Everything costs too much and everybody is wrong about it and who the hell knows how to fix it?

[LC475]

i down loaded the audio book but i am not sure when i will have time to listen.

It's hidden away in another thread, so probably you missed it. A good introduction, requiring only an hour (during the commute) would be here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9dcXOGD3fo

Now it is pretty... I wouldn't even say politically incorrect, but it's different, thought-provoking, off the beaten path, so if you want a chance at actually being open/persuadable to it, or even just to understand it, you would probably want to read some pre-requisites to get you in the right frame of mind. I would recommend something like:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-D ... 0307455777

to allow your mind to put the idea of linking biology with beliefs and behavior into the "acceptable and plausible" camp.

and maybe also something on the historical side, like Gibbons (you don't have time for an audiobook? Allow me to recommend six volumes of antique chronicle and commentary!)

sounds like junk science to me

It's just science. Reading it is just like reading any book relating to science. There's some parts that are stronger than others, and overall it presents ideas which may or may not be correct. Reading Stephen Hawkings, one will find things with which one agrees, things with which one disagrees, and things one questions. That is my experience anyway. It's the same here, with Biohistory. Same for Malcolm Gladwell, or Stephen Jay Gould, or anyone writing on scientific questions. Questions -- not pronouncements, not dogma. Eh?

Some of the hypotheses are well-supported. Others are not. But the whole paradigm he puts forward is interesting, and that's qualification enough to be worthwhile in my estimation. Not just interesting, but highly interesting! That's high praise, in my book. High praise.

Apparently Penman is primarily a well-known franchise CEO in Australia

Yes, he is a successful man, an intelligent man, and a millionaire. Jim Penman is someone who has had significant success. He has figured out at least a few things in life. That's the kind of man I tend to find worth listening to. YMMV.

[LC475]

Regarding intelligence of Africans, I have two questions:
1. What is the standard deviation of intelligence of both populations (African and non-African)?

Non-African as in the rest of the world? Are you sure this is your question?

Maybe you mean the deviation or difference between those populations. If so: it is significant and measurable. In terms of the standard "Intelligence Quotient," I think around 20 or in certain countries 30 points (100 for the world, vs. 80, or 70) -- there's a lot of variance within Africa, country to country. A lot of variance throughout the rest of the world, too, for that matter.

Does that answer your question?

2. Which group developed the IQ test?

Scientists. Researchers. Also some educators. People interested in intelligence. These people continue today to develop it, change it, experiment, and try new ways to test and quantify intelligence, by the way.

[LC475]

just to be clear i doubt the African continent is going to leap civilization forward for a number of reasons, lower IQ isn't one,
given equal opportunity, challenges, drive and balanced testing i suspect the IQ spread among Africans would be comparable to any other group.

Any other group? Which other group? This statement implies (and maybe you think I was saying?) that all (other) groups are comparable to each other.

That is obviously not the case.

But I am fine with you believing that to be the case. What you believe about the intelligence of other people has essentially no impact on your life whatsoever. It really doesn't matter; it has no bearing on your life. That is why people are able to believe such disparate things about it. You can believe that every group of humans is equally intelligent and at the same time you can earn a living and successfully reproduce. There are no negative repercussions. (Well, in today's America, there may be negative repercussions for the opposite view...)

[LC475]

OK so now it seems like you are saying group and not race (African) and for groups there is variation because of the things i listed as needing to be equalized.. i see that i also mixed and matched race and group so a lack of clarity is on me here as well... i don't think you can say Africa (the continent or collection of groups) has lower IQ due to race, they do have a deficit of drive opportunity, challenges (the basic challenges solved / free to move on to better and bigger ones) and drive.. those things and variations in them, certainly can result in different IQ results..

I was responding, very precisely, to what you said. To the words you actually wrote.

There is a word which you talk about repeatedly above, but which I did not utter once. Can you guess what it is?

[dualstow]

(raises hand) ooh! ooh! is it race?

Edit: oh, but back a few pages, you wrote

Each race has taken its turn at civilization, and right now the Northern European Barbarians are taking their turn. If this civilization collapses, though, there's no more promising high-IQ barbarians waiting in the wings.

So, a different word, then.

[LC475]

(raises hand) ooh! ooh! is it race?

Edit: oh, but back a few pages, you wrote

Each race has taken its turn at civilization, and right now the Northern European Barbarians are taking their turn. If this civilization collapses, though, there's no more promising high-IQ barbarians waiting in the wings.

