3 ms·

> Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? Y

> Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them? Yes and No to both. Simply put; 1) There is nothing called "General Intelligence" beyond what enables a Human to survive in his/her environmental niche (including cultural/social since we are social animals). Leaving aside obvious biological retardation, if Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness/Disagreeableness, etc. enables one to survive, they are equally "Intelligent". Trying to rank these attributes on a ordinal scale and do quantitative calculations on them is nonsense. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) for convincing arguments. 2) Humans are highly adaptable and exhibit dynamic behaviour in different contexts. This "role" and hence the "exhibited intelligence" is specific to that context but if that adaptation subsumes the need for another related context then obviously one will be intelligent in both the contexts. For example London Taxi drivers actually grew their hippocampus and became more intelligent in both spatial navigation and memory recall - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memor... 3) We know that gene expression can be influenced by the environment via Epigenetics over generations (see the documentary The Ghost in your Genes). Environment (cultural/social/nutritional/economic) now becomes of paramount importance and thus a person's "fitness" for a role is dependent on Nature, Nurture and his unique Family Past history. He will now be intelligent in certain roles not so in others. 4) Wrong understanding and misuse of Statistical methods in the above scenarios. This is where Taleb's writing/videos help one to separate the wheat from the chaff. - Notes on Taleb's article - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_swindle https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_... - IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intelligence https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intell...

User23 3y ago
> See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man No thanks. Why would I refer to a source whose author either lied to get the results that suited his politics or was completely incompetent? From the NY Times[1]: But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong. Frankly I have my doubts about your knowledge of the subject if you’re relying on thoroughly discredited sources. You did nicely restate Mr. Taleb’s novel redefinition of “intelligence” as survival ability though. No doubt then Taleb believes the humble tardigrade is one of the most intelligent creatures on Earth. [1] https://archive.is/GhiVK https://archive.is/GhiVK
- rramadass 3y ago
  I pointed you to the wikipedia page of the book for a reason. The fact that you failed to note that the study you quote has itself been debunked/criticized by later studies leads me to question your knowledge of the whole topic. Read the section on Reassessing Morton's skull measurements and follow the links as needed. Finally, you might also want to checkout the following; 1) Triarchic theory of Intelligence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligen... 2) Theory of multiple Intelligences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...
  - User23 3y ago
    The critique amounts to essentially: well Gould is observably incompetent or a liar, but Morton was a racist so Gould is somehow still right. As for the triarchic theory, it’s not even wrong. I’m completely uninterested a non-empirical “theory” of intelligence.
    - rramadass 3y ago
      You are in full-blown denial mode of every evidence/theory contrary to your cherished "g factor"/single general intelligence/psychometrics "belief system". I will end this with the following observation; In this modern day and age anybody who believes; a Bedouin from the Sahara, a Aborigine from the Australian Outback, a Chukchi from the Northern Arctic, a tribal hunter from the Amazon Rainforest, a nomadic herder from the Mongolian Steppe, a Sherpa from the Himalayas, a Xhosa from Africa and a Techie from Silicon Valley can all be ranked on a single scale using a single metric of "General Intelligence" is ... manifestly wrong and unscientific! The absurdity is self-evident.
      - User23 3y ago
        Now you’re just falling back on bluster. You’re not even making claims anymore. You may as well argue that height isn’t a scientific metric because some people have longer legs and others have longer torsos so clearly any single height metric is meaningless. It’s pure flimflammery. In any event it’s pretty clear that your beliefs on the subject of intelligence are not evidence based, so I don’t think further discussion will be intellectually satiating for either of us.

User23 3y ago

> See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man No thanks. Why would I refer to a source whose author either lied to get the results that suited his politics or was completely incompetent? From the NY Times[1]: But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong. Frankly I have my doubts about your knowledge of the subject if you’re relying on thoroughly discredited sources. You did nicely restate Mr. Taleb’s novel redefinition of “intelligence” as survival ability though. No doubt then Taleb believes the humble tardigrade is one of the most intelligent creatures on Earth. [1] https://archive.is/GhiVK https://archive.is/GhiVK

rramadass 3y ago
I pointed you to the wikipedia page of the book for a reason. The fact that you failed to note that the study you quote has itself been debunked/criticized by later studies leads me to question your knowledge of the whole topic. Read the section on Reassessing Morton's skull measurements and follow the links as needed. Finally, you might also want to checkout the following; 1) Triarchic theory of Intelligence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligen... 2) Theory of multiple Intelligences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...
- User23 3y ago
  The critique amounts to essentially: well Gould is observably incompetent or a liar, but Morton was a racist so Gould is somehow still right. As for the triarchic theory, it’s not even wrong. I’m completely uninterested a non-empirical “theory” of intelligence.
  - rramadass 3y ago
    You are in full-blown denial mode of every evidence/theory contrary to your cherished "g factor"/single general intelligence/psychometrics "belief system". I will end this with the following observation; In this modern day and age anybody who believes; a Bedouin from the Sahara, a Aborigine from the Australian Outback, a Chukchi from the Northern Arctic, a tribal hunter from the Amazon Rainforest, a nomadic herder from the Mongolian Steppe, a Sherpa from the Himalayas, a Xhosa from Africa and a Techie from Silicon Valley can all be ranked on a single scale using a single metric of "General Intelligence" is ... manifestly wrong and unscientific! The absurdity is self-evident.
    - User23 3y ago
      Now you’re just falling back on bluster. You’re not even making claims anymore. You may as well argue that height isn’t a scientific metric because some people have longer legs and others have longer torsos so clearly any single height metric is meaningless. It’s pure flimflammery. In any event it’s pretty clear that your beliefs on the subject of intelligence are not evidence based, so I don’t think further discussion will be intellectually satiating for either of us.