next »

[umdgrad]

Kingtut, I hate to parse terms here but the idea that individuals have varying amounts of ability and that some portion of this variability is attributable to heredity is not disputed. The idea that "g" represents cognitive abilities is in question.

[kingtut]

(1)Kingtut, I hate to parse terms here but the idea that individuals have varying amounts of ability and that some portion of this variability is attributable to heredity is not disputed. The idea that "g" represents cognitive abilities is in question.

Previously, umdgrad wrote,
(2)"Outside of that, he [Jensen] really presents a bunch of statements that are to this day subjects of argument among psychometricians and the like. By this I am speaking of the idea that 'g' represents a heritable trait rather than what we can actually prove it is, the single highest loading principle component factor among a number of tests."

This last quote (2) from you sure looks to me like you're saying that the heritability of g is one of the "to this day subjects of argument among psychometricians and the like." You don't say anything in (2) about the issue of whether  " "g" represents cognitive abilities."
So, given your "parsing of terms" passage (1) above, I have no idea of how you want (2) interpreted.

But let's now consider, from (1): "The idea that "g" represents cognitive abilities is in question." REALLY?? By whom? I'm aware that some people, like Howard Gardner, like to talk about "multiple intelligences", with only one (or maybe a few) of those being measured by g. But I don't know of anyone who claims that g does not represent ANY sort of cognitive ability.  So what is it, chopped liver? (Given that the topic here is "The Chosen IQ", I could not resist bringing in the "chopped liver.")

[umdgrad]

Kingtut, If you don't get the distinction I cannot help you. read more widely about the topic, not just what people who have been named in the popular press say. Actually pick up some journal articles and try and understand the topic more deeply. Then, as in most fields of social science, you will understand both the depth of the issue (trust me it is not as clear cut and simple as you seem to think it is) and the inconsistencies with many of the assertions of many of the popular "researchers" on IQ.

[pyshnov]

umdgrad:

pyshnov, it is kind of senseless to say you dismiss something as meaningless and then admit you don't read it and therefore have no understanding of it. Also, the end of your post seems to suggest that the only information or knowledge that matters is that which pertains to natural law (by the way how are you defining this). I am sure you are not that limited in perspective so please explain what you mean.

Yes, sure, it would be senseless if it related to science. But, I had strong dislike for psychology/sociology all my life. Some say that the proper object for man's studies is man himself, but, I say - not that aspect. The rationale for my dislike is that it seems to me that the bulk of any particular result in these studies is inevitably made up of the components that are not the object of your study. I.e., you say you studying genetic component while in fact you are studying the mood of the person or a group on that rainy morning. The experiments are dirty.

Another reason for my dislike is that the studies have the aim of finding ways to manipulate individuals. The experts pronounce judgements about you, while nobody knows you better than yourself. It looks a kind of occult fraud. Unless you are dealing with completely insane subject, it's not justifiable. Now, studying human intelligence: there is no even a definition of it; but, there are so many forms and expressions of intelligence!  We have universal admiration for Einstein, but every his pronouncement is shocking. Well, may be he had little "intelligence", but was just a man with the ability to honestly concentrate on a ridiculously narrow areas, one at a time?

So, my interest is attracted to the areas where the phenomenon can be really isolated and is invariant under many external influences that you, finally, can pronounce irrelevant. And that's what I think the laws of nature are. These are the effects that depend on a minimal number of causes, two - better than three. How far it is from studying the effects depending on the whole rest of the universe plus on the mood (and, the political school) of the observer! Isn't it suspicious when two learned authors can disagree on the main points and both can have devoted following (as in social sciences)? Their science is either non-existant or at an embryonic stage, which, again, means - non-existant.

I cannot refrain from expressing also strong dislike for the discussed here "worth" of individual, as well as for the supposed genetic elements of such. I said and repeat: experiments are dirty, you simply are making conclusions that, in fact, are due to other factors. I give you an example which is also a joke, and please take it as such. If you wish to find a serious element in it, that's not my fault.

Many say Jews have higher intelligence, IQ. I think it's only because in a traditional Jewish family they never discuss ball games. They also have higher QI (Questionable Integrity), and that's because they discuss other things...

[kingtut]

Kingtut, If you don't get the distinction I cannot help you. read more widely about the topic, not just what people who have been named in the popular press say. Actually pick up some journal articles and try and understand the topic more deeply. Then, as in most fields of social science, you will understand both the depth of the issue (trust me it is not as clear cut and simple as you seem to think it is) and the inconsistencies with many of the assertions of many of the popular "researchers" on IQ.

"Kingtut, If you don't get the distinction I cannot help you. "
"The distinction"? I have no idea what this refers to.

[mountain_ivy]

umdgrad:

Many say Jews have higher intelligence, IQ. I think it's only because in a traditional Jewish family they never discuss ball games. They also have higher QI (Questionable Integrity), and that's because they discuss other things...

Pyshnov--I'm confused about this statement.  Explain, please,

[pyshnov]

I said:

Many say Jews have higher intelligence, IQ. I think it's only because in a traditional Jewish family they never discuss ball games. They also have higher QI (Questionable Integrity), and that's because they discuss other things...

ab1997by:

Pyshnov--I'm confused about this statement.  Explain, please,

I wanted to say that the presence of genetic/inherited factors is never clear. No one can exclude it, but, the first factor is tradition, (of course) based on religion first, and on the historical conditions.

And in particular it is very complicated with the Jews: first, I would say - studying Talmud and going into most complicated logic and beyond reason in logic, constantly looking for unusual ways to prosper, opposition to the law and civil obligations, questioning everything, high selectivity in all choices, importance of every individual, pragmatism...  I don't see any of it having to do anything with genetics. Anyone can stop watching ball games, do some "Jewish" things and benefit greatly.

Due to the above and to the greatly diminished dependence on conventionalities, Jews have much broader choices than others. How they use them, that's a different story: some - for good, and some - for crime. I, by the way, greatly respect Lombroso (he was a Jew), but his books are hard to get (especially, "The Criminal Female"). His types of individuals possessing special physical characteristics can be hardly related to genetics of large groups, they are individual deviations, (sports). In the same way I see exceptionally bright and honest individuals of the past, also as individual deviations from average type. Again, this is not inherited in generations. (It should be noted that our present opinion of the men of the past can be completely wrong. For instance, Voltaire and Rousseau were scoundrels in their real life.)

Having said this, I think it is undeniable that at least one characteristic very much related to intelligence can be transmitted in generations - the hormonal constitution, and that, I think, can make one person who is able to concentrate on a task and another person - jumping and screaming all his life. But, this does not make one worthy and another unworthy, not in the eyes of God, at least.
---------
Sadly, yesterday, Bobby Fischer died. A good man who beat everybody in chess, and who was persecuted by the American establishment when he deviated from the script... Naively, being a national hero, he thought he had rights... I looked on google for hours at photographs of him taken in different times.

[mouseman]

Many say Jews have higher intelligence, IQ. I think it's only because in a traditional Jewish family they never discuss ball games. They also have higher QI (Questionable Integrity), and that's because they discuss other things...
[/quote]

First - Traditional Jewish families *do* discuss ball games extensively (but only baseball and basketball ;-)). 
Second - It is not QI or"Questionable Integrity", it's QT "Questionable Taste", as anybody who has has extensively discussed bowel movements at the dinner table over any Jewish holiday can attest.  However, that is protected under religious freedom statutes.

Mouseman

[pyshnov]

mouseman,
you certainly have different experience with Jewish tradition; may be the tradition underwent a change. May be there are certain traditions of which I never even heard, let alone witnessed, but those are not the ones from which Jewish intellect comes.