. Anything else would contaminate the result.

If you can point to a study that has done just that, fine.

It would be sufficient with any type of twins, as long as they were separated at birth. You would get a smaller effect (e.g. requiring a larger sample size), but you could still observe the genetic component plainly.

Likewise, there isn't a very great need for control of the SES. It's enough that they vary, and then that variable can be observed later on. Furthermore, since there aren't any meaningful traits to distinguish the newborns on, who gets placed where doesn't matter either.

It would also suffice to compare the correlations of monozygotic twins reared together to either non-twin siblings or dizygotic twins reared together. Then the shared environment would be the same, but the non-twin siblings and dizygotic twins would have lower correlations with their respective siblings (50%, since they share 50% of alleles) than the monozygotic such (100%, in theory) provided the trait was genetic in nature.

If the trait weren't, the sibling correlations for all three these groups should be equal, since the genetic contribution would be 0%, and all three of these would have as much shared environment.

Wikipedia does refer to studies done in that way, but it's through the way of books (through Google Books, so with some pages missing) which just make oblique references to "a study in France" and such.

However, there is this 1973 metastudy from the book "The Measurement of Intelligence". They cut it off early, but on page 278, they have the actual numbers:

The intraclass correlations (ri) between twins are given in Table 2. A cor-
relation scatter diagram for all twins is shown in Figure 2. Twins were assigned
to the A and B axes in such a way as to equalize the means of the two distributions.
The intraclass correlation (ri) represented by the scatter diagram is .82. Corrected
for attenuation (i.e., test unreliability), assuming the upper-bound for Stanford-
Binet test reliability of .95, the twin correlation would be .86.

On page 275, they discuss when they were separated:

The data
Burt (1966). The 53 pairs in Burt's sample were obtained largely from schools
in London. All had been separated at birth or during their first six months of life.
Their IQ's were obtained from an individual test, the English adaptation of the
Stanford-Binet, with mean = 100, SD = 1"5.
Shields (1962). The 44 pairs in Shield's sample were adults obtained from all
parts of the British Isles. (One twin was found as far away as South America.) All
of Shields' twins were separated before 6 months of age and 21 of the pairs were
separated at birth. Complete intelligence test scores were obtained on only 38 of
the 44 sets of twins. Two tests were used: Raven's Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (a
synonyms multiple-choice test), and the Dominoes (D48) test (a timed twenty-
minute nonverbal test of intelligence). The Dominoes test has a high g loading
(.86) and correlates .74 with Raven's Progressive MatriCes. Since Shields presented
the results of these tests in the form of raw scores, it was necessary to convert
them to the standard IQ scale. A raw score of 19 on the Vocabulary scale and of
28 on the Dominoes Test correspond to IQ 100 in the general population. The
raw score means were transformed in accord with these population IQ values and
the standard deviation was transformed to accord with the population value of
SD = 15. The IQ's thus obtained on each test were then averaged to yield a
single IQ measure for each subject.
Newman, et al. (1937). These 19 twin pairs were obtained in the United States
and were tested as adults. In 18 cases the age of separation was less than 25
months, and in 9 it was less than 6 months. About the one pair that was separated
at 6 years (and tested at age 41) Newman et al., states: " ... the twins were sepa-
rated at six years, somewhat late for our purposes; but we had information that
the environments of the twins had been so markedly different since separation
that we decided to add the case to our collection" (p. 142). (These twins differed
by 9 IQ points.)
Stanford-Binet IQ's were obtained on all subjects.
Juel-Nielsen (1965). These 12 pairs were obtained in Denmark. The age of
separation ranges from 1 day to 5½ years; 9 were separated before 12 months.
IQ's were obtained by an individual test, a Danish adaptation of the Wechsler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale (Form I), which in the general population has a
mean = 100 and SD = 15.


On page 279, they attempt to evaluate the SES of the homes they were assigned to:
The one study which classified subjects in terms of SES,
based on parents' or foster parents' occupation, is Burt's. The six categories
were (1) higher professional, (2) lower professional, (3) clerical, (4) skilled, (5)
semi-skilled, (6) unskilled. The seven cases reared in residential institutions are
omitted from this analysis, since there is no basis for assignment to one of the
six SES categories. The scatter diagram is shown in Figure 3. It represents a
correlation of 0.03 between the SES of the homes of the separated twins in Burt's
sample. Obviously virtually none of the correlation between twins' IQ's is at-
tributable to similarities in their home environments when these are classified by
SES in terms of the parents' occupation.


