Translation: you can’t refute that I just took apart the previous reference you posted (as it pertains to your point, anyway, not the quality of the work in general) so it’s time to shift away from that & redirect to a different book.
Good job, good effort, raj.
No, for a second you gave me the impression you might want to learn more about what’s being discussed here.
Instead I realize you’re just here to whore for likes.
That’s pretty rich, given that I actually read the article (the whole article, not just the “g is 86% heritable” part) and tried to explain what it meant to someone who clearly has no idea how to actually read science. We’ve been over this before.
I liked your post
Suky Suky now
Dude, lol, Jesus…
Heck no! You’re killing it. Further, you’ve done a superlative job of demonstrating the point I made at the beginning of this ‘intelligence’ sidetrack–namely, that it’s a hella complicated subject.
Raj, truth is you just have some damned unlikable ideas and an inability to argue the science behind these unlikable ideas. That’s why people like his posts and not yours on these topics.
AG, that summary was killer. It was a really well done study, although you have a much keener eye for the stats than I.
I mean yeah…how much do you have to love stats and numbers to be a biostatistician? 
I have read through a lot of this thread. I see logical points being made from both sides.
There has been one point that I would like to give my opinion on.
If an IQ test was designed in a way that it was suited towards Hunter and gatherer intelligence, a person that has a high current IQ score would have absolutely no problem learning and mastering the knowledge necessary to have genius level IQ scores in the hunter gatherer format. Their ancestors mastered that knowledge and moved further into intelligence evolution thousands of years ago.
If there was an alien race that had mastered energy usage and time travel and could reach Earth and communicate with us, we wouldn’t complain that we have unfair circumstances that don’t allow us to have their level of intelligence. We would try to learn and catch up.
My point with that is the measure of intelligence should not be catered to or “fair” to a group of people that are still closer to Hunter gatherer level of intelligence instead of where we are currently at with our intelligence evolution.
No his posts are liked because they are in line with the mainstream view pushed upon all of us since Birth.
Would you ever accept inherent racial differences in intelligence? Not in million years. Let’s be honest here.
Kudos to reading through this whole train wreck sir. I’m not sure that I agree with you on that opinion, but it was well made nonetheless. I look at it from a different standpoint: there must be a context provided to intelligence measurements (assuming for the moment they are accurate). In general intelligence tests seem to try to measure the raw potential of a person. If we are measuring potential then we must also find a way to take into account different levels of opportunities and environment.
Certainly it may be true that if you give 5 different people the exact same opportunities and environment (including culture, tools, etc in this bucket) that they come to 5 different outcomes. That then would suggest their “potential” in a way. On the other hand if you can’t control those environments to make them equal the only way to measure a person’s actual potential is to find a test that is not affected by environment.
In a way it is the same reason we do randomized and/or placebo controlled studies in biomedical science–we want to make sure we are actually measuring what we think we are measuring, and we want to make sure that a result is “real” if it appears in the data.
Anyway, good to see you round these parts and good thoughts.
Not true, I just haven’t seen any real convincing evidence that there are INHERENT racial differences in INNATE intelligence. And you still haven’t given me a damned reason to.
This is one of my favourite interviews - Human biodiversity and Criminality.
He jumps right in by tackling about ED’s objection lewontin’s fallacy (I started the video there)
Interesting point from the video above:
85 IQ is where the height of the bell cure for criminality peaks - Below that you’re not intelligent enough to plan and carry out criminal behaviour, above that you’re better off being in the free market.
Appreciate it
When was the last time you had a major change in your belief system? No one ever changes their mind on this forum. Anyways you could watch the video I posted.
Changes in beliefs require evidence. Major belief system changes require major evidence. I don’t see that you have given me major evidence.
I have read through a lot of the post, I have not read any of the links.
Are those my only two options? Because, if someone was to give me that Stat, my thought would be c) At birth your height is predetermined, but 20% is affected by other factors. Injuries, diet etc. Some of the same things that have been discussed in here about affecting a person’s IQ.
You mean like this?
Continued Influence Effect - The tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. One learns “facts” that later turn out to be false or unfounded, but the discredited information continues to influence reasoning and understanding even after one has been corrected.
Or like this?
Conservatism (Belief Revision) - the tendency to revise one’s belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence.
Where did you read that first term?
I just read it yesterday and was going to use it in a reply to ED and erased it.
I erase 1/3 of my replies here on rereading.
When I talk about intelligence evolution, I am talking about how we have moved, progressed, evolved from our previous knowledge of a subject into the current more in depth understanding of that subject.