NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » IQ » “Definitions” of ‘Intelligence’ and its ‘Measurement’

“Definitions” of ‘Intelligence’ and its ‘Measurement’

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 257 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Goodreads

1750 words

What ‘intelligence’ is and how, and if, we can measure it has puzzled us for the better part of 100 years. A few surveys have been done on what ‘intelligence’ is, and there has been little agreement on what it is and even if IQ tests measure ‘intelligence.’ Richardson (2002: 284) noted that:

Of the 25 attributes of intelligence mentioned, only 3 were mentioned by 25 per cent or more of respondents (half of the respondents mentioned ‘higher level components’; 25 per cent mentioned ‘executive processes’; and 29 per cent mentioned ‘that which is valued by culture’). Over a third of the attributes were mentioned by less than 10 per cent of respondents (only 8 per cent of the 1986 respondents mentioned ‘ability to learn’).

As can be seen, even IQ-ists today cannot agree upon a definition—indeed, even Ian Deary admits that “There is no such thing as a theory of human intelligence differences—not in the way that grown-up sciences like physics or chemistry have theories” (quoted in Richardson, 2012). (Also note that attempts of validity are circular, relying on correlations with other, similar tests; Richardson and Norgate, 2015; Richardson, 2017b.)

Linda Gottfredson, University of Delaware sociologist and well-known hereditarian, is a staunch defender of JP Rushton (Gottfredson, 2013) and the hereditarian hypothesis (Gottfredson, 2005, 2009). Her ‘definition’ of intelligence is one of the most-oft cited ones, eg, Gottfredson et al (1993: 13) notes that (my emphasis):

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “ making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.

So ‘intelligence’ is “a very general mental capability”, its main ‘measure’ IQ tests (knowledge tests), but ‘intelligence’ “is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts.” Here’s some more hereditarian “reasoning” (which you can contrast with the hereditarian “reasoning” on race—just assume it exists). Gottfredson also argues that ‘intelligence’ or ‘g’ is learning ability. But, as Richardson (2017a: 100) notes, “it will always be quite impossible to measure ability with an instrument that depends on learning in one particular culture“—which he terms “the g paradox, or a general measurement paradox.

Gottfredson (1997) also argues that the “active ingredient” in IQ testing is the “complexity” of the items—what makes one item more difficult than another, such as a 3×3 matrix item being more complex than a 2×2 matrix item and giving some examples of analogies which she believes to show a type of higher, more complex cognition in order to figure out the answer to the problem. (Also see Richardson and Norgate, 2014 for further critiques of Gottfredson.)

The trouble with this argument is that IQ test items are remarkably simple in their cognitive demands compared with, say, the cognitive demands of ordinary social life and other activities that the vast majority of children and adults can meet adequately every day.

For example, many test items demand little more than rote reproduction of factual knowledge most likely acquired from experience at home or by being taught in school. Opportunities and pressures for acquiring such valued pieces of information, from books in the home to parents’ interests and educational level, are more likely to be found in middle-class than in working-class homes. So the causes of differences could be causes in opportunities for such learning.

The same could be said about other frequently used items, such as “vocabulary” (or word definitions); “similarities” (describing how two things are the same); “comprehension” (explaining common phenomena, such as why doctors need more training). This helps explain why differences in home background correlate so highly with school performance—a common finding. In effect, such items could simply reflect the specific learning demanded by the items, rather than a more general cognitive strength. (Richardson, 2017a: 91)

IQ-ists, of course, would then state that there is utility in such “simple-looking” test items, but we have to remember that items on IQ tests are not selected based on a theoretical cognitive model, but are selected to give the desired distributions that the test constructors want (Mensh and Mensh, 1991). “… those items in IQ tests have been selected because they help produce the expected pattern of scores. A mere assertion of complexity about IQ test items is not good enough” (Richardson, 2017a: 93). “The items selected for inclusion [on Binet’s test] were those that in the judgment of the teachers distinguished bright from dull students” (Castles, 2012: 88). It seems that all hereditarians do is “assert” or “assume” things—like the equal environments assumption (EEA), the existence of race, and now, the existence of “intelligence”. Just presuppose what you want and, unsurprisingly, you get what you wanted. The IQ-ist then triumphs that the test did its job—sorting high- and low-quality thinkers on the basis of their IQ scores. But that’s exactly the problem: prior assumptions on the nature of ‘intelligence’ and its distribution dictate the construction of the tests in question.

Mensh and Mensh (1991: 30) state that “The [IQ] tests do what their construction dictates; they correlate a group’s mental worth with its place in the social hierarchy.” That is, who is or is not “intelligent” is already presupposed. There has been ample admission of such presumptions affecting the distribution of scores, as some critics have documented (e.g., Hilliard, 2012’s documentation of test norming for two different white cultural groups in South Africa and that Terman equalized scores on his 1937 revision of the Stanford-Binet).

Herrnstein and Murray (1994: 1) write that:

That the word intelligence describes something real and that it varies from person to person is as universal and ancient as any understanding about the state of being human. Literate cultures everywhere and throughout history have had words for saying that some people are smarter than others. Given the survival value of intelligence, the concept must be still older than that. Gossip about who in the tribe is cleverest has probably been a topic of conversation around the fire since fires, and conversation, were invented.

Castles (2012: 83) responds to these assertions stating that “the concept of intelligence is indeed a “brashing modern notion.” 1” Herrnstein and Murray, of course, are in the “Of COURSE intelligence exists!” camp, for, to them, it conferred survival advantages and so, it must exist and we can, therefore, measure it in humans.

Howe (1997), in his book IQ in Question, asks us to imagine someone asking to construct a vanity test. Vanity, like ‘intelligence’, has no agreed-upon definition which states how it should be measured nor anything that makes it possible to check that we are measuring the supposed construct correctly. So the one who wants to assess vanity needs to construct a test with questions he presumes tests vanity. So if the questions he asks relates to how others perceive vanity, then the ‘vanity test’ has been successfully constructed and the test constructor can then believe that he’s measuring “differences in” vanity. But, of course, selecting items on a test is a subjective matter; there is no objective way for this to occur. We can say, with length for instance, that line A is twice as long as line B. But we could not, then, state that person A is twice as vain as person B—nor could we say that person A is twice as intelligent as person B (on the basis of IQ scores)—for what would it mean for someone to be twice as vain as someone else, just like what would it mean for someone to be twice as intelligent as someone else?

Howe (1997: 6) writes:

The measurement of intelligence is bedeviled by the same problems that make it virtually impossible to measure vanity. It is of course possible to construct intelligence tests, and the tests can be useful in a number of ways for assessing human mental abilities, but it is wrong to assume that such tests have the capability of measuring an underlying quality of intelligence, if by ‘measuring’ we have in mind the same operations that are involved in the measurement of a physical quality such as length. A psychological test score is no more than an indication of how well someone has performed at a number of questions that have been chosen for largely practical reasons. Nothing is genuinely being measured.

