157 replies to this topic

[funkervogt]

I don't see a problem with eugenics so long as it is done voluntarily and non-coercively. For those of you who are going to criticize me for this, do you also oppose the abortion of Down's Syndrome fetuses? What about having people select sperm/egg donors based on desirable traits of these donors? If you support these things, just how exactly is what I'm proposing here meaningfully different from these things? 

I've long agreed with those points. 

[TranscendingGod]

It's no so much that he cares too much about IQ it's that he doesn't realize that IQ isn't deterministic as regards the economy, quality of life, and overall success. It's one component among many equals. Furthermore, any presumed difference between national IQ's is based upon very limited collections of data and the utility of said data is further diminished by the fact that for low income countries a majority of that difference is easily explained by inadequate nutrition levels. Not to mention that there is a much larger difference between individuals than there is between groups. Futurist at best has a highly deterministic and simplistic world view that is plain wrong and at worst his view is a nefarious veil for ulterior motives. 

[Futurist]

It's no so much that he cares too much about IQ it's that he doesn't realize that IQ isn't deterministic as regards the economy, quality of life, and overall success. It's one component among many equals. Furthermore, any presumed difference between national IQ's is based upon very limited collections of data and the utility of said data is further diminished by the fact that for low income countries a majority of that difference is easily explained by inadequate nutrition levels. Not to mention that there is a much larger difference between individuals than there is between groups. Futurist at best has a highly deterministic and simplistic world view that is plain wrong and at worst his view is a nefarious veil for ulterior motives. 

Yes, it would certainly be nice if we had more detailed and more reliable IQ data for the developing world; I'm certainly not disputing that. I'm also not disputing your other points here--as in, that environmental differences could significantly hold back some Third World countries and that the IQ difference within groups is much greater than the IQ difference between groups is. Still, the average IQ difference between groups is noticeable enough to make itself visible--for instance, in regards to comparing the economic situation of US blacks, US Hispanics, US whites, and US Asians.

 

There's also a correlation between IQ and some other things, such as life expectancy:

https://www.scientif...al population).

 

This correlation appears to mostly be due to higher-IQ people on average having better genes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4795559/

 

However, this correlation is NOT perfect since otherwise US Hispanics would not be living longer than US whites on average in spite of US Hispanics' lower average IQ.

[Futurist]

 

I don't see a problem with eugenics so long as it is done voluntarily and non-coercively. For those of you who are going to criticize me for this, do you also oppose the abortion of Down's Syndrome fetuses? What about having people select sperm/egg donors based on desirable traits of these donors? If you support these things, just how exactly is what I'm proposing here meaningfully different from these things? 

I've long agreed with those points. 

Good to hear!

[Futurist]

 

It's no so much that he cares too much about IQ it's that he doesn't realize that IQ isn't deterministic as regards the economy, quality of life, and overall success. It's one component among many equals. Furthermore, any presumed difference between national IQ's is based upon very limited collections of data and the utility of said data is further diminished by the fact that for low income countries a majority of that difference is easily explained by inadequate nutrition levels. Not to mention that there is a much larger difference between individuals than there is between groups. Futurist at best has a highly deterministic and simplistic world view that is plain wrong and at worst his view is a nefarious veil for ulterior motives. 

Yes, it would certainly be nice if we had more detailed and more reliable IQ data for the developing world; I'm certainly not disputing that. I'm also not disputing your other points here--as in, that environmental differences could significantly hold back some Third World countries and that the IQ difference within groups is much greater than the IQ difference between groups is. Still, the average IQ difference between groups is noticeable enough to make itself visible--for instance, in regards to comparing the economic situation of US blacks, US Hispanics, US whites, and US Asians.

 

There's also a correlation between IQ and some other things, such as life expectancy:

https://www.scientif...al population).

 

This correlation appears to mostly be due to higher-IQ people on average having better genes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4795559/

 

However, this correlation is NOT perfect since otherwise US Hispanics would not be living longer than US whites on average in spite of US Hispanics' lower average IQ.

Another interesting fact: While AFAIK US blacks live less than US whites live on average, US blacks actually don't appear to be underrepresented among verified US supercentenarians:

https://scholarworks...ontology_theses

 

So, in spite of the fact that US blacks punch below their weight in regards to top academic performance, they are actually able to punch their weight or perhaps even punch above their weight in regards to longevity--which again suggests that the IQ to longevity correlation is certainly NOT perfect.

 

Yep, it's quite interesting--blacks are significantly underrepresented among top US academic performers but not among verified US supercentenarians:

https://i0.wp.com/ww...00,9999px&ssl=1

 

(Among those students who score 650 or above on the Math SAT, only 2% are black even though blacks are over 10% of the total US population.)

[Futurist]

How does one post an image here?

[Computron]

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

[Futurist]

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

[Computron]

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

IQ is a right wing dog whistle. A low IQ man can be more functional and have more education than a high iq one with effort

[Outlook]

 

 

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

IQ is a right wing dog whistle. A low IQ man can be more functional and have more education than a high iq one with effort

 

Fuck yes, intelligence measuring in general is just reductionist pattern-seeking bullshit.

[Futurist]

 

 

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

IQ is a right wing dog whistle. A low IQ man can be more functional and have more education than a high iq one with effort

Sure--if, for instance, the high-IQ one has severe ADHD or some other kind of severe disability.

[Futurist]

 

 

 

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

IQ is a right wing dog whistle. A low IQ man can be more functional and have more education than a high iq one with effort

Fuck yes, intelligence measuring in general is just reductionist pattern-seeking bullshit.