Unfortunately, the PDF is not freely available, and I don't think I can directly link to it. So you'll either have to take my word for it, or go looking for it online. Rumor has it that the Russian website Library Genesis has a copy.

Anyway, I think that is close enough to your ideal. The only things these twins have in common are the prenatal environment (non-shared influences, e.g. completely random), first six months postnatal environment (shared influences, e.g. SES), and genetics.

The other way to study it is done on page 13:


As you might see, the intelligence measurements' correlations resemble the physical measurements' far more than they do the scholastic.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-13, 08:08
Post: #49 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Ok, I have to give you this one. IQ is largely genetic, and it is hereditary to 50+%. So says science. So says facts. Case closed.

BUT. I am not willing to concede the point that IQ plays a large part of your educational bias. There SES is a much larger factor. It's not the engine of the car but what you do with it that matters most.

Also, let's not forget that the lower your SES, the higher the chance for abuse - And a person who would otherwise have a high IQ may not have it due to childhood trauma.

The question is complex. But everyone can learn, say, fundamental Calculus should they want to. Some will just take more time to learn it.
Posted on 19-06-13, 21:11
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #388 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
SES is a function of IQ and education though. And education being a function of IQ is the hypothesis. So here you find yourself in a bit of a pickle.

But it can be solved if you attack it from a different angle: intelligence isn't caused by shared environment. In other words, education levels can never cause intelligence, so if there is a correlation between them the intelligence should cause the educational levels and not the other way around.

You can look at this graph to see if such is the case:

(source)

As you can see, educational attainment correlates by 0.57 with ASVAB (military intelligence test), while only correlating by 0.34 with income. However, that's income of the subject, not parental income.

You can also try and separate out the influence of parental education and parental income. Then you get this analysis. As you can see, there is very little predictive value added (R2 goes from .625 to .631, an increase of just under 1%, and I think that might be spurious) by including parental income after already including parental education, and parental income alone (.449) is a far worse predictor of child education than parental education alone is.

I don't think abuse is a very big factor here. It's terrible, sure, but the prevalence is <1%.

As for your claim of everyone being able to learn fundamental calculus, I don't think it holds true. Take retarded people, for instance. They can hardly learn to read and write. Could they really learn fundamental calculus?

And if you assume that fundamental calculus is harder to learn than reading/writing, that would imply some non-retarded people would also fail to learn it.

And while it's intuitively apparent that a lower aptitude can to some degree be compensated for with a higher conscientiousness, there is obviously a limit for how much you can give. If nothing else, you have the absolute hard cap of ~18 hours a day, which gives 6600 hours a year (and can probably be sustained for about that long). Even assuming everyone theoretically could learn everything, a sufficiently slow person would eventually run into time constraints, just as a very bright person would make very quick work of an education. And anyone can work on improving their conscientiousness (it's not an innate trait like IQ is, to my knowledge), which means that whatever benefits it has would (or at least could) apply equally across the spectrum. In other words, intelligence is still very important for education.

I'd say the only reasonable way to look at it is to assume conscientiousness is constant, because taking the position that all individual differences can be surmounted given sufficient effort turns any discussion about the matter into nonsense, and feels somewhat dishonest since it disregards the possibility of smarter people putting in effort. Learning French in one year instead of ten is clearly a better outcome, and more learning can be done in a given time period.

This whole discussion makes me think of Monster. Twins, intelligence, conscientiousness,
. Now that was a series.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-14, 09:01 (revision 1)
Post: #50 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Posted by sureanem
SES is a function of IQ and education though.


No. SES is a function of education, period. And education today is pretty much "Hey snake, sloth, dog, monkey and fish, climb that tree over there! Fastest one gets the best grade!" then we call the fastest one smart, except had the competition been water based the fish would have won over them all.

I have worked with a ton of math students and helped many students that failed three math exams and then succeeded. It's not that their intelligence was faulty, it's that they had not a strong base form. After I sat and reviewed the basics and told them where to strengthen their game, most did pass Calculus the exam after. Without lowering any standards.

These were students motivated to learn though. Not everyone is motivated.

Posted by sureanem
As for your claim of everyone being able to learn fundamental calculus, I don't think it holds true. Take retarded people, for instance. They can hardly learn to read and write. Could they really learn fundamental calculus?

And if you assume that fundamental calculus is harder to learn than reading/writing, that would imply some non-retarded people would also fail to learn it.


I stand by that statement. Everyone motivated enough. Even people suffering from dyscalcia. Even mentally disabled people. But not everyone will do it on the first try. And not everyone will need to. But everyone motivated enough can do it.