But if “A psychological test score is no more an indication of how well someone has performed at a number of questions that have been chosen largely for practical reasons”, then it follows that knowledge exposure explains outcomes in psychological test scores. Richardson (1998: 127) writes:

The most reasonable answer to the question “What is being measured?”, then, is ‘degree of cultural affiliation’: to the culture of test constructors, school teachers and school curricula. It is (unconsciously) to conceal this that all the manipulations of item selection, evasions about test validities, and searches for post hoc theoretical underpinning seem to be about. What is being measured is certainly not genetically constrained complexity of general reasoning ability as such,

Mensh and Mensh (1991: 73) note that “In reality — which is precisely the opposite of what Jensen claims it to be — test discrimination among individuals within any group is the incidental by-product of tests constructed to discriminate between groups. Because the tests’ class and racial bias ensures that some groups will be higher and others lower in the scoring hierarchy, the status of an individual member of a group is as a rule predetermined by the status of that group.

In sum, what these tests test is what the test constructors presume—mainly, class and racial bias—so they get what they want to see. If the test does not match their presuppositions, the test gets discarded or reconstructed to fit with their biases. Thus, definitions of ‘intelligence’ will always be, as Castles (2012: 29), “intelligence is a cultural construct, specific to a certain time and place.” The definition from Gottfredson doesn’t make sense, as the “test-taking smarts” is the main “measure” of ‘intelligence’, and so intelligence’s “main measure” is the IQ test—which presupposes the distribution of scores as developed by the test constructors (Mensh and Mensh, 1991). Herrnstein and Murray’s definition does not make sense either, as the concept of “intelligence” is a modern notion.

At best, IQ test scores measure the degree of cultural acquisition of knowledge; they do not, nor can they, measure ‘intelligence’—which is a cultural concept which changes with the times. The tests are inherently biased against certain groups; looking at the history and construction of IQ testing will make that clear. The tests are middle-class knowledge tests; not tests of ‘intelligence.’


37 Comments

  1. Intelligence def

    Having an internal representation of the world and use it to imagine possibilities, selecting actions that will maximize one’s preferences.

    Like

  2. King meLo says:

    “Ian Deary admits that “There is no such thing as a theory of human intelligence differences—not in the way that grown-up sciences like physics or chemistry have theories””

    That’s just false. Also, I consider Biology and Neuroscience to be “grown up sciences”. Why don’t you?

    “(Also note that attempts of validity are circular, relying on correlations with other, similar tests;”

    Yeah that’s what we call Predictive validity.

    “Gottfredson also argues that ‘intelligence’ or ‘g’ is learning ability. But, as Richardson (2017a: 100) notes, “it will always be quite impossible to measure ability with an instrument that depends on learning in one particular culture“—which he terms “the g paradox, or a general measurement paradox.””

    I’ve never heard of this “paradox”, and I don’t even think you would actually consider that a paradox. I don’t believe this “issue” is necessarily out of the scope of what is possible to model mathematically. Where maybe the IQ test can be tailored to specific cultures while also measuring the capacity, speed, and efficiency of how we use our senses. Or you could just simply make a test that’s as general as possible. the raven matrices are a good example of this, but I do agree that they have issues. I don’t think Intelligence as a concept is dependent upon the idea of innate potential. Since Intelligence is a brain process its realization is experience dependent and subsequently culture bias is an empty criticism.

    You could also just look at neurophysical structures to deduce an organisms intelligence. Like I do.

    “responds to these assertions stating that “the concept of intelligence is indeed a “brashing modern notion.””

    That is also false. The term intelligence and tests that measure it are new. But the concept of someone being a “better thinker” has always existed. I’m not even sure how that would help your case. As if the longevity of a term or concept had any baring on it’s ability to be measured.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      What’s the theory of human intelligence differences—in the way that grown-up sciences have theories? Presumably, he’s talking about psychology. Are you claiming psychology reduces to biology?

      <

      blockquote>that’s what we call Predictive validity< /blockquote>

      Yea, that’s what we call “circular”—when what “validates” thing A is similar to—indeed, a different version of—thing A.

      I’ve never heard of this “paradox”

      Which is why I said “which [Richardson] terms.”

      Right—we agree that test-taking is experience-dependent. Where we diverge is what these scores tell us. (The concept of ‘innateness’ is hollow, anyway.)

      culture bias is an empty criticism

      Why?

      The term intelligence

      Herrnstein and Murray explicitly stated that “That the word intelligence describes something real and that it varies from person to person is as universal and ancient as any understanding about the state of being human”, therefore Castles’ claim is apt—which she ends up stating that ‘intelligence’ is a cultural notion.

      That is a “better thinker” implies “more intelligent”—no?

      We use a word to describe (‘intelligence’), so does that mean the word (‘intelligence’) must refer to something in reality?

      baring [sic] on its ability to be measured.

      The claim under contention.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “What’s the theory of human intelligence differences—in the way that grown-up sciences have theories?”

      I’ve produced multiple theories. You can’t expect people to take you seriously if you keep spamming arguments that have already been refuted. Now what exactly do you mean by “grown up sciences”?

      “Presumably, he’s talking about psychology. Are you claiming psychology reduces to biology?”

      Of course they are, but we’ve already made the distinction clear on what you consider “reductive” and what I consider “reductive”. I concede causation is holistic ( though you never answered whether you thought causation was linear or not.), but Biological variation is still a cause of psychological variation whether it’s the only cause among many that interact or not. As such, Biology necessarily informs me on the variation of Mental states.

      “Yea, that’s what we call “circular”—when what “validates” thing A is similar to—indeed, a different version of—thing A.”

      Construct validity is a continuous process. Predictive validity is not used by itself to establish validity. So it isn’t circular. The only thing circular is arguably the definition of intelligence itself. But so are all definitions.

      “Why?”

      Because Intelligence isn’t coextensive with innate potential. You can claim that person A has higher skill than person B in subject X because of the prior training that person A had the privilege to do but because Intelligence doesn’t rely on a dichotomy of genes and culture It’s still coherent to say that person A is more intelligent that person B.

      “We use a word to describe (‘intelligence’), so does that mean the word (‘intelligence’) must refer to something in reality?”

      Not necessarily, but the way everyone uses it it does. It’s just that that system it’s tied to is holistic and complex. So it becomes difficult to tack it down on any one variable. It’s similar to our concept of race.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I’ve produced multiple theories. You can’t expect people to take you seriously if you keep spamming arguments that have already been refuted.

      Refresh my memory—I recall one of them.

      Now what exactly do you mean by “grown up sciences”?

      I presume Deary means “physical sciences.”

      but Biological variation is still a cause of psychological variation whether it’s the only cause among many that interact or not. As such, Biology necessarily informs me on the variation of Mental states.

      Let’s accept the premise “Biological variation is still a cause of psychological variation” (contentious, but I’ll accept it): When you say “Biology necessarily informs me on the variation of Mental states” what do you mean?

      Predictive validity is not used by itself to establish validity. So it isn’t circular.