Maybe it might be a good idea for you to e-mail some actual people who do research in this field: Richard Haier, Stuart Ritchie, Russell T. Warne, Heiner Rindermann, et cetera. Even Garett Jones. Or at least to read some of what they actually wrote about this.

 

It's quite interesting--there's a replication crisis in a lot of places in psychology but apparently not in regards to IQ:

https://twitter.com/...5388930?lang=en

[Futurist]

And for what it's worth, I myself wish that I was better in the IQ department; for instance, my own IQ pales in comparison to my younger sibling, who goes to MIT (Yes, seriously). I actually think that IQ inequalities--whether genetic or environmental--are an argument in favor of things such as a strong social safety net--which places me very far away from colorblind conservatives who want to aggressively cut welfare.

[Outlook]

 

 

 

 

I suppose you believe Africans have a 70 iq

Not necessarily:

http://www.iapsych.c...cherts2010b.pdf

IQ is a right wing dog whistle. A low IQ man can be more functional and have more education than a high iq one with effort

Fuck yes, intelligence measuring in general is just reductionist pattern-seeking bullshit.

Maybe it might be a good idea for you to e-mail some actual people who do research in this field: Richard Haier, Stuart Ritchie, Russell T. Warne, Heiner Rindermann, et cetera. Even Garett Jones. Or at least to read some of what they actually wrote about this.

 

It's quite interesting--there's a replication crisis in a lot of places in psychology but apparently not in regards to IQ:

https://twitter.com/...301814955388930https://en.wikipedia..._from_authority?lang=en

 

 

If you read their works, you could write something worthwhile instead of appealing to authority through cherry-picked researchers. Also what makes you think replicability means it isn't reductionist, or I'll add something new: largely correlational. Appealing to Steven Pinker of all people.

[Outlook]

I'm not going to write a large detailed literature review, but my own biases against intelligence psychology come from two points.

 

First, it's reductionist. By further defining generational intelligence, they borrow models from cognitive psychology in determining mental ability using abstract measures like perceptual speed, spatial visualization, word fluency, etc. and then creating overall measurement in the form of an intelligence quotient. There is no theory or interactive concept behind it, it relies on largely descriptive models in cognitive science and neuroscience, applies normative value (what is positive and negative ability), finding correlation between these now normative structures and if those models and theories change, then by nature it has to fundamentally reassess itself because it is a reductionist science.

 

My second point is its lack of causation research. Intrinsically speaking, general intelligence psychology is largely correlational and lacks solid causation research as most causation research is shaky and have conflicting evidence, aside from processing speed which seems to be the most promising causal factor:

https://onlinelibrar...81118489772.ch7
https://menghublog.w...n-to-causation/

 

This isn't usually a problem, but intelligence psychology is again normative. It applies good and bad measure to ability but there can't be attempts to increase it. In fact according to most studies apart from some developmental studies (which again is largely correlational and predictive), you can not increase IQ.

 

My extra third point that I found googling is reification, which I think is also a solid criticism. This criticism states that it makes concrete what is significantly abstract. This can be seen from an anti-psychology perspective to its use of mathematical analysis.

 

Personally I'd liken intelligence psychology to something like personality psychology. Both attempt to apply normative variables to certain cognitive processes and try to determine relationships with these normative values and external ones. All of this leads to me thinking IQ as a tool may be useful information for correlation analysis and research, but again I don't think it's useful for value judgements or causal determiners. If you want to understand your cognitive processes, get into a field whose latent variable status isn't questioned every decade.

[Computron]

Futurist is nearly brain dead from the hormones he gets injected into him anyways

Lol

[Futurist]

Futurist is nearly brain dead from the hormones he gets injected into him anyways

Lol

I didn't inject any hormones into myself, actually.

[Futurist]

I'm not going to write a large detailed literature review, but my own biases against intelligence psychology come from two points.

 

First, it's reductionist. By further defining generational intelligence, they borrow models from cognitive psychology in determining mental ability using abstract measures like perceptual speed, spatial visualization, word fluency, etc. and then creating overall measurement in the form of an intelligence quotient. There is no theory or interactive concept behind it, it relies on largely descriptive models in cognitive science and neuroscience, applies normative value (what is positive and negative ability), finding correlation between these now normative structures and if those models and theories change, then by nature psychometrics has to fundamentally reassess itself because it is a reductionist science.

 

My second point is its lack of causation research. Intrinsically speaking, general intelligence psychology is largely correlational and lacks solid causation research as most causation research is shaky and have conflicting evidence, aside from processing speed which seems to be the most promising causal factor:

https://onlinelibrar...81118489772.ch7
https://menghublog.w...n-to-causation/

 

This isn't usually a problem, but intelligence psychology is again normative. It applies good and bad measure to ability but there can't be attempts to increase it. In fact according to most studies apart from some developmental studies (which again is largely correlational and predictive), increase IQ.

 

My extra third point that I found googling is reification, which I think is also a solid criticism. This criticism states that it makes concrete what is significantly abstract. This can be seen from an anti-psychology perspective to its use of mathematical analysis.

 

Personally I'd liken intelligence psychology to something like personality psychology. Both attempt to apply normative variables to certain cognitive processes and try to determine relationships with these normative values and external ones. All of this leads to me thinking IQ as a tool may be useful information for correlation analysis and research, but again I don't think it's useful for value judgements or causal determiners. If you want to understand your cognitive processes, get into a field whose latent variable status isn't questioned every decade.

Thanks for your response here, Outlook! I might have some more comments about this topic in due time.