You see, society tends to think about retarded people as dumb. Most are not. Most have cognitive disability in one region but are otherwise functional, or they may have developed a specific way of thinking that doesn't fit for the cookie cutter class. I can agree in extreme cases, a person will not be able to - such as a person in the late stages of Dementia for instance. But everyone of a sound and healthy mind, and most who doesn't have one, too. I know this because I've witnessed it first hand.

If they are motivated enough.

Because, you see... Statistics doesn't tell the whole picture.
Posted on 19-06-14, 13:19
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #389 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon
No. SES is a function of education, period.

And what is education a function of? Solely conscientiousness? That can't be the case, since it correlates with IQ which is an innate and immutable trait.
And education today is pretty much "Hey snake, sloth, dog, monkey and fish, climb that tree over there! Fastest one gets the best grade!" then we call the fastest one smart, except had the competition been water based the fish would have won over them all.

Not sure what you mean. I've seen the poster, but it makes very little sense. For instance, in language learning, it's true that you could do it in different ways. But some of these ways are just objectively more efficient than others. For instance, if you look at the Mormons' legendary language classes, how do they do it?

Immersion, strong focus on oral performance.

If you look at the Japanese's infamously poor English classes, how do they do it?

Rote memorization of grammar and vocabulary, almost no oral production or reception, perfectionism valued higher than actual performance.

There are some very apparent patterns here. I've yet to meet a single person who learned a foreign language in the latter way and reached much success doing so. Sure, they might have found it more pleasant and thus had lower requirements of conscientiousness, but it doesn't seem like different styles are actually more appropriate for different people.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles
Proponents recommend that teachers assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods to best fit each student's learning style.[5] Although there is ample evidence that individuals express preferences for how they prefer to receive information,[4]:108 few studies have found any validity in using learning styles in education.[2]:267 Critics say there is no consistent evidence that identifying an individual student's learning style, and teaching for specific learning styles, produces better student outcomes.[4][6]:33 There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to "correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion".[7] Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[4] They further show that teachers cannot assess the learning style of their students accurately.[8]

There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed extensive bodies of research.[1][4] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that."[2]:269


Just what are these learning styles? Because I've never seen anyone actually argue for what they'd look like. The purpose of the theory always appears to be to provide a convenient unfalsifiable escape hatch - "oh no they're not stupid they just have a different learning style" - without wishing to investigate it further. Just like the "multiple intelligences" bunk.

Case in point: the various kooks in the Wikipedia article all have different ideas, and there isn't much of a backing for any one of them. They just write random nonsense that sounds good without bothering to check. Very little if anything of it is backed by empirical evidence.

For instance, the first theory claims that engineers and philosophers have different learning styles. How? This isn't explained. Instead, we get to hear that engineers are "strong in practical 'hands-on' application of theories," while philosophers are "strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories".

It's just feel-good nonsense. SRS/flash cards is the most efficient way to learn vocabulary, it's also boring as hell. This isn't any evidence for learning styles, just that some people have stated in surveys that they prefer to do things in various ways.

If you'd apply it to any other subject (e.g. physical exercise) it'd fall apart in a matter of seconds. For education, success is much harder to measure because the good measures are all politically incorrect. This is also why they can just make stuff up as they go along.

I have worked with a ton of math students and helped many students that failed three math exams and then succeeded. It's not that their intelligence was faulty, it's that they had not a strong base form. After I sat and reviewed the basics and told them where to strengthen their game, most did pass Calculus the exam after. Without lowering any standards.

These were students motivated to learn though. Not everyone is motivated.

But these students would have passed the courses needed to get into calculus class, no? As in, they probably weren't retarded. If they were, they'd have been going to spec ed, which I wouldn't think offers calculus.

Also, "most" passing (achieving lowest non-failing grade?) is still far worse than the performance of a regular class, where people achieve way higher than passing grades without special coaching.

I stand by that statement. Everyone motivated enough. Even people suffering from dyscalcia. Even mentally disabled people. But not everyone will do it on the first try. And not everyone will need to. But everyone motivated enough can do it.

You see, society tends to think about retarded people as dumb. Most are not. Most have cognitive disability in one region but are otherwise functional, or they may have developed a specific way of thinking that doesn't fit for the cookie cutter class. I can agree in extreme cases, a person will not be able to - such as a person in the late stages of Dementia for instance. But everyone of a sound and healthy mind, and most who doesn't have one, too. I know this because I've witnessed it first hand.

If they are motivated enough.