Yeah, but that was a few pages back. Ancient history. Nobody remembers that! (Clearly I didn't, anyway )

[dualstow]

Me neither. I had time to kill.

[LC475]

Regarding intelligence of Africans, I have two questions:
1. What is the standard deviation of intelligence of both populations (African and non-African)?

Non-African as in the rest of the world? Are you sure this is your question?

Maybe you mean the deviation or difference between those populations. If so: it is significant and measurable. In terms of the standard "Intelligence Quotient," I think around 20 or in certain countries 30 points (100 for the world, vs. 80, or 70) -- there's a lot of variance within Africa, country to country. A lot of variance throughout the rest of the world, too, for that matter.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, my question is what is the standard deviation in IQ, of the populations that you described in your post. You said that the IQ of Africans is low. I assume you were comparing Africans to non-Africans. So my question is what is the SD of IQ for those two populations. Surely you have access to the IQ data to support your claim.

I already answered. Read again.

How about *you* stick *your* neck out and make a claim, and then maybe I'll think about "backing up" some of mine.

Maybe.

[Kriegsspiel]

Yeesh, what the fuck happened in this thread.

Desert, there is some discussion of IQ difference between populations in The 10,000 Year Explosion, but it specifically regards Ashkenazi Jews. From what I've read, LC is right, there is difference in IQ between populations. I'm just not sure if IQ actually measures intelligence that well.

[Maddy]

[T]there is some discussion of IQ difference between populations in The 10,000 Year Explosion, but it specifically regards Ashkenazi Jews. From what I've read, LC is right, there is difference in IQ between populations. I'm just not sure if IQ actually measures intelligence that well.

Well, just what is "intelligence?" I'd submit that it's whatever the current IQ tests are testing for.

Take the Weschler Intelligence Scale, which was the definitive standardized test of intelligence for many years--and maybe still is. I recall spending some time looking at this test in college and was astounded at how subjective the questions are, and how inextricably tied to cultural norms. For example, I recall that one of the questions on the test (I can't remember whether it was the adult or child version) asked something like, "What should you do if you find a letter with a stamp on it?" The "correct" answer, which earned maximum points, was "You put it in a mailbox." Clearly, the question was in this instance testing the subject's awareness of moral norms, because to a highly intelligent sociopath, it might be much more logical to pry open the envelope and see if there's something valuable inside.

I also recall that for many questions on the test, the most "correct" answers were, at least in my mind, far less intelligent responses than some of the "less correct" ones. For example, the child version of the test asked for the meaning of a "penny." As I recall, a child who answered "One hundredth of a dollar" got fewer points than the one who answered, "You can spend it."

Yet years and years of research established that this test was valid. Of course, you can't possibly determine whether a test is valid without first defining what it is you're testing for. And that's the downfall of these tests: The investigators arbitrarily pick a population having the attributes that THEY regard as "intelligent," and then construct a test to measure for those attributes. The results may be technically valid in the sense that they measure what they purport to measure (i.e., the characteristics of the people regarded by the researchers are "intelligent"), but in the end, the researchers have no better claim on the definition of "intelligence" than anybody else does.

There's a book called "Emotional Intelligence" that's been around for a while. Its basic premise is that that the ability to identify and emphathize with what other people are feeling is as valid a measure of intelligence as any other, and that emotional intelligence is probably a more valid predictor of success in a world that requires a high level of competence in the realm of complex human interactions. Indeed, when you look at the competencies of one subset of people traditionally regarded as highly intelligent--the Asperger's crowd--it's easy to see how narrow and inadequate the traditional notions of intelligence are.

So when you make comparisons about the intelligence of various populations, you really need to articulate with some specificity what particular attributes you're talking about.

i took a human development class at college a couple years ago that showed us bits from an interesting film/TV show about intelligence. that was about exactly this..
there are now considered to be four or five different types of intelligence in addition to the old standard IQ test, including emotional, artistic, mechanical and some others ( they may be called social emotional, Visual & Spatial, Logical & Mathematical, kinesthetic? etc ) the film took people who are considered to be geniuses from each of the different intelligence types, and had them compete in a series of puzzles, tasks and tests over a period of time, the tests represent a challenge for each area of intelligence, the goal was to see who came out with the best over all score.. interesting stuff..
i think the limitations of standard IQ testing must be pretty common knowledge scientifically now if it has filtered down into the educational curriculum.