      When IQ-ists claim that IQ tests have “predictive validity”, they claim that the test is unbiased—but they substitute the statistical definition for the ordinary one. A test has “predictive validity” iff prediction correlates with performance to the same degree of each group (Mensh and Mensh, 1991: 63).

      Wow, so, as I stated earlier, is it any surprise that a group’s performance on a test which is biased for or against a group would correlate with a group’s performance in schools which have the same biases as the tests?

      Julia Schwartz in A Is to B as C Is to Anything at All: The Illogic of IQ Tests writes:

      Why is it that group ability tests predict school achievement as well as they do? The answer is quite simple. Group achievement tests and group ability tests are sufficiently similar that without labels, one has difficulty telling which is which. If these group ability tests are used to predict, and group achievement tests are used to confirm those predictions, why should anyone be surprised?

      Because Intelligence isn’t coextensive with innate potential. You can claim that person A has higher skill than person B in subject X because of the prior training that person A had the privilege to do but because Intelligence doesn’t rely on a dichotomy of genes and culture It’s still coherent to say that person A is more intelligent that person B.

      How does that answer my question on why “culture bias” is an “empty criticism”—especially when all tests of ability are culture-bound (as stated by Michael Cole)?

      Not necessarily, but the way everyone uses it it does. It’s just that that system it’s tied to is holistic and complex. So it becomes difficult to tack it down on any one variable. It’s similar to our concept of race.

      So just because the term ‘intelligence’ exists doesn’t mean that its referring to an underlying reality—this leads us to the fallacy of reification (see e.g., Gould, Mismeasure of Man).

      Is “intelligence” a descriptor or a cause?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “Refresh my memory—I recall one of them.”

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661317302218

      “I presume Deary means “physical sciences.””

      Ha. No I mean what makes one science more “grown up” than another?

      “Let’s accept the premise “Biological variation is still a cause of psychological variation” (contentious, but I’ll accept it)”

      That’s not controversial.

      “When IQ-ists claim that IQ tests have “predictive validity”, they claim that the test is unbiased”

      That is false. It’s also a strawman argument.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_validity

      “How does that answer my question on why “culture bias” is an “empty criticism”—especially when all tests of ability are culture-bound (as stated by Michael Cole)?”

      Ah. So now it’s obvious you don’t understand my contention. The fact that IQ, actually all brain processes are experience dependent entails that IQ is culture bound since we as a species are niche constructors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory

      Since intelligence is a measure of the interaction between G and E as a concept it does not necessarily entail innateness because innateness of Intelligence implies that the brain is a robust organ, which we know is false. The brain is arguably the most flexible organ in the body. Meaning it’s incredibly responsive to exogenous input. So even if person B suffers from extreme malnutrition they are still less intelligent than Person A who does not have such constraints. Intelligence is not a measure of innate potential, because that abstract notion simply isn’t real.

      Simply put culture bias only works as a critique if I am trying to assert that IQ is a measure of some sort of “culture free potential”. This has now been explained to you 3 times.

      “So just because the term ‘intelligence’ exists doesn’t mean that its referring to an underlying reality”

      But it does. When people use the term intelligence to prescribe value, they refer to outcomes and results produced by individuals which are indeed a part of “reality”.

      “Is “intelligence” a descriptor or a cause?”

      It depends on how you’re trying to measure it

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      I forgot to add

      “When you say “Biology necessarily informs me on the variation of Mental states” what do you mean?”

      It means physiological information of an individual provides insight on the Psychological states of the individual.

      https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1816-9

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The cited paper rests on a false premise (that ‘g’ exists) and is not reified. Retroactively attempt to ‘find’ something that rests on a “positive manifold” and factor analysis. Are you aware with the problems of factor analysis?

      Ha. No I mean what makes one science more “grown up” than another?

      Well psychology itself isn’t a science, most importantly due to the fact that psychological states are multiply realizable, the non-existence of psychological/psychophysical laws and the impossibility of counterfactual interventions on behavior.

      And, again, I’d say he’s making a distinction between the physical sciences and the ‘mental “sciences”‘.

      That’s not controversial.

      What does “cause” mean here?

      That is false. It’s also a strawman argument.

      No, it really isn’t. The fact that tests are predictive for all groups, to the IQ-ist, implies no bias in the test.

      Simply put culture bias only works as a critique if I am trying to assert that IQ is a measure of some sort of “culture free potential”. This has now been explained to you 3 times.

      So you accept that IQ tests are biased against different social classes and cultures. You accept that there is no “culture-free” learning. It would then follow, I think, that you then would think that ‘g’ lacks ‘culture free potential’, no?

      But it does. When people use the term intelligence to prescribe value, they refer to outcomes and results produced by individuals which are indeed a part of “reality”.

      It depends on how you’re trying to measure it

      So, to you, intelligence is a cause, not a descriptor? You believe that ‘intelligence’ is a thing or a process (which emerges)?

      It means physiological information of an individual provides insight on the Psychological states of the individual.

      What about multiple realizability?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Nevermind the quote from Strenio on picking and choosing questions that discriminate between better and worse test-takers, so the distributions are, as I’ve argued for years, presupposed. And as Hilliard (2012) and Richardson (1991, 2000, 2017) note, change the assumptions and the distributions will change too. There is ample evidence that differences can—and were, in the case of Terman’s 1937 Stanford-Binet revision—be built into and out of these, and any, standardizes tests. You would then see different things when, for instance, fMRI is done and then you can say that these differences in test scores are due, in part, to brain structure. It shows the Illogic of the IQ-ist’s claims.

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      two dumb pseudo-intellectuals arguing with each other is entertaining.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Run along. Grown ups are talking.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “The cited paper rests on a false premise (that ‘g’ exists) and is not reified.”

      General intelligence is a real biological phenomena that is independent of a positive manifold. We’ve been through this. You also never replied to my jensen citation.

      “Are you aware with the problems of factor analysis?”

      Yes, but I’m 100% positive that you don’t. Or more specifically that you do not have an understanding on the mathematical procedure and are instead regurgitating something you read or heard.

      “most importantly due to the fact that psychological states are multiply realizable,”

      Are you aware of the problems with multiple realizability?

      “the non-existence of psychological/psychophysical laws and the impossibility of counterfactual interventions on behavior.”

      Counterfactual laws are not required for a scientific theory. You need to take Fodor’s dick out of your mouth. Physiology isn’t a science according to you.

      “What does “cause” mean here?”

      That Psychological variation is always preceded by biological mechanisms.

      “No, it really isn’t. The fact that tests are predictive for all groups, to the IQ-ist, implies no bias in the test.”

      Predicative validity is how well an IQ test correlates to similar constructs not how well it predicts variation, so it says nothing on the possible bias of the tests. Educate yourself.

      “It would then follow, I think, that you then would think that ‘g’ lacks ‘culture free potential’, no?”

      Within humans? Yes. That doesn’t mean IQ isn’t measuring Intelligence. Intelligence isn’t a measure of “culture free potential”.