Because, you see... Statistics doesn't tell the whole picture.

Not extremely familiar with dyscalculia, but isn't it like dyslexia? As in, they'll have some issues with numbers/spelling, but they're not actually dumb and they have no trouble with grammar.

Then it would make sense that they'd eventually manage to learn math like everyone else, but with some idiosyncratic methods.

But mentally disabled people? Aren't you thinking of something else, like learning disabilities or brain disorders? Because the definition of intellectual disability ("retarded") is literally an IQ below 70, which does make you extremely dumb. People with mild [intellectual disability] are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged nine to twelve. If you can't even learn how to read, then how are you supposed to learn advanced maths?

It's true that motivation is important, but you can't use it to compensate infinitely. If you could, then how come there are hardly no Down syndrome people with university degrees?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-14, 13:42
Post: #52 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Posted by sureanem
Posted by wertigon
No. SES is a function of education, period.

And what is education a function of? Solely conscientiousness? That can't be the case, since it correlates with IQ which is an innate and immutable trait.
And education today is pretty much "Hey snake, sloth, dog, monkey and fish, climb that tree over there! Fastest one gets the best grade!" then we call the fastest one smart, except had the competition been water based the fish would have won over them all.

Not sure what you mean. I've seen the poster, but it makes very little sense. For instance, in language learning, it's true that you could do it in different ways. But some of these ways are just objectively more efficient than others.


Now you're the one playing dumb. :) Here's another video explaining it.

Fact of the matter is, SES is a function of education. BUT. Education is a function of, among other things, SES.

And sure a person way behind in the race will need time to catch up. But here is the thing; education keeps explaining stuff in one way, but we all learn differently. Math can be explained in a thousand different ways, and a mentally disabled can get math if put in the context of something they understand. Yet we teach only in a couple different ways.

And here's the thing I do not understand...

Most people with an IQ of 100 in 1960 would have no problem learning Calculus. Their score would be around 80 today.

Why can a person with 100 IQ of yesteryear not learn calculus today, according to your argument?
Posted on 19-06-14, 16:41
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #391 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon

Now you're the one playing dumb. :) Here's another video explaining it.

The first video is just comically absurd, worse than a TED talk. Modern education being bad for creativity is probably true, but he classroom example is just goofy. He asserts the same things about "varying strengths," but provides no evidence to back his claims up. The only evidence provided is a loose quote from "the inventor of standardized testing" describing standardized tests as "too crude to be used".

He also claims Finland's educational system is better. But Finland employs standardized testing extensively.

He also mentions Singapore, which if I recall correctly is extremely similar to China's - hardcore Prussian education, and far more stifling of creativity than American education.

He presumably brought those examples up because they rank highly in PISA rankings. But this is just a function of demographics. After disconsidering ethnic minorities, the US is something like top 5, varying slightly based on subject.

The second video just groundlessly asserts poor people get shafted. It doesn't deal with the alleged individual differences in learning styles in the slightest.

What exactly is explained by these videos?
Fact of the matter is, SES is a function of education. BUT. Education is a function of, among other things, SES.

Untrue. Parental income has next to no incremental predictive value when coupled with parental education. Education is mostly a function of intelligence:

As you can see, there is next to no difference by income.

If educational outcomes aren't caused by intelligence, how would you explain their strong correlation with it?

And sure a person way behind in the race will need time to catch up. But here is the thing; education keeps explaining stuff in one way, but we all learn differently. Math can be explained in a thousand different ways, and a mentally disabled can get math if put in the context of something they understand. Yet we teach only in a couple different ways.

The bolded part is what I object to. There is no empirical evidence for this claim. Another article.

And here's the thing I do not understand...

Most people with an IQ of 100 in 1960 would have no problem learning Calculus. Their score would be around 80 today.

Why can a person with 100 IQ of yesteryear not learn calculus today, according to your argument?

It wouldn't be. I assume you're talking about the renorming of IQ tests and the Flynn effect. But the Flynn effect only deals with a mean. The median hasn't increased by 3 points per decade, only the mean.

Posted by sureanem
It's also true that IQ scores have risen slightly (Flynn effect), but this is better explained by better nutrition, healthcare, etc decreasing the amount of children whose developing brains get harmed. The average scores of high scorers have not risen by much:
Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Rise_in_IQ
the [Flynn] effect primarily reduced the number of low-end scores, resulting in an increased number of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores. In another study, ... the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and ... gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased.


