‹ First  < 4 5 6
 
   
 

Impact of slavery on IQ

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17990
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
31 December 2018 11:04
 
Jefe - 31 December 2018 10:54 AM
GAD - 31 December 2018 10:53 AM
Jefe - 31 December 2018 10:50 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2018 08:43 AM

Maybe it depends on what kind of a world you prefer: one full of self sufficient assholes? Or one full of amiable half-wits sucking on the government tit?

That’s a politically charged false-dichotomy.

1) Self-sufficiency is largely an illusion in modern society.
2) There is a whole range of success measurements between one extreme and the other.

But you know this.  wink

welfare and no welfare doesn’t seem like an illusion.

Welfare/No-Welfare =/= self sufficiency

...or rather, even those not drawing welfare are not self-sufficient - as they also rely and benefit from socialized government programs, and benefit from shared expense benefits of capital, infrastructure, and foundational programs derived from the contribution and work performed by others. (Many of which required governmental oversight.)

LOL!

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7138
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2018 11:05
 
burt - 31 December 2018 11:00 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2018 10:38 AM
burt - 31 December 2018 09:41 AM

The Flynn effect has to be considered, too. Throughout the 20th century average IQ scores rose about 10 points per decade (they had to keep readjusting the normalization so the average is always 100) so, does that mean that in the first 10 years of my life the world was filled with half-wits whose IQs by today’s standards would have averaged around 40 - 50?

So, suppose you took an IQ test fifty years ago and scored 140. Now you take another IQ test today. Does the Flynn effect imply that your new score will be 90? Assuming your “raw” (un-normalized) score remains the same? That’s a little hard to believe.

Or, suppose that your normalized score remains the same: 140 50 years ago, 140 today. Does that imply that your IQ according to the fifty-years-ago normalization increased from 140 to 190? That’s a little hard to believe, too.

That’s what’s been going on. But not like you’re imagining. (Not so hard to believe though, when I consider myself trying to use a new smart phone or decipher the instructions for a new TV.) But given me, as you say, hard to believe, got to be other factors involved. I don’t know for sure, but I think this involves scores on tests of cohorts at the same age, so the average of 14 year olds from 40 years ago normalized to present day standards for a cohort of 14 year olds. The usual explanation is that social complexity and technology have placed higher demands on the factors that are measured by IQ tests, and the brain has responded by developing more skill with those factors.

My 85 Y.O. mother calls herself ‘dumb’ because she can’t master a smart phone.  She doesn’t really want to - so that’s a factor in her ability - but really, she is ignorant of smart-phone technologies, and would score poorly on any test that referenced modern electronics.  HOWEVER, she is essentially a master-level textilist.  She can manage and ‘repair’ any sewing machine and is capable of producing highly intricate works on those machines, along with several other technical skills involving the manufacture of textile goods.  So she’s not dumb and would probably ace any quesstions involving those (now largely defunct) skills.

She might score lower in IQ - if the IQ questions revolved around electronic technology and their use.
But she’s not really less smart that someone who has extensive exposure to those technologies - her experience is just divergent from theirs (along with her learned skills).

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7138
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
31 December 2018 11:06
 
GAD - 31 December 2018 11:04 AM
Jefe - 31 December 2018 10:54 AM
GAD - 31 December 2018 10:53 AM
Jefe - 31 December 2018 10:50 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2018 08:43 AM

Maybe it depends on what kind of a world you prefer: one full of self sufficient assholes? Or one full of amiable half-wits sucking on the government tit?

That’s a politically charged false-dichotomy.

1) Self-sufficiency is largely an illusion in modern society.
2) There is a whole range of success measurements between one extreme and the other.

But you know this.  wink

welfare and no welfare doesn’t seem like an illusion.

Welfare/No-Welfare =/= self sufficiency

...or rather, even those not drawing welfare are not self-sufficient - as they also rely and benefit from socialized government programs, and benefit from shared expense benefits of capital, infrastructure, and foundational programs derived from the contribution and work performed by others. (Many of which required governmental oversight.)

LOL!

LOL yourself.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15999
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2018 14:50
 
Jefe - 31 December 2018 11:05 AM
burt - 31 December 2018 11:00 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2018 10:38 AM
burt - 31 December 2018 09:41 AM

The Flynn effect has to be considered, too. Throughout the 20th century average IQ scores rose about 10 points per decade (they had to keep readjusting the normalization so the average is always 100) so, does that mean that in the first 10 years of my life the world was filled with half-wits whose IQs by today’s standards would have averaged around 40 - 50?

So, suppose you took an IQ test fifty years ago and scored 140. Now you take another IQ test today. Does the Flynn effect imply that your new score will be 90? Assuming your “raw” (un-normalized) score remains the same? That’s a little hard to believe.

Or, suppose that your normalized score remains the same: 140 50 years ago, 140 today. Does that imply that your IQ according to the fifty-years-ago normalization increased from 140 to 190? That’s a little hard to believe, too.

That’s what’s been going on. But not like you’re imagining. (Not so hard to believe though, when I consider myself trying to use a new smart phone or decipher the instructions for a new TV.) But given me, as you say, hard to believe, got to be other factors involved. I don’t know for sure, but I think this involves scores on tests of cohorts at the same age, so the average of 14 year olds from 40 years ago normalized to present day standards for a cohort of 14 year olds. The usual explanation is that social complexity and technology have placed higher demands on the factors that are measured by IQ tests, and the brain has responded by developing more skill with those factors.

