5 ms·

> I would be more inclined to believe any differences in intelligence, if there really are any, are due to the environment in which the child was raised, rather

by katz 18y ago

> I would be more inclined to believe any differences in intelligence, if there really are any, are due to the environment in which the child was raised, rather than genetic advantages and disadvantages. Intelligence measured by the general intelligence factor is highly heritable. The general intelligence factor is a factor analysis of intelligence and is a measure of “innate” intelligence and attempts at “boosting” this fails. The test that measures this the best is Raven's progressive matrices which is culture and language negative. The general intelligence factor is highly correlated with IQ and highly correlated with future success. The performance of a person in these tests has to do with the physical make-up of the brain (there are a lot of online articles by (dr/prof) Haider that is fairly readable that sheds light on this subject.) > Here is a list I have compiled. IQ scores may be disputed, but the intelligence of these people generally are not. A note about your cited IQs – it is probably not correct. The popular press like to “guesstimate” the IQ of historic persons – but this is of little value. Rigorous intelligence tests (such as IQ tests) is a 20th century phenomenon. Leibniz lived in the 17th century – well before these tests. So to try and determine any IQ or measure of intelligence from him is a waste of time. Also – you collected only a point sample - I bet someone could get the same example with selecting a different group of famous persons. You also only selected the top 1% and not the general populations – so to draw assumptions of this sample to the general population would be wrong. I do agree with you that the study is somewhat worthless. Here are several conflating factors: People involved in menial labour (i.e. without tertiary qualifications) generally get children at a younger age. A lot of older financially secure men would generally marry younger less intelligent women (trade-up/Russian bride phenomenon). The age of child bearing of different social classes differs significantly. Also - a three point IQ difference with all these conflating factors would probably fall under the heading "not statistically significant".

tokenadult 18y ago
The test that measures this the best is Raven's progressive matrices which is culture and language negative. I've attended a lecture by John Raven, the publisher of that test, and he doesn't make that claim. The long, careful examination of what the Raven tests show, in conjunction with other evidence, can be found in James R. Flynn's excellent book What Is Intelligence?, which is about to come out in a new, expanded edition. http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Expanded-PB-Beyond/dp/0521741475/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Expanded-PB-Beyond/d... Also very good for reconsidering the importance of IQ tests is Keith Stanovich's What Intelligence Tests Miss. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...
- katz 18y ago
  > I've attended a lecture by John Raven, the publisher of that test, and he doesn't make that claim. I never said that he made that claim. Several other people compared RAPM and other intelligence tests to determine the g-loading. It was found by other people (not Dr. Raven) that RAPM has a high g loading. Testing for the general intelligence factor and the use of RAPM is widely accepted. Here is an example of a recent article: “Just one g: consistent results from three test batteries”, (Wendy Johnson, Thomas Bouchard, etc...) 2004. Using Google scholar you can find several other results. Even if you reject RAPM as a measure of g, there are less g-loaded tests (such as IQ) that can be used that predicts more or less the same thing (heritability of intelligence, etc...). > The long, careful examination of what the Raven tests show, in conjunction with other evidence, can be found in James R. Flynn's excellent book What Is Intelligence?, which is about to come out in a new, expanded edition. My problem with most of Flynn's books is that he is a political scientist and a passionate left-wing campaigner. He is basically a Gould-light – distorting science to fit his own world view. I usually prefer to read papers or books on intelligence matters from people with a PhD in areas such as educational psychology or neurology when it concerns brain structure (e.g. prof. Haier).
  - tokenadult 18y ago
    My problem with most of Flynn's books is that he is a political scientist and a passionate left-wing campaigner. He is basically a Gould-light--distorting science to fit his own world view. There are a lot of Ph.D. psychologists who disagree with that statement. Here is what Arthur Jensen said about Flynn quite a few years ago, and he hasn't retracted this statment: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray (all right, not a psychologist nor a geneticist) says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book I mentioned in this thread: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the primary source literature. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research. As for what we can conclude about the Raven Progressive Matrices test, one thing we certainly can't conclude is that it is not influenced by the cultural background of the test-taker. The test publisher says culture matters in Raven scores. http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStabilit...
trapper 18y ago
Why is it people don't understand that all groups have different means given large enough N. Statistical significance has nothing to do with the magnitude of difference. Effect size is what you are looking for which looks at the magnitude of the difference in means taking into account the groups variance. Also, 3 may well be statistically significant, and perhaps have a large effect size. This does not mean it is clinically significant.

by katz 18y ago

tokenadult 18y ago

The test that measures this the best is Raven's progressive matrices which is culture and language negative. I've attended a lecture by John Raven, the publisher of that test, and he doesn't make that claim. The long, careful examination of what the Raven tests show, in conjunction with other evidence, can be found in James R. Flynn's excellent book What Is Intelligence?, which is about to come out in a new, expanded edition. http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Expanded-PB-Beyond/dp/0521741475/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Expanded-PB-Beyond/d... Also very good for reconsidering the importance of IQ tests is Keith Stanovich's What Intelligence Tests Miss. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...

katz 18y ago
> I've attended a lecture by John Raven, the publisher of that test, and he doesn't make that claim. I never said that he made that claim. Several other people compared RAPM and other intelligence tests to determine the g-loading. It was found by other people (not Dr. Raven) that RAPM has a high g loading. Testing for the general intelligence factor and the use of RAPM is widely accepted. Here is an example of a recent article: “Just one g: consistent results from three test batteries”, (Wendy Johnson, Thomas Bouchard, etc...) 2004. Using Google scholar you can find several other results. Even if you reject RAPM as a measure of g, there are less g-loaded tests (such as IQ) that can be used that predicts more or less the same thing (heritability of intelligence, etc...). > The long, careful examination of what the Raven tests show, in conjunction with other evidence, can be found in James R. Flynn's excellent book What Is Intelligence?, which is about to come out in a new, expanded edition. My problem with most of Flynn's books is that he is a political scientist and a passionate left-wing campaigner. He is basically a Gould-light – distorting science to fit his own world view. I usually prefer to read papers or books on intelligence matters from people with a PhD in areas such as educational psychology or neurology when it concerns brain structure (e.g. prof. Haier).
- tokenadult 18y ago
  My problem with most of Flynn's books is that he is a political scientist and a passionate left-wing campaigner. He is basically a Gould-light--distorting science to fit his own world view. There are a lot of Ph.D. psychologists who disagree with that statement. Here is what Arthur Jensen said about Flynn quite a few years ago, and he hasn't retracted this statment: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray (all right, not a psychologist nor a geneticist) says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book I mentioned in this thread: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the primary source literature. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research. As for what we can conclude about the Raven Progressive Matrices test, one thing we certainly can't conclude is that it is not influenced by the cultural background of the test-taker. The test publisher says culture matters in Raven scores. http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf http://www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStabilit...

trapper 18y ago

Why is it people don't understand that all groups have different means given large enough N. Statistical significance has nothing to do with the magnitude of difference. Effect size is what you are looking for which looks at the magnitude of the difference in means taking into account the groups variance. Also, 3 may well be statistically significant, and perhaps have a large effect size. This does not mean it is clinically significant.