      “So, to you, intelligence is a cause, not a descriptor? You believe that ‘intelligence’ is a thing or a process (which emerges)?”

      I guess so. Most educate HBDers I come across think of it as a descriptor. Meaning they don’t think it should represent any function of morphophysiology.

      “so the distributions are, as I’ve argued for years, presupposed.”

      And?

      Like

    • jaws2727 says:

      King meLo

      I’m a very occasional lurker around RR’s site, so I have 3 questions about what you generally argue for, if you don’t mind I’m just curious:

      1) You have mentioned somewhere in these comments that you have proposed “multiple theories of human intelligence differences”. What are some of what you proposed?

      2) Somewhere else in this thread you mentioned that the “terrible racists are also misinformed on biology”. What, in your experience, are they misinformed about?

      3) And what about the general hereditarian explanation that greater cognitive ability/intelligence being LARGELY attributed to genome? Do you agree with it?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      I cited one of them in the previous comments.
      I find a lot of HBDers I converse with don’t understand that nature/nurture is a false dichotomy.
      That’s patently false at least on the individual level. The brain is arguably the most malleable organ.

      Like

  3. sillyolyou says:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661317302218

    You are aware that nothing in the paper validates “g” independent of the reliance on factor analysis? We’re all well-aware of the crisis in neuroscience replicability, particularly with network models, but I’m not sure how citing a paper that can’t even get the history of Spearman’s “g” correct is supposed to fill me with confidence as to its veracity.

    Like

  4. sillyolyou says:

    Are you aware of the problems with multiple realizability?

    What are the problems? Seems like a robust theory to me.

    Counterfactual laws are not required for a scientific theory. You need to take Fodor’s dick out of your mouth. Physiology isn’t a science according to you.

    That’s a claim, but there’s no reason why anyone should accept your unevidence and unexplained philosophy of scientific theories.

    That Psychological variation is always preceded by biological mechanisms.

    Temporal precedence is only one of the necessary criterion for establishing causality, if we’re talking Hill’s criterion (from epidemiology). It’s not relevant here since everyone agrees that biology precedes psychology.

    Predicative validity is how well an IQ test correlates to similar constructs not how well it predicts variation, so it says nothing on the possible bias of the tests. Educate yourself.

    Read “Mainstream Science on Intelligence”. The entire group erroneously argued that the lack of differential predictive power for IQ tests was evidence against bias. They were mathematically wrong. See Millsap

    Within humans? Yes. That doesn’t mean IQ isn’t measuring Intelligence. Intelligence isn’t a measure of “culture free potential”.

    It’s alleged to be (see: literally every paper on “intelligence” ever), and if it’s not culture-free, then claims of “X group is more intelligent than Y group” are misleading at best.

    Like

    • King meLo says:

      “You are aware that nothing in the paper validates “g” independent of the reliance on factor analysis?”

      That is so blatantly false, if you’re going to critique my comment make sure you actually read the material I’ve provided.

      “We’re all well-aware of the crisis in neuroscience replicability, particularly with network models”

      And? Are you aware of the replicability crisis that pervades all of science? So are you going to take the autistic route and just assume everything’s false like RR. Or are you going to do what a normal person would and take the study with a grain of salt until more studies replicating it are made? Nevermind the fact that this study itself is an addition to numerous other similar theories with similar levels of confirmation. More evidence you didn’t read the paper.

      “What are the problems?”

      Convergent evolution casts doubt upon it’s implications because if constraints on the type of physical system that can realize mental phenomena didn’t exist, the presence of similar behavior among organisms who also share similar anatomical mechanisms for that behavior would be highly unlikely.

      There’s also Kim’s argument on the causal closure of the physical. Which RR has cited before ironically.

      https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/multiple-realizability/

      “That’s a claim, but there’s no reason why anyone should accept your unevidence and unexplained philosophy of scientific theories.”

      As far as I’m aware counterfactuals are inherent to science, but the existence of necessary laws that circumference all possible outcomes and conditionals ( which is what RR means by counterfactual laws) is not something any scientist expects from their theory. The theory of gravity shouldn’t have to predict electron degeneracy pressure. Just like there doesn’t need to be a counterfactual law that describes all types of cancer across all the individuals infected by it for cancer to be a cause of death

      ” everyone agrees that biology precedes psychology.”

      Right which is why RR’s stance on holism is brash. Biological mechanisms always precede psychological outputs, so to downplay one cause just because there are multiple causes makes no sense. I can learn about the mind from studying the brain. Do you understand what RR and I are even debating about? Because your comment strikes me as wholly irrelevant.

      “The entire group erroneously argued that the lack of differential predictive power for IQ tests was evidence against bias. ”

      Ok? That has nothing to do with what I said.

      “if it’s not culture-free, then claims of “X group is more intelligent than Y group” are misleading at best.”

      No its really not. No psychological test can be culture free, so to be disappointed by cultural bias seems to be…stupid. In reality Since IQ is a measurement of cognition and cognition is simply the output of the inseparable interaction between G and E then differences in E do not bias the output.

      So to simplify, If Person A is malnourished ( which also affects their genome) and scores lower on IQ than Person B. Person B is still more intelligent whether there is a difference in environment or not. The issue is that everyone assumes Intelligence denotes some sort of innate capacity (like the article you cited suggests) so to them differences in culture pose a problem for it. My view circumvents this. And RR’s position is simply a strawman.

      “So it absolutely is subject to the criticisms RR brought up”

      Jesus Christ you might end up giving me a brain aneurysm. So it’s obvious neither you or RR understand what my contention is, and on top of that I have a Moral realist/idealist/christian evangelist/ Nazi sympathizer calling me a “pseudo-intellectual”…This is why no one reads this blog.

      Like

  5. sillyolyou says:

    Intelligence is not a measure of innate potential, because that abstract notion simply isn’t real.

    Interesting, that goes along with Turkheimer’s position as here. https://www.geneticshumanagency.org/gha/does-iq-measure-cognitive-capacity/

    Like

  6. sillyolyou says:

    Lmao, the paper you linked about literally says this:

    how g – reflected in the positive manifold and the hierarchical pattern of
    correlations among tests

    So it absolutely is subject to the criticisms RR brought up

    Like

    • dealwithit says:

      the only reason you aren’t dead from AIDS is about $1 trillion spent saving you and your perverted kin.

      you should kill yourself an donate your organs to children.

      Like

  7. sillyolyou says:

    That is so blatantly false, if you’re going to critique my comment make sure you actually read the material I’ve provided.

    I did read the paper. If you were able to provide a citation that supports the claim that “g” has been verified independently of factor analysis (it has not, and cannot be verified independently of factor analysis, from a basic logical standpoint, but don’t let little things like logic get in your way!), then you would have done so. Provide a quotation or retract your erroneous claim.

    And? Are you aware of the replicability crisis that pervades all of science? So are you going to take the autistic route and just assume everything’s false like RR. Or are you going to do what a normal person would and take the study with a grain of salt until more studies replicating it are made? Nevermind the fact that this study itself is an addition to numerous other similar theories with similar levels of confirmation. More evidence you didn’t read the paper.