My 85 Y.O. mother calls herself ‘dumb’ because she can’t master a smart phone.  She doesn’t really want to - so that’s a factor in her ability - but really, she is ignorant of smart-phone technologies, and would score poorly on any test that referenced modern electronics.  HOWEVER, she is essentially a master-level textilist.  She can manage and ‘repair’ any sewing machine and is capable of producing highly intricate works on those machines, along with several other technical skills involving the manufacture of textile goods.  So she’s not dumb and would probably ace any quesstions involving those (now largely defunct) skills.

She might score lower in IQ - if the IQ questions revolved around electronic technology and their use.
But she’s not really less smart that someone who has extensive exposure to those technologies - her experience is just divergent from theirs (along with her learned skills).

Great example. Similar comments could be made about my parents and their siblings. They were all excellent at certain things related to their time, occupations, and interests but would fall flat facing much of modern technology (one Aunt just couldn’t figure out how to use a smart phone or a computer, and she had been the wife of a university chancellor, carrying out the associated duties plus multiple other jobs, memberships on governing boards, etc., and was brilliant at organizing projects. She wasn’t suffering from senility or dementia when introduce to those items, but just couldn’t get how to use them effectively).

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
31 December 2018 15:33
 

Let’s face it—humans are a bunch of dummies compared to the startlingly bright new entities that’ll eventually take over our lives.

It clearly displays a breed of intellect that humans have not seen before, and that we will be mulling over for a long time to come.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/science/chess-artificial-intelligence.html

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
31 December 2018 17:09
 
Jefe - 31 December 2018 10:45 AM

It seems to me that environmental factors get a bum deal in these considerations.
And the differences in environment can be quite significant when considering the different demographics.
(Or perhaps the environmental commonalities within varied segregate demographics…)

Not only is early cognitive development a factor, but consider also early dietary factors at play along with the cognitive stimulus.  Not to mention different surroundings and the subtle interplay they add to the mix.
How many of those low-scoring demographics had decreased access to full parental attention, secure nutritive meals, high-quality fatty foods to promote brain development, etc…  How many of the high-scoring demographics didn’t have to struggle for nutrition and clean water, and had easy access to a secure, heated home?  Which demographics had the best early education and school systems from k-9 ages?

We have seen published studies that suggest that parents talking to their children from a young age increases their likelihood of ‘success’ - along with vocabulary, and stability.  What other factors, I wonder, might contribute to early cognitive development leading to higher measures of IQ (or better ability to score highly on those tests…)

Consider, for instance, the difference lead-based household paint made on childhood development in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s…

Having now read through the mercifully short and readable link Abel kindly provided in his Reply #29, I still wonder about motivation among test takers. In the culture I grew up in, test-taking was and remains a serious undertaking. I learned early on that I’d better do well—try my best—on tests in general, or I’d some day be sorry. As a result, it’s part of my nature to want to do well when tested. I suspect I’m not the only one present who’s inadvertently swallowed such indoctrination. We’re all in the same hypnotized boat, aren’t we?

Who actually directs administration of the native-African testing in question? Clerical workers? Grad students? Professional researchers/professors? I ask this because college professors might tend to understand subtle requirements that promote science-style investigation. Or not. But besides that, how do the subjects view the experience of being tested? How reluctant or eager are they? Do they even reveal any hint of how motivated they might or might not be to focus with competitive ambition while taking an IQ test? Are they as deluded as I am?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6924
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2018 21:19
 
nonverbal - 31 December 2018 03:33 PM

Let’s face it—humans are a bunch of dummies compared to the startlingly bright new entities that’ll eventually take over our lives.

It clearly displays a breed of intellect that humans have not seen before, and that we will be mulling over for a long time to come.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/science/chess-artificial-intelligence.html

Cool article.

What is frustrating about machine learning, however, is that the algorithms can’t articulate what they’re thinking. We don’t know why they work, so we don’t know if they can be trusted. AlphaZero gives every appearance of having discovered some important principles about chess, but it can’t share that understanding with us.

You could say that these deep learning algorithms arrive at conclusions intuitively, like humans do. But lacking reason, they can’t justify or defend their conclusions after the fact the way humans do.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15999
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
05 January 2019 11:34
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
15 January 2019 21:06
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 December 2018 10:38 AM
burt - 31 December 2018 09:41 AM

The Flynn effect has to be considered, too. Throughout the 20th century average IQ scores rose about 10 points per decade (they had to keep readjusting the normalization so the average is always 100) so, does that mean that in the first 10 years of my life the world was filled with half-wits whose IQs by today’s standards would have averaged around 40 - 50?

So, suppose you took an IQ test fifty years ago and scored 140. Now you take another IQ test today. Does the Flynn effect imply that your new score will be 90? Assuming your “raw” (un-normalized) score remains the same? That’s a little hard to believe.

Or, suppose that your normalized score remains the same: 140 50 years ago, 140 today. Does that imply that your IQ according to the fifty-years-ago normalization increased from 140 to 190? That’s a little hard to believe, too.

Yeah, that would be extreme. Burt gave the wrong number; the Flynn effect is strong but not as strong as ten points per decade. It is only 3 points per decade. So, an IQ of 140 fifty years ago would be an IQ of 125 today. That is still a big puzzler for the science of intelligence, as you would expect.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6