In other words, a person with 100 IQ in 1960 would probably have about the same IQ today, or at the very least not much lower.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-15, 09:58 (revision 1)
Post: #53 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
So what you're telling me is that there's no difference if a child does not have time to do their homework or not, because they have to help raise their siblings. Since IQ is the big predetermining factor, no matter how much time you put into something you will always succeed if you have a high IQ. Why you could play video games all day long, head to the tests and ace every one of them if your IQ is higher than 190.

Sorry, don't buy it. At all. Please interview a social worker about the problems in the lowest quartile of the SES, truly horrifying.

Second, if you use a test that tests on similar things as an IQ test then of course IQ will have a strong correlation. It's a given.

And, no. A person with 100 IQ 1960 would have an IQ score of 80 today. And even further back, 70.

Posted by https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter-than-your-grandfather-probably-not-150402883/
Malcolm Gladwell explains why the “Flynn effect,” as the trend is now called, is so surprising. “If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teenager of today, with an IQ of 100, would have grandparents with average IQs of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school,” he wrote in a New Yorker article in 2007. “And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average IQs of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.”


Since IQ is constant, according to you, people in the 1960s were borderline retarded by today standards. Again, if a person with an IQ of 80 today could do Calculus in 1960, why can they not do that today? What has changed?
Posted on 19-06-15, 13:18
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #394 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon
So what you're telling me is that there's no difference if a child does not have time to do their homework or not, because they have to help raise their siblings.

This is very rare. I'll assume that if you have time to watch TV, you'd have time to do homework. Since low-income people watch a lot of TV, they should have time to do homework too.
Since IQ is the big predetermining factor, no matter how much time you put into something you will always succeed if you have a high IQ. Why you could play video games all day long, head to the tests and ace every one of them if your IQ is higher than 190.

IQ > 190 would make you one of the seven smartest people on Earth, that's way unrealistic.
But sure, something like IQ 130 would probably be enough for that. You never met one of those people in school who didn't have to study at all?
Sorry, don't buy it. At all. Please interview a social worker about the problems in the lowest quartile of the SES, truly horrifying.

No, you are free to tell me about them. I don't associate with social workers.
Second, if you use a test that tests on similar things as an IQ test then of course IQ will have a strong correlation. It's a given.

But we just established IQ was genetic.
I don't know what you're referring to. Do you mean the graph with HS GPA? That's Grade Point Average, or your average grade.
Because my whole thesis is that schools by necessity test on the same things as IQ tests do, which is the driving cause of the differences in educational outcomes by social class.
And, no. A person with 100 IQ 1960 would have an IQ score of 80 today. And even further back, 70.

Posted by https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter-than-your-grandfather-probably-not-150402883/
Malcolm Gladwell explains why the “Flynn effect,” as the trend is now called, is so surprising. “If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teenager of today, with an IQ of 100, would have grandparents with average IQs of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school,” he wrote in a New Yorker article in 2007. “And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average IQs of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.”

He mixes the two up. The average was by current norms 82 back then and 100 now, but no such statement is made about the median. It's possible (and indeed likely) the same could go for the median, but it's not given by the Flynn effect directly. More importantly, the Flynn effect gets weaker the more g-loaded the test gets. In other words, this increase in test scores is more an artefact of test unreliability than any actual changes.

Since IQ is constant, according to you, people in the 1960s were borderline retarded by today standards. Again, if a person with an IQ of 80 today could do Calculus in 1960, why can they not do that today? What has changed?

Even if that which you say is true, it's not inconsistent with my hypothesis: far more people go to college today than they did in the 1960's. And as we have seen, the Flynn effect has little to no effect for the upper echelons of ability, e.g. those who'd be going to college.

What about those learning styles? Do you have any evidence for them, other than the bizarre video with the Black guy in a suit? Or any retards graduating from university?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-15, 15:29
Post: #49 of 168
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 4 days
Last view: 1 hour
you know Nielson households get paid, right?
Posted on 19-06-15, 16:01
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #396 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by funkyass
you know Nielson households get paid, right?

I don't see how it changes anything.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-15, 20:28
Post: #54 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Posted by sureanem

Since IQ is constant, according to you, people in the 1960s were borderline retarded by today standards. Again, if a person with an IQ of 80 today could do Calculus in 1960, why can they not do that today? What has changed?

Even if that which you say is true, it's not inconsistent with my hypothesis: far more people go to college today than they did in the 1960's. And as we have seen, the Flynn effect has little to no effect for the upper echelons of ability, e.g. those who'd be going to college.