    Indeed, I’m well-aware that the replicability crisis pervades all of science. It’s particularly applicable to neuroscience, which is known to produce all sorts of voodoo correlations (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/92f2/7151b148b49d440b30a595d38474bdbb396c.pdf). I read the paper, noticed it drew upon an uninformative evidence-base, and concluded that there’s no evidence in there that should cause anyone to update their priors.

    Convergent evolution casts doubt upon it’s implications because if constraints on the type of physical system that can realize mental phenomena didn’t exist, the presence of similar behavior among organisms who also share similar anatomical mechanisms for that behavior would be highly unlikely.

    I don’t see how any of this has even the smallest modicum of relevance to multiple realizability.

    There’s also Kim’s argument on the causal closure of the physical. Which RR has cited before ironically.

    Kim’s argument is stupid (may he rest in peace)

    https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/multiple-realizability/

    Reductionism is a dead position; only fools defend it.

    As far as I’m aware counterfactuals are inherent to science, but the existence of necessary laws that circumference all possible outcomes and conditionals ( which is what RR means by counterfactual laws) is not something any scientist expects from their theory. The theory of gravity shouldn’t have to predict electron degeneracy pressure. Just like there doesn’t need to be a counterfactual law that describes all types of cancer across all the individuals infected by it for cancer to be a cause of death

    You seem to be confused as to what the requirement of RR’s counterfactual law is; it wouldn’t require the theory of gravity to predict electron degeneracy pressure.

    Right which is why RR’s stance on holism is brash. Biological mechanisms always precede psychological outputs, so to downplay one cause just because there are multiple causes makes no sense. I can learn about the mind from studying the brain. Do you understand what RR and I are even debating about? Because your comment strikes me as wholly irrelevant.

    Where has RR ever downplayed a single cause? He’s made it very clear that he doesn’t assign hierarchies to causes.

    Ok? That has nothing to do with what I said.

    I was helping correct your willful misinterpretation of what RR said. My apologies if finding the truth isn’t welcome.

    No its really not. No psychological test can be culture free, so to be disappointed by cultural bias seems to be…stupid.

    If the tests can’t be culture-free, then they fall subject to the criticisms RR has made.

    In reality Since IQ is a measurement of cognition and cognition is simply the output of the inseparable interaction between G and E then differences in E do not bias the output.

    You aren’t able to distinguish between culture and other environmental causes?

    So to simplify, If Person A is malnourished ( which also affects their genome) and scores lower on IQ than Person B. Person B is still more intelligent whether there is a difference in environment or not. The issue is that everyone assumes Intelligence denotes some sort of innate capacity (like the article you cited suggests) so to them differences in culture pose a problem for it. My view circumvents this. And RR’s position is simply a strawman.

    See above.

    Jesus Christ you might end up giving me a brain aneurysm. So it’s obvious neither you or RR understand what my contention is, and on top of that I have a Moral realist/idealist/christian evangelist/ Nazi sympathizer calling me a “pseudo-intellectual”…This is why no one reads this blog.

    I believe your contention is the admission that you have failed to put forth a coherent argument and are flapping your arms in the wind in the hopes that someone will fall for your tricks.

    Like

    • dealwithit says:

      you know that your thing is just bourgeois decadence, right?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Pritzker

      —he spit into the spitoon—-

      the bolshies would’ve sent you to kolyma.

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “I did read the paper. ”

      No you didn’t. I know because you don’t understand the absurdity of your statement.

      The point of said paper was to provide a model for biological g. It’s not about factor analysis, because it isn’t about statistics or psychology. While it is based on the existence of Psychological g it is not dependent upon it. There are many proposed biological mechanisms responsible for the concept of general intelligence. This concept itself is independent of the existence of a positive manifold simply because it is true in virtue of how we understand the brain, as an integrated memory system.

      So either 1. You didn’t read it or 2. You read it and didn’t understand it.

      “which is known to produce all sorts of voodoo correlations”

      No it’s not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5017149/

      “I don’t see how any of this has even the smallest modicum of relevance to multiple realizability.”

      Then you must not know what multiple realiziability is.

      https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/344623?seq=1

      “You seem to be confused as to what the requirement of RR’s counterfactual law is”

      This to me is the funniest statement you’ve made, simply because I’ve been arguing with RR for 3 or 4 years now, and im quite aware of what he means by “counterfactual laws”. Like in Fodor’s argument, a counterfactual law for NS to RR is “Trait A is selected in Organism B through filtration of Environment C” It’s not “lawful” to him because 1. Trait X can be coextensive with trait A and therefore the counterfactual is no longer a counterfactual and 2. The counterfactual does not account for conditionals. RR is one of those weirdos who’s into Scientific Realism.

      If you’re positive he means something else then elucidate it for me.

      “He’s made it very clear that he doesn’t assign hierarchies to causes.”

      Right, but RR finds it “contentious” if I say Gene X causes variation in Trait A despite there being nothing controversial about the statement. Even if you’re a holist. Because no hierarchies for causes doesn’t change the fact that genes are still mechanisms of inheritance.

      “I was helping correct your willful misinterpretation of what RR said.”

      I didn’t misinterpret anything. Neither of you know what predictive validity is. Specifically if both tests are “culturally bias” (despite that being an incoherent term to psychological tests) it doesn’t change the fact that one test predicts similar scores in a group to another.

      “If the tests can’t be culture-free, then they fall subject to the criticisms RR has made.”

      Only if you assume Intelligence is coextensive with Innate potential. Which is erroneous for the reasons I iterated earlier.

      “You aren’t able to distinguish between culture and other environmental causes?”

      Experience dependency is still experience dependency no matter the level.

      “I believe your contention is the admission that you have failed to put forth a coherent argument”

      The thing is. RR’s blog posts are sophomoric to anyone who’s actually educated in the field, but that doesn’t stop retards from reading it and thinking they’ve stumbled upon ammo for those terrible racists they hate so much. It just so happens those terrible racists are also incredibly misinformed on biology and it just turns into a shit show of people spewing misinformation back and forth.

      Like

  8. sillyolyou says:

    No you didn’t. I know because you don’t understand the absurdity of your statement.

    Yes, I did.

    The point of said paper was to provide a model for biological g.

    It is to present a possible model given the assumption that psychometric g exists, to explain psychometric g.

    It’s not about factor analysis, because it isn’t about statistics or psychology.

    So “g”, despite the actual history of the concept, has nothing to do with statistics or psychology?

    While it is based on the existence of Psychological g it is not dependent upon it. There are many proposed biological mechanisms responsible for the concept of general intelligence.

    Yeah, there are proposed biological mechanisms that explain psychometric ‘g’. None of them are evidence for ‘g’, they are theories of psychometric g.

    This concept itself is independent of the existence of a positive manifold simply because it is true in virtue of how we understand the brain, as an integrated memory system.