[Mountaineer]

IQ? Who cares? I just know I'm smarter than the rest of you bozo clowns! Or in honor of tech Or Machine Ghost

[Maddy]

Speaking of which. . . Where the heck is MG? I've been wanting to discuss guts.

[LC475]

I am happy to see so much interest in the topic of intelligence.

I optimistically hope some of it is actual interest and not just expressing certitude at having it all figured out.

The journal Intelligence would be a good and interesting source to learn about the latest research, theories, and developments.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896
Dilettantes and people with strong, vested ideological interest in the non-existence or non-measurability of objective intelligence will believe that the objections they raise to problematic aspects of IQ tests are novel to them, and have never been considered (much less addressed) by the professionals who have dedicated their careers to researching intelligence. And they would be wrong.

For those pondering a definition: a definition is indeed a good place to start a serious discussion of a topic. The definition of intelligence is: general problem solving ability.

[LC475]

I already answered. Read again.

How about *you* stick *your* neck out and make a claim, and then maybe I'll think about "backing up" some of mine.

Maybe.

Claim: Somebody needs a nap.

I generally just ignore all these meaningless posts, being above them.

But since several of you -- including a Moderator! -- having determined that Economics, Civilization, Moral Norms, and the panorama of all Human History are insufficiently interesting topics for discussion in this thread, are bound and determined to make the thread instead a conversation about Needling an Anonymous Internet Personality Named LC475 and Endlessly Obsessing About How Meanie-Pants He Has Been (Even Years and Years Later!), I will allow myself one (1) question:

What is the purpose of this post, Desert?

~~~

Back to the topic, and answering your question (an answer to which you will probably never respond to):

Standard deviation is a measure of variance. (Go ahead and go all MangoMan on me and be Righteously Insulted and tell me how you have a PhD in Statistics)

I already told you there is "a lot" of variance in intelligence levels both Africa and the rest of the world. That seems more than specific enough for the conversation at hand. If you have in mind a thread of inquiry you'd like to pursue involving more decimal places, then by all means lay it out! I shall gladly follow.

[Maddy]

Dilettantes and people with strong, vested ideological interest in the non-existence or non-measurability of objective intelligence will believe that the objections they raise to problematic aspects of IQ tests are novel to them, and have never been considered (much less addressed) by the professionals who have dedicated their careers to researching intelligence. And they would be wrong.

There's actually a huge body of literature addressing the problems inherent to intelligence testing. You could cite one article after another, all from mainstream psychological journals, that support the notion that intelligence testing is heavily biased and meaningful only when the results are understood in terms of those biases. For example, an IQ test might be a reasonable measure for assessing a particular individual's decline in mental functioning over time. But for purposes of making comparisons between various populations, not so much.

For those pondering a definition: a definition is indeed a good place to start a serious discussion of a topic. The definition of intelligence is: general problem solving ability.

Ah, but this begs the question, "What kind of problem-solving ability?"

[LC475]

There's actually a huge body of literature addressing the problems inherent to intelligence testing.

Exactly! Thank you for your 100% agreement with me. Your word "actually" in the above sentence is redundant. You just re-stated exactly what I stated.

Ah, but this begs the question, "What kind of problem-solving ability?"

The general kind. That's what the "G" stands for in G! (G is the Holy Grail of intelligence research that the researchers are striving to define and measure.)

[Pointedstick]

I've always been skeptical of emotional intelligence and the like. They strike me as efforts to bring unrelated positive traits under the umbrella of "intelligence" so as to avoid leaving less-intelligent people without the self-esteem that society grants to high-intelligence people. Intelligence is only one of many important human traits; the real problem is that the mainstream of our society privileges intelligence over most others.

It's okay for some people to simply be less intelligent than others. That doesn't make them worthless people.

That said, if intelligence is "problem-solving ability," that's something that's got genetic as well as environmental components, and zillions of studies back this up.

For example, in the 1976 University of Minnesota transracial adoption study study, they tested the IQ of African-American children raised in white American families and found that the kids' IQs substantially rose. Not quite to the level of white children raised in white families, but close. So maybe the remaining gap is genetic, but there's a lot of room for environmental improvements. IMHO the biggest problems for most lower IQ cultures is the cultures themselves--they don't prize intelligence and education the way high IQ cultures do.

[Xan]

What is the purpose of this post, Desert?

Posts like Desert's are one way that a community enforces its own standards. It's a way of gently calling out bad behavior.

Please stop treating everyone else like an idiot, even if you believe (as clearly you do) that we all are.

[Pointedstick]

Let me add something (in large bold text) to the end of Xan's post, just in case it wasn't obvious:

Posts like Desert's are one way that a community enforces its own standards. It's a way of gently calling out bad behavior.

Please stop treating everyone else like an idiot, even if you believe (as clearly you do) that we all are.

Sincerely,
the guy who runs this place, so you should probably heed my advice

[WiseOne]

For example, in the 1976 University of Minnesota transracial adoption study study, they tested the IQ of African-American children raised in white American families and found that the kids' IQs substantially rose. Not quite to the level of white children raised in white families, but close. So maybe the remaining gap is genetic, but there's a lot of room for environmental improvements. IMHO the biggest problems for most lower IQ cultures is the cultures themselves--they don't prize intelligence and education the way high IQ cultures do.

Thanks for bringing in some good hard data to the question! I expect the residual difference is simply a function of the duration of the inverse exponential curve of improvement vs the duration of the study.

I have no data to offer, but I have experienced African culture first hand. I spent 3 months volunteering at a Quaker mission hospital in western Kenya during medical school. The Kenyan & Ugandan physicians and nurses I met were all outstanding - possibly because they had to surmount significant barriers to get medical training, but they'd run rings around most US doctors or nurses for competence and clinical judgment. I saw absolutely no evidence of inferior intelligence.

The local tribe's culture had a very strong emphasis on family, community, and tradition, and were also intensely religious. The peds ward, despite being crowded with 2 or even 3 kids & parents per bed, was always quiet due to how attentive parents were to their children - you would not find that here! Reading materials were scarce and of course there was no such thing as TV. There was a newspaper we got (sometimes) from Nairobi that would be filled with spelling errors and mistakes on things like the date, but which contained more informative news than anything you could get in the US. That newspaper is what first alerted me to the sorry state of the American media.

With all these differences (and more, too numerous to describe) it is no surprise that the average performance on an IQ test designed for a Western audience would be lower. You simply can't use this data to infer inferior genetics or brain power.

[Mountaineer]

I've always been skeptical of emotional intelligence and the like. They strike me as efforts to bring unrelated positive traits under the umbrella of "intelligence" so as to avoid leaving less-intelligent people without the self-esteem that society grants to high-intelligence people. Intelligence is only one of many important human traits; the real problem is that the mainstream of our society privileges intelligence over most others.

It's okay for some people to simply be less intelligent than others. That doesn't make them worthless people.

That said, if intelligence is "problem-solving ability," that's something that's got genetic as well as environmental components, and zillions of studies back this up.

For example, in the 1976 University of Minnesota transracial adoption study study, they tested the IQ of African-American children raised in white American families and found that the kids' IQs substantially rose. Not quite to the level of white children raised in white families, but close. So maybe the remaining gap is genetic, but there's a lot of room for environmental improvements. IMHO the biggest problems for most lower IQ cultures is the cultures themselves--they don't prize intelligence and education the way high IQ cultures do.