No. Let me spell it out for you. Your claims:

1. IQ is genetic.
2. Education is a function of IQ.

If this is true, then a threshold should exist, at which someone must have a certain IQ to be able to master calculus. Yes? And Calculus is pretty much the same today as it was 100 years ago, yes?

Now:

1. According to Flynn, the IQ score of 60 years prior was measured at a lower scale than it is today.
2. Let's say the threshold for a person to comprehend calculus was 100.
3. So a person exactly at 100, who would score 80 today, would get calculus today.
4. But according to today standards, he should not be able to attain such a high level of math!

How is this possible?

Posted by sureanem

This is very rare. I'll assume that if you have time to watch TV, you'd have time to do homework. Since low-income people watch a lot of TV, they should have time to do homework too.


Sure, and why not let the peasants eat cake instead of bread, too. Doesn't quite work that way in real life.
Posted on 19-06-15, 22:31 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #397 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon
No. Let me spell it out for you. Your claims:

1. IQ is genetic.
2. Education is a function of IQ.

If this is true, then a threshold should exist, at which someone must have a certain IQ to be able to master calculus. Yes? And Calculus is pretty much the same today as it was 100 years ago, yes?

Well, education is mostly a function of IQ, but deficiencies in IQ can be compensated for by increased conscientiousness up to a point. Or if you wish infinitely, but then there is a limit to conscientiousness.

In other words, you do get this threshold under the assumption that conscientiousness is held constant. This seems like a reasonable enough assumption, so I'll go with it.

If anything, the standards for calculus have decreased. So I'm willing to go with the assumption that it's pretty much the same.

Now:

1. According to Flynn, the IQ score of 60 years prior was measured at a lower scale than it is today.
2. Let's say the threshold for a person to comprehend calculus was 100.
3. So a person exactly at 100, who would score 80 today, would get calculus today.
4. But according to today standards, he should not be able to attain such a high level of math!

How is this possible?

I'm not sure about your third point. Would someone with 100 1960 IQ handle college? From 1962 to 2018, the share of men holding degrees increased from 5.5% to 34.6, an increase of over six times. Also consider that ethnic minorities has increased, and disconsidering them the increase would be even higher.

At any rate, it's more than sextupled. If we assume for a moment that education is solely a function of intelligence, we can compute the IQ score that exactly 34.6% of the population exceeds respectively, then determine what mean we would require provided the same value and SD to get a probability of 5.5%.

We get an IQ score of 106 as the answer to our first question, and then a required mean of 82 to get the aforementioned 5.5% probability of exceeding that.

In other words, the data is not inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Also consider Teasdale and Owen (1989). Almost no Flynn effect for the 80th percentile and above. 80th percentile is ~113 IQ, for reference.

Also consider that this is the share of the population holding degrees, and there is a large lag. You'd ideally want to have something like 25-29 year olds. Then maybe you'd get only a 10 point increase, or something along those lines. Don't have the data, so I can't check.

There is also the issue of IQ tests only being 95% reliable. On longer timescales, this might pose an issue if not renorming, while still making them perfectly suitable for all the other applications. And indeed, there is less and less of a Flynn effect the more g-loaded a test gets. So I would be prepared to chalk this supposedly enormous gap up to successive renormings.

Sure, and why not let the peasants eat cake instead of bread, too. Doesn't quite work that way in real life.

Cake is a scarce good, unlike homework, as any kid who's went to school would tell you. It shows clearly that it's not a matter of time, which was my point.
On the topic of homework:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659160/
Higher income students gain more knowledge from their homework time than their counterparts in all grades and all subjects except history, with greater group differences for math than for science and reading.

Maths have a higher g-loading than science and reading, which in turn have a higher g-loading than history. And my hypothesis is that higher income students simply are more intelligent.

However, there is no strong linear relationship between parental SES and time spent on homework.

So it can't be the time being spent having some non-linear relationship either.

More importantly, there is no need to speculate in why poor kids fare worse; after controlling for IQ (a genetic trait), the educational value of income disappears. (CTRL-F "which doesn’t necessarily means these tests are biased as there are also average differences in GPA controlling for IQ, not to mention regression to the mean, etc")

In other words, we can completely discount SES as a causative factor of educational outcomes. So what is it then that causes the inequality of outcomes, if not intelligence?

EDIT: Fixed link

(also, am I allowed to link to Sci-Hub? I can't find anything in the FAQ about it, so I'll assume I am unless someone tells me to stop)

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-16, 15:53
Post: #55 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Time is a scarce resource, too. In fact, one of the most scarce we have.