    That’s bare assertion, not evidence.

    No it’s not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5017149/

    Call me back when you aren’t just googling “voodoo correlations neuroscience” and picking the first article you find. See here (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691611400237) and here (http://www.evullab.org/pdf/VulKanwisher-chapter-inpress.pdf).

    Then you must not know what multiple realiziability is.

    https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/344623?seq=1

    This has nothing to do with your original claim, nor is it an argument against multiple realizability.

    This to me is the funniest statement you’ve made, simply because I’ve been arguing with RR for 3 or 4 years now, and im quite aware of what he means by “counterfactual laws”. Like in Fodor’s argument, a counterfactual law for NS to RR is “Trait A is selected in Organism B through filtration of Environment C” It’s not “lawful” to him because 1. Trait X can be coextensive with trait A and therefore the counterfactual is no longer a counterfactual and 2. The counterfactual does not account for conditionals.

    Some of this is right. It also does not support the claim you made in your previous comment.

    RR is one of those weirdos who’s into Scientific Realism.

    Scientific realism is quite a popular position in the PoS these days.

    Right, but RR finds it “contentious” if I say Gene X causes variation in Trait A despite there being nothing controversial about the statement. Even if you’re a holist. Because no hierarchies for causes doesn’t change the fact that genes are still mechanisms of inheritance.

    Genes aren’t causes. Saying “Gene X causes variation in Trait A” is a controversial statement, see Holland 1986 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2289064

    I didn’t misinterpret anything. Neither of you know what predictive validity is. Specifically if both tests are “culturally bias” (despite that being an incoherent term to psychological tests) it doesn’t change the fact that one test predicts similar scores in a group to another.

    I’m well-aware of what predictive validity is – I’ve written an entire article on it.
    What does cross-test prediction have to do with anything?

    Only if you assume Intelligence is coextensive with Innate potential. Which is erroneous for the reasons I iterated earlier.

    Please show me the formal logic, no assumption of that sort was made.

    Experience dependency is still experience dependency no matter the level.

    The innate/acquired distinction died a long time ago.

    The thing is. RR’s blog posts are sophomoric to anyone who’s actually educated in the field, but that doesn’t stop retards from reading it and thinking they’ve stumbled upon ammo for those terrible racists they hate so much.

    And you are clearly educated in the field (not)

    It just so happens those terrible racists are also incredibly misinformed on biology and it just turns into a shit show of people spewing misinformation back and forth.

    You’re the one making erroneous claims.

    Like

    • King meLo says:

      “Yes, I did.”

      Then you didn’t understand it.

      “It is to present a possible model given the assumption that psychometric g exists, to explain psychometric g.”

      No lol. Again, you should read the paper.

      “So “g”, despite the actual history of the concept, has nothing to do with statistics or psychology?”

      No. Because the positive manifold and General intelligence are two different things. The former is supposedly evidence for the latter.

      “Yeah, there are proposed biological mechanisms that explain psychometric ‘g’. None of them are evidence for ‘g’, they are theories of psychometric g.”

      This is also false. The mechanisms of Neural plasticity are evidence of general ability in cognition. This is independent of a g factor.

      “That’s bare assertion, not evidence.”

      It’s a true assertion. If you’d like to learn about Neuroscience I’m sure there are free online programs, youtube videos, or books you can look into.

      “Call me back when you aren’t just googling “voodoo correlations neuroscience” and picking the first article you find. See here”

      Hahaha. I found the article by searching Studies that cited yours. It also already addresses the second citation. Fiedler’s article seems promising and I agree with most of it.

      “This has nothing to do with your original claim, nor is it an argument against multiple realizability.”

      The original claims was that MR has it’s own set of problems. You asked what some of these problems may be, I pointed to the existence of convergent evolution. The reasoning is laid out in the article I cited you.

      So I’ll give you another chance, because it’s clear you have difficulties with reading comprehension or at least have an extremely poor memory.

      ” It also does not support the claim you made in your previous comment.”

      I was correcting your misinterpretation of RR’s terms. Do you actually remember what the original claim was? I don’t think you do because I already gave reasoning for it.

      “Genes aren’t causes.”

      Yes they are. The only way you could come to the opposite conclusion is by playing semantics with the word “cause”.

      “I’ve written an entire article on it.”

      Then it was probably garbage.

      “What does cross-test prediction have to do with anything?”

      Cross-test prediction is how you measure predictive validity.

      “Please show me the formal logic, no assumption of that sort was made.”

      No. Of course the assumption was made, because you think Psychological tests can be “culturally biased”. In fact you even linked me an article that agreed that most people when conceptualizing intelligence assumes it is coextensive with “culture free potential”. You even argued that if Intelligence isn’t coextensive with said concept than that means claims of intelligence are “meaningless”. The point being, you are committing sin as a holist because you’re trying to partition causes along the lines of a false dichotomy. If there is no Acquired/Innate distinction then there is no culture bias. All that matters is the outcome.

      “The innate/acquired distinction died a long time ago.”

      I know. What’s funny though is that you don’t. Or more specifically you don’t actually understand the implications of that assertion which is why you’re making such poor and incoherent arguments.

      “And you are clearly educated in the field (not”

      More so than you, that’s for sure.

      “You’re the one making erroneous claims.”

      I haven’t made any “erroneous” claims.

      Furthermore, I’d suggest refraining from jumping in on random arguments in the future. Otherwise you just end up looking intellectually dishonest like you do here. I don’t know any other way to explain how you keep misinterpreting my views, forgetting the points of the arguments, and not even remembering your own positions.

      I’ve also noticed that you seem to be purposefully ignoring citations (like the Kim paper) and then claiming they are irrelevant. If you think they’re wrong, then say so and explain why. Just telling me they’re irrelevant to subject X despite the article clearly being about subject X simply doesn’t cut it. You can’t expect people to take you seriously doing this, at this point anybody who would read this conversation between us may walk away with the impression that you’re stupid.

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      Then you didn’t understand it.

      Then please, almighty god, please provide, with textual support, a single modicum of evidence that supports your claim that the article you linked supports the idea of a ‘general intelligence’ independent of the erroneous psychometric evidence.

      No lol. Again, you should read the paper.

      I did. Stipulating “no” is not a response, certainly not one that anyone would find convincing outside of an ideological echo chamber.

      No. Because the positive manifold and General intelligence are two different things. The former is supposedly evidence for the latter.

      “g” is general intelligence. That’s what it stands for. See Spearman’s paper “General Intelligence, Objectively Defined and Measured”. That’s what “g” and “general intelligence” have always referred to. Once Spearman’s theory of “g” was falsified, Jensen renamed the positive manifold to “g” and pretended the theories were the same.

      This is also false. The mechanisms of Neural plasticity are evidence of general ability in cognition. This is independent of a g factor.

      How are “mechanisms of neural plasticity” evidence of “general ability in cognition”? Remember, stipulations aren’t evidence.

      It’s a true assertion. If you’d like to learn about Neuroscience I’m sure there are free online programs, youtube videos, or books you can look into.