Well said. I suspect we are spending quite a lot of time debating IQ and the merits there of. Perhaps a more productive topic would be to focus on the outcome rather than the input. Is the outcome money, contentment, relationships, knowing how to farm, knowing how to build a quantum computer, something else? For example: When I was a high school senior I worked with the Guidance Counselor and had access to the IQ records of all students. They ranged from a low of 69 to a high of 140+. As best I know, most of the students turned out to be productive members of society, albeit with different vocations and pay levels, but they mostly all seem content with their lives. Is that so bad? I knew the woman with the 69 quite well; 50 years later one would never suspect, or care, what her IQ was. We are all going to die. Enjoy the ride while you can and don't obsess over the strengths and weaknesses of others. Focus on outcome.

[Maddy]

I've always been skeptical of emotional intelligence and the like. They strike me as efforts to bring unrelated positive traits under the umbrella of "intelligence" so as to avoid leaving less-intelligent people without the self-esteem that society grants to high-intelligence people. Intelligence is only one of many important human traits; the real problem is that the mainstream of our society privileges intelligence over most others.

I can appreciate your skepticism, as it does seem that everywhere you turn some fiction or another is being run as part of the radical egalitarian agenda. And I agree that people and populations do differ greatly in terms of their intelligence, however you want to define that. The problem comes when you adopt (either explicitly or implicitly) a definition of intelligence that is context-specific--and then impute to it a real-life meaning that goes far beyond what is what is reasonably justified by that definition.

As for "emotional intelligence," I've become a believer, mainly from observing a change over the last few decades in how people relate to one another at work. With the advent of technology, the guys who previously were treated like loser-geeks now have the potential to become superstars. But have you noticed how many of those same people lack the ability to move forward in their lives? They're unable to solve interpersonal problems (they often don't even understand them) or to form relationships. They couldn't bring in a client if their life depended on it. Many of them can't even hold a job.

When you think about it, the array of qualities that go into making a successful, happy person is dizzying. I have the curious ability to hear a musical tone and to know exactly what it is. This boggles the mind of most musicians, many of whom would kill for the same ability. There are guys who can see things in their mind and build them, which is something that is flatly impossible for me. There are writers who can turn a phrase just right to create the desired nuance, or who can structure a symphony or novel in a way that creates a perfect symmetry among intangible elements.

The longer I live, the more convinced I become that there are important, measurable parameters other than those incorporated in traditional notions of intelligence that are far more important to success and the ability to live out a happy and productive life.

[Pointedstick]

Maddy, it seems like you're basically describing social skills and charisma. I agree that there's more to living a happy and productive life than just mere intelligence. Far more. But those are different things. No need to overload the term "intelligence" to encompass "all the skills and traits needed to live a happy and productive life."

And I very strongly agree with you that social skills and charisma are critical to navigating the parts of the world that involve contact with other humans. I've known and been friends with a number of people whose social skills far surpassed my own, but whose brains simply didn't process information very well or quickly. That doesn't mean those people were inferior--just that they were good at different things. I think it's an artifact of the technical-rational modern world that intelligence is seen as the end-all-be-all of human perfection. So people try to attach other traits to its orbit in order to get some of that social prestige. I think the "intelligence uber alles" view is wrongheaded and insulting. Intelligence/brainpower is just one facet of the human experience.

[Maddy]

I don't think we have a whole lot of disagreement here, but it's clear that for some of you guys the concept of intelligence is a whole lot less murky than it is for me. I think we part ways at the point when it comes to the idea of "general problem-solving ability." To me, problem-solving is always context-specific. A computer programmer is of no earthly use to me in my world out here in the boonies. But the guys who can get a 1940s tractor going when it biffs out are geniuses.

Back when I was doing law, my strong point was legal analysis. For any issue, I could spin a handful of different arguments--each supported with a thorough legal analysis--when everybody else had given up on finding even one. And I won a fair number of cases as a result. But I was never particularly quick at picking up on things. I can't count the times I sat around a conference table hearing a client's story for the first time and got hopelessly lost when the other folks in the room were completely on track. I just wasn't fast on the uptake. The brief that took other lawyers half a day to write usually took me several days. Things tended to stay murky in my mind until there came that magic gestalt-like moment when everything fell into place. And then I saw things very, very clearly.

Because my mind didn't seem to work like anybody else's, I had a lot of anxiety throughout my career, dreading the day when the magic moment just wouldn't come. The curtain would be pulled back and it would be revealed that I was a complete and utter fraud. And to this day I maintain that I had to work at least twice as hard as anybody else. I'm a relatively poor reader with shitty comprehension and a decidedly third-rate memory. But it was I who, in the end, won the hard cases and got the compliments from the judges about the quality of the analysis.

In recent years, I've come to appreciate that I have certain crazy, savant-like abilities that others just don't have--namely, my ability to scan the entire landscape of legal theory and to see the legally significant details and how they fit together. Some might argue, possibly correctly, that this is an autistic trait akin to seeing patterns in number strings.

So who was more intelligent--me or my "normal" peers who put out fairly mediocre work with a minimum of effort? (I've always thought they were, and that I just worked harder.) The question doesn't keep me up at night, but it illustrates how my own experience with a fairly unusual mix of abilities and deficits has given me a very uncertain idea of what intelligence is.

[dualstow]

Very interesting, Maddy!
I feel like I have that, but to a lesser degree. I excelled in writing in school. Listening, not so much. I need to take my time, and to analyze. However, if I go out with friends for dinner, I can easily recall all the topics we covered and most of the specific things that were uttered.