Did a quick google search, three links that seems to disprove your claims:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190204085926.htm
https://www.edubloxtutor.com/high-iq-and-success/
https://thinkgrowth.org/why-some-of-the-most-successful-people-arent-that-smart-4857fa33b696

And also from that third link:

For example, you might see a world analogy problem on an IQ test, like: “Kitten is to Cat as Puppy is to _____.” To solve this problem correctly, you’d need to understand the relationship between a kitten and a cat, and then apply that relationship to that of a puppy and a dog.


If you do not happen to know what a dog or a puppy is... Well, you would fail on this test. This could be from a number of reasons, ranging from being six years old and not a native english speaker (because of spanish immigrant people) for instance.

Furthermore, it is possible to improve your intelligence according to a study done in 2008. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract

Nothing you have shown me has disproven this. The only thing you have shown is that there is a correlation between high IQ and high income. I bet you still believe the African nations are still stuck in the 1800s, too. :)
Posted on 19-06-16, 20:21 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #398 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
Posted by wertigon
Time is a scarce resource, too. In fact, one of the most scarce we have.

Right, but the issue isn't that they don't have enough time. They spend as much time doing homework as the richer kids do.

Did a quick google search, three links that seems to disprove your claims:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190204085926.htm
https://www.edubloxtutor.com/high-iq-and-success/
https://thinkgrowth.org/why-some-of-the-most-successful-people-arent-that-smart-4857fa33b696

Regarding the Israeli study, I don't see why you need such an error-prone method to estimate the heritability of education. If I'm reading their convoluted study correctly, the effect sizes are tiny. And the parent dying after taking the exam has almost the same effect? What?

I mean, try hashing it out yourself: https://sci-hub.tw/10.3386/w25495

I'll disregard the second link, since it's literal advertising and doesn't seem to be written by someone trying to be very honest ("cure correct dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, ADHD and other learning difficulties with this one weird trick brain-training program"), nor for that matter making any testable claims.

The third article seems almost honest, albeit with a bit shoddy understanding of the concepts (IQ is not on a scale of 0-200, nor is it true that modern IQ tests don't test for social skills). But more importantly, they claim "emotional intelligence" and "grit" (conscientiousness) are more important.

The article they link to to explain what "emotional intelligence" is (19 Signs You're Emotionally Intelligent (And Why It Matters for Your Career)) is seems to include conscientiousness ("grit"). However, they link to a (poorly written) study. It's the kind of study which claims the MBTI is legitimate. But there's a bit of a flaw: instead of tables/graphs, it just says "insert Table X about here". In other words, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from this study. The article is not very helpful either. To be blunt, it gives off the impression of content without much of a relationship to reality written for people without much of a relationship to reality, or in other words middle management.

Vitriol aside, the concept of emotional intelligence has been thoroughly debunked. Here is a well done study. Highlights:
* "Emotional intelligence" correlates 0.35 with intelligence (p < 0.01)
* Transformational leadership and managerial performance correlate 0.46 and 0.36 respectively with intelligence, but only 0.22 and 0.29 (p < 0.01 for all except EI/TL, which had p < 0.05)
* "Emotional intelligence" correlated 0.01 (statistically insignificant, but men'd have it more) with gender - WTF?
* "Emotional intelligence" had no additional predictive value after controlling for Gender, Team Size, Managerial experience, Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Intelligence.
* If "emotional intelligence" did have an effect, and the data does not support this, it was negative.

Conscientiousness does play a role, definitely. They find that too. I'm not going to dispute that, it's common sense. But this doesn't mean you can just throw more conscientiousness at the problem ad infinitum. I mean, at some point there's got to be a limit, and most likely it's not 16h/day - very few people have the willpower to manage that in the long run.

But more importantly, it is not immutable. A person can build it up by putting themselves through more and more difficult tasks, and the genetic correlations are quite low compared to IQ. This is not the case for IQ, as you might remember.

If you do not happen to know what a dog or a puppy is... Well, you would fail on this test. This could be from a number of reasons, ranging from being six years old and not a native english speaker (because of spanish immigrant people) for instance.

If you don't know what a dog or a puppy is, you're probably not the sharpest tool in the shed. Six-year olds aren't usually very bright, but I still would think they know what a bloody puppy is. Maybe a retarded one wouldn't, but then we're kind of back at square one.

It would be a bad idea to give the test in someone's non-native language for sure. Immigrants should take it in their native tongue.

Furthermore, it is possible to improve your intelligence according to a study done in 2008. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract

Motivational effects. Metastudy. The closest to a smoking gun is the lack of a dose-response effect.