      It’s a bare assertion – if you want anyone to believe it, then you should provide evidence. You have not provided any evidence that “general intelligence” is a “true” concept “independently of the positive manifold” because of how we “understand the brain”, particularly its “integrated memory system”.

      Hahaha. I found the article by searching Studies that cited yours. It also already addresses the second citation. Fiedler’s article seems promising and I agree with most of it.

      Yes, so you agree that there are voodoo correlations in neuroscience, thank you.

      The original claims was that MR has it’s own set of problems. You asked what some of these problems may be, I pointed to the existence of convergent evolution. The reasoning is laid out in the article I cited you.

      Equifinality is ubiquitous so Kim’s claims are false.

      I was correcting your misinterpretation of RR’s terms. Do you actually remember what the original claim was? I don’t think you do because I already gave reasoning for it.

      Your claim was that RR’s requirements for a scientific law are too stringent, particularly because they would require a theory of gravity to predict electron degeneracy. I replied and pointed out that you seem to have misunderstood RR’s requirements for something to be a scientific law. You then proceeded to describe (with a limited level of accuracy) RR’s understanding of requirements for scientific laws. Then I pointed out that your reconstruction of Fodor’s argument is not supportive of the claim that RR would require a theory of gravity to predict electron degeneracy.

      Yes they are. The only way you could come to the opposite conclusion is by playing semantics with the word “cause”.

      What definition of “cause” are you employing? I’m using the ones employed by statisticians.

      Then it was probably garbage.

      Great argument.

      Cross-test prediction is how you measure predictive validity.

      Hahahahahaha – this is delusional and has nothing to do with actual scientific practice. Go open up a psychometrics textbook – predictive validity is the correlation between the test and a criterion. For example, the alleged correlation between IQ tests and job performance, IQ tests and income, etc. Correlating a test with another version of the same type of test is not predictive validity, it’s basically an estimate of test reliability.

      No. Of course the assumption was made, because you think Psychological tests can be “culturally biased”. In fact you even linked me an article that agreed that most people when conceptualizing intelligence assumes it is coextensive with “culture free potential”.

      You’re conflating culture and environment. Regardless, Turkheimer is right that people think of intelligence (and it is DEFINED that way…) as a capacity. If you’re merely stating it’s an observation, then I’m not sure your claims about “general intelligence” are consistent with that, nor how any mainstream “intelligence” research makes sense.

      Two questions: do you buy “true score ” theory (i.e. CTT)? Do you agree with Sternberg here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15347533)?

      You even argued that if Intelligence isn’t coextensive with said concept than that means claims of intelligence are “meaningless”.

      Please provide a quotation.

      The point being, you are committing sin as a holist because you’re trying to partition causes along the lines of a false dichotomy.

      I never stated I was a holist, particularly not your definition of “holism”

      If there is no Acquired/Innate distinction then there is no culture bias. All that matters is the outcome.

      You seem to be confused as the the relationship between culture bias and the innate/acquired distinction. The lack of an innate/acquired distinction does not imply the absence of cultural bias.

      I know. What’s funny though is that you don’t. Or more specifically you don’t actually understand the implications of that assertion which is why you’re making such poor and incoherent arguments.

      I do. I do understand the implications and I am not making “poor and incoherent arguments”

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      so many words vs a transsexual = meLo is not a real person = peepee

      rr not banning peepee = rr is the only autistic southern italian ever = rr is lying about his ancestry =

      mugabe wins!

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      I’ve seen pictures of RR: he is not lying.

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      so he’s albanian. just as i expected.

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      an irishman, an albanian who claims to be italian, a jew, and a south asian walk into a bar…

      irishman: i’ll have two bottles of whiskey with an “e”.

      italian wannabe albanian: i’ll have whatever arnold had when he was here.

      jew: i’ll have the blood of a christian baby.

      south asian: i’ll have an empty glass. where’s the bathroom?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “with textual support, a single modicum of evidence that supports your claim that the article you linked supports the idea of a ‘general intelligence’ independent of the erroneous psychometric evidence.”

      Well first off why do you think the psychometric evidence of g is erroneous? Secondly the article never explicitly says that. It doesn’t have to, again that is just true in virtue of what we know about the brain.

      “That’s what “g” and “general intelligence” have always referred to…How are mechanisms of neural plasticity” evidence of “general ability in cognition?”

      What spearman and jensen refer to as “general intelligence” is irrelevant.

      Neuralplasticity involves many mechanisms like synaptic pruning, synaptic plasticity, non-synaptic plasticity, neurogenesis, etc. These mechanisms are fundamental to how humans learn and subsequently how cognition and consciousness exist. Because Plasticity by definition responds to exogenous input it means the mechanisms are generally applicable to any environment.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164108/

      Your ignorance is not my problem.

      “Yes, so you agree that there are voodoo correlations in neuroscience, thank you.”

      I agree that “voodoo correlations” exist in all fields. So your criticism is vacuous.

      “Equifinality is ubiquitous so Kim’s claims are false.”

      Non sequitur

      “Then I pointed out that your reconstruction of Fodor’s argument is not supportive of the claim that RR would require a theory of gravity to predict electron degeneracy.”

      You did nothing of the sort. So I’m waiting.

      What do you think RR means by “counterfactual laws”?

      “What definition of “cause” are you employing? ”

      That Phenotype A requires the existence of any Genotype at all. There you go again, not remembering things.

      “predictive validity is the correlation between the test and a criterion.”

      Ya I know.

      “Correlating a test with another version of the same type of test is not predictive validity, it’s basically an estimate of test reliability.”

      False. An example would be the SATs which are corroborated with GPA in highschool. Same test, different format.

      “You’re conflating culture and environment.”

      No. Humans are niche constructors. Our culture is our environment.

      “If you’re merely stating it’s an observation, then I’m not sure your claims about “general intelligence” are consistent with that, nor how any mainstream “intelligence” research makes sense.”

      They don’t have to be consistent with the concept of a “capacity”. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

      “Two questions: do you buy “true score ” theory (i.e. CTT)? Do you agree with Sternberg here”

      I don’t know. I’d have to research it more. From the cursory search I have done though I don’t think I do.

      As far as the link goes, I completely agree with it. Intelligence can mean different things across culture.

      “Please provide a quotation.”

      It’s alleged to be (see: literally every paper on “intelligence” ever), and if it’s not culture-free, then claims of “X group is more intelligent than Y group” are misleading at best.

      “I never stated I was a holist, particularly not your definition of “holism””

      Then what are you? I figured you were just sucking RR’s cock.

      “The lack of an innate/acquired distinction does not imply the absence of cultural bias.”

      LMAO. How so?

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      Well first off why do you think the psychometric evidence of g is erroneous?

      The psychometric evidence can’t distinguish between a sampling model, a dynamic mutualism model or any number of other models. Moreover, the actual falsifiable definition of “g” was falsified…. in the 1920s by Burt.