Nothing you have shown me has disproven this. The only thing you have shown is that there is a correlation between high IQ and high income.

No, I've also shown you that IQ is mostly genetic, and not at all shared environment (e.g. it's impossible for IQ to be caused by income), and that poorer students do not have worse grades than richer students after adjusting for IQ.

These two factors combined don't admit any other explanation than IQ -> educational outcome -> income.

It could be that income too is contingent upon parental income, and I wouldn't even find it unlikely, but that doesn't prevent Herrnstein's syllogism from holding provided the impact of intelligence is sufficiently large. Legacies do not last that long (if nothing else, they get diluted since women inherit property too nowadays, giving an exponential decay), while genes last literally forever.

A quick refresher:
Posted by Richard Herrnstein
My theory hinges on an argument in the form of a syllogism:

1) If differences in mental abilities are inherited, and
2) If success requires those abilities, and
3) If earnings and prestige depend on success,
4) Then social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people.


Also consider that assortative mating proceeds directly on verbal IQ. So in a society where 2 and 3 do not take place, there will still be a genetic stratification taking place in the quiet.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-16, 22:41 (revision 1)
Post: #56 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Oh, and I just found this. Game over. :)

Posted by https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-increase-your-intelligence-5-ways-to-maximize-your-cognitive-potential/
We made the [autistic] kids struggle to learn, we used the most creative ways we could think of, and we challenged them beyond what they seemed capable of—we set the bar very high. But you know what? They surpassed that bar time and time again, and made me truly believe that amazing things are possible if you have enough will and courage and perseverance to set yourself on that path and stick with it.


Another recent study on the subject:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210083649.htm

So, yeah. Intelligence *can* be taught, but it is not easy to do so, as proven by getting a bunch of autistic children from 90 to 110 in intelligence. Case closed.
Posted on 19-06-17, 00:25
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #402 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 239 days
Last view: 237 days
The first one is just (by necessity) unsourced anecdotal evidence. I don't think you can consider intelligence any less immutable given the DNB findings, it just appears to be a very insidious kind of placebo effect.

The Luxembourg paper is not about intelligence. It doesn't seem to be about anything in particular, really. They argue that it's important to be able to solve problems in the 21st century because of technology or something like that. More importantly, it's not a study. It's literally just them writing stuff:
Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century
1. Executive Summary
This position paper is aimed at highlighting the relevance of domain-general problem solving skills for a comprehensive approach to contemporary education. We argue that education in the 21st century needs to be comprehensive in the sense that it should equip students with domain-general problem solving skills in addition to domain-specific factual knowledge and problem solving strategies.

In this position paper, we argue that contemporary educational systems fall short of addressing the societal and individual needs to teach and to foster domain-general problem solving and that education needs to be extended. To this end, researchers face three main challenges: (1) to increase the relevant stakeholders’ awareness of the existence and the importance of domain-general problem solving skills, (2) to optimize the ways in which such skills can be assessed, and (3) to explore ways to foster students in developing and maintaining these skills.


(it's also four years old)

I don't understand how it proves anything. There isn't any new information in the paper, just 40-odd pages of drivel.

But just to be clear here: you claim is that intelligent poor kids do as well in school as intelligent rich kids, and intelligence is strongly inheritable, and that it is a strong predictor of success, just that it can be trained and that this could be done ad infinitum given enough time+willpower?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-06-17, 04:38
Custom title here

Post: #520 of 929
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 5 days
Last view: 10 hours
You know, if intellect is genetic, people of similar intellect interbreed because like attracts like, and socio-economic status is dictated primarily by intellect... how come two of my grandparents had children land in all levels of society from poor to comfortably middle class(until the economic crash at the turn of the century wiped out their retirement fund) to literal millionaire*?

I can, with a single generation, disprove your hypothesis.





*Incidentally, it is a fortune only made possible because he was financially well-off in his youth, as he had access to computers and the free time to play with them at a time when computers were fairly expensive, but anybody that owned one and had the time to play with them could write major commercial software.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-06-17, 08:51
Post: #57 of 148
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Another way to disprove the hypothesis:

Take any middle school class from any "bad" district. Tell the parents these are gifted children, and put *all* of them in a special school where this class has four tutors that challenge them. The students spend an entire year in this school, stay at dorms, and function the same. I can guarantee you, this middle school class at the end of the year will outperform their peers by a long shot. Every single one of them.

According to you though, this should be impossible. It's not. It's only impossible, because we as a society do not have endless resources.
Pages: First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
This does not actually go there and I regret nothing.