      Secondly the article never explicitly says that. It doesn’t have to, again that is just true in virtue of what we know about the brain.

      I’ll refer you right back to:

      Then please, almighty god, please provide, with textual support, a single modicum of evidence that supports your claim that the article you linked supports the idea of a ‘general intelligence’ [from neuroscientific principles]

      .

      What spearman and jensen refer to as “general intelligence” is irrelevant.

      Spearman coined the term and Jensen popularized it. If you’re using some idiosyncratic definition that nobody else in the world uses, please let me know where I can locate the definition.

      Neuralplasticity involves many mechanisms like synaptic pruning, synaptic plasticity, non-synaptic plasticity, neurogenesis, etc.

      Sure.

      These mechanisms are fundamental to how humans learn and subsequently how cognition and consciousness exist.

      I don’t know about “fundamental”, but they certainly are heavily involved.

      Because Plasticity by definition responds to exogenous input it means the mechanisms are generally applicable to any environment.

      That doesn’t imply anything about “general intelligence”. General intelligence is about a factor that purportedly affects all cognitive abilities.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164108/

      Ctrl + F “general intelligence” -> no results

      I agree that “voodoo correlations” exist in all fields. So your criticism is vacuous.

      It’s not vacuous, it’s entirely relevant to your citation of unreplicable work from the field.

      Non sequitur

      Fine, then see here – https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/652964

      You did nothing of the sort. So I’m waiting.

      You never demonstrated the implication, you merely asserted it. I denied the implication due to the fact that no reasoning was given to support it.

      What do you think RR means by “counterfactual laws”?

      He can explain himself

      That Phenotype A requires the existence of any Genotype at all. There you go again, not remembering things.

      That’s not the definition that the statistician above nor the definition that I and RR employ.

      Ya I know.

      Clearly not.

      False. An example would be the SATs which are corroborated with GPA in highschool. Same test, different format.

      SAT-GPA correlations don’t provide predictive validity.

      No. Humans are niche constructors. Our culture is our environment.

      One part of our environment, but not the whole

      They don’t have to be consistent with the concept of a “capacity”. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

      “General intelligence” is purported to reflect a capacity. See Jensen’s 1998 book.

      I don’t know. I’d have to research it more. From the cursory search I have done though I don’t think I do.

      OK.

      As far as the link goes, I completely agree with it. Intelligence can mean different things across culture.

      Got it

      It’s alleged to be (see: literally every paper on “intelligence” ever), and if it’s not culture-free, then claims of “X group is more intelligent than Y group” are misleading at best.

      The word “meaningless” does not appear in this quotation

      Then what are you? I figured you were just sucking RR’s cock.

      Not sure at the moment.

      LMAO. How so?

      The simple fact that you failed to provide even the beginning of an argument for the claim

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      “The psychometric evidence can’t distinguish between a sampling model, a dynamic mutualism model or any number of other models.”

      Source? I know where RR and I left off on the conversation, but I’m not sure exactly what your problems are with it.

      “If you’re using some idiosyncratic definition that nobody else in the world uses, please let me know where I can locate the definition.”

      I’m changing the definition to fit what we know about phenotypic expression. As the article you linked me suggests, Intelligence is usually coextensive with the idea of an “innate capacity/potential”, but “new” discoveries and concepts within the fields of Neuroscience and Biology have proven this idea to be nonsensical. I’m taking a system view of how neural states are propagated and then applying it to our concept of intelligence. These are the logical implications of accepting holism. So saying a test is “culturally biased” is an empty statement. We already know that Group A scores higher than group B because of cultural differences, Group A is still more intelligent. This is because Intelligence as a concept cannot be utilized if it is coextensive with “innate potential”.

      “I don’t know about “fundamental”, but they certainly are heavily involved.”

      You “don’t know about fundamental” because you don’t know about how the brain functions. Synaptic plasticity is literally how your brain even makes neural connections. You can’t have memories without it.

      “General intelligence is about a factor that purportedly affects all cognitive abilities.”

      Yeah. Plasticity is the mechanism behind all cognitive abilities. The only way to develop and utilize them is through plasticity on many different levels. NNT discusses it at a cellular population level. The brain is experience dependent. Research what that means.

      “Ctrl + F “general intelligence” -> no results”

      Clearly doesn’t understand the point of the citation.

      “It’s not vacuous, it’s entirely relevant to your citation of unreplicable work from the field.”

      Hahahaha. Too bad it”s been replicated multiple times

      “Fine, then see here”

      How does this address Kim?

      Something you should realize is that cognition relies on the activity of neurons on the population level. This is how it retains functional localization and plasticity. The “MR” you speak of can only be established with confidence if you have a very weak understanding of the brain. Again, Psychology/Neurosceince does not need counterfactual laws.

      “no reasoning was given to support it.”

      See I’m what you call a “human”, and “humans” don’t express logic in syllogisms. The only people who do that are what we call….retarded. I can’t think of what else you mean by “reasoning” because I laid it out quite clearly. If you have any confusion maybe I can help you.

      “He can explain himself”

      Translation: I don’t actually know what RR means by “counterfactual laws” and instead have decided to waste your time with my pseudo-skepticism.

      Ok genius I want you to take a big guess on how I know what RR means by “counterfactual laws”.

      “That’s not the definition that the statistician above nor the definition that I and RR employ”

      Ok that’ nice. So why does RR think saying genes cause behavior is “contentious”. Believe it or not I’ve explained to him ad infinium on what I mean by “cause”.

      “One part of our environment, but not the whole”

      Stupidity at its finest. Culture is literally everything about our environment. Like Music, diet, Art, Geography, social structures etc. All of which have effects on our psychology.

      “SAT-GPA correlations don’t provide predictive validity.”

      In a strict study of predictive validity, the test scores are collected first; then at some later time the criterion measure is collected. For predictive validity, the example is slightly different: Tests are administered, perhaps to job applicants, and then after those individuals work in the job for a year, their test scores are correlated with their first year job performance scores. Another relevant example is SAT scores: These are validated by collecting the scores during the examinee’s senior year and high school and then waiting a year (or more) to correlate the scores with their first year college grade point average.

      You don’t know what predictive validity is.

      “The word “meaningless” does not appear in this quotation”

      And? If you consider them “misleading at best” then what does that mean other than meaningless?

      “Not sure at the moment.”

      LOL.

      “The simple fact that you failed to provide even the beginning of an argument for the claim”

      I wish you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      king melo doesn’t have a dog in this fight but he thinks he does because low IQ.

      king melo is not chinese, korean, or japanese. he belongs to the se asian race which is less akin to the former three races than are europeans. he is swarthy
      and has a small brain.

      how is rr related to charles bronson?

      Like

    • King meLo says:

      Im aware that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just hate how these retards regurgitate their misinformation ad infinium.

      I got tired of having to constantly correct pumpkin so I gave up. As far as I’m concerned neither sides of this debate have much to offer conceptually.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Blog Stats

  • 683,032 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com

Keywords

%d bloggers like this: