EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 7:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 ... d%3D317281


Our technology may be getting smarter, but a provocative new study suggests human intelligence is on the decline. In fact, it indicates that Westerners have lost 14 I.Q. points on average since the Victorian Era.

What exactly explains this decline? Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam, points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But this isn't the first evidence of a possible decline in human intelligence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 8:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Don't forget fatter and more out of shape. It's amazing how pitifully some folks care for themselves.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 2:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
Since the 1960s IQ in the US has declined to 94 from low IQ over breeding and low IQ majority immigrants allowed. :shh: It is interesting because I had read where it took an IQ of 96 to make journeyman in 10 years in most trades. :shock:
Schools have dumbed down and reduced requirements and courses offered. :x In housing sloppiness has become accepted. :evil:
The PHD Professor who first brought this up was canned for so called "racism". [-X The book that had the extensive data to prove it was ostracized. :-# From Science News; "Previous studies comparing twins and family members have suggested that not-yet-identified genetic factors{actually IQ tied most closely to race} can explain 40 percent of people’s educational attainment; factors such as social groups{again racial tendency}, economic status{again usually tied to IQ} and access to education would explain the other 60 percent{along with bad or incomplete parenting}. That percentage attributed to genetics is similar to the heritability of physical and medical characteristics such as weight and risk of heart disease.That makes a hunt for the genetic factors underlying educational attainment an attractive prospect."{when the truth is already known?} [-X
Yes, many of the lowest IQ are also the most obese, too. Most of those on food stamps are more obese than those not on food stamps. =P~
I think it has affected our Senate with them approving an amnesty without any enforcement or thinking of consequences at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4
:crazy: Who will pay the 18.9 trillion? :-s Especially when the interest on our debt right now is getting closer and closer to the GNP. Who will pay for the decline even further of our infrastructures? ](*,) :problem:
Since high school I have watched this country go downhill from once greatness to wondering how much longer before collapse. :cry:
and AF doesn't care,
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/amnesty ... -rev-B.pdf

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
Fosgate wrote:
Don't forget fatter and more out of shape. It's amazing how pitifully some folks care for themselves.

Here is one of them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhsuqTt-wcM

Plus how many people order a triple bypass burger every day? :-k :mrgreen:

This is the real one, bad news we must stop somehow;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xqryEuaG4

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D317281


Our technology may be getting smarter, but a provocative new study suggests human intelligence is on the decline. In fact, it indicates that Westerners have lost 14 I.Q. points on average since the Victorian Era.

What exactly explains this decline? , points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But this isn't the first evidence of a possible decline in human intelligence.


Huh? Really? How can human intelligence even be adequately measured? Culture, tradition, availability of educational opportunity, access to birth control (including abortion) dictate how many children women have ..... not intelligence. Forced marriage, rape. etc. etc.

Wayne, WTF?

Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam is a using tax payers dollars to wield an academic sword that should be really used to slice up his brain for examination. Or maybe he should just go to the beach and stick his toes in the sand for awhile. Time better spent .... and off academic welfare to boot!

Just sayin'.


Hi Wayne. How's life? xoxo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D317281


Our technology may be getting smarter, but a provocative new study suggests human intelligence is on the decline. In fact, it indicates that Westerners have lost 14 I.Q. points on average since the Victorian Era.

What exactly explains this decline? , points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But this isn't the first evidence of a possible decline in human intelligence.


Huh? Really? How can human intelligence even be adequately measured?


Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.

Quote:
Culture, tradition, availability of educational opportunity, access to birth control (including abortion) dictate how many children women have ..... not intelligence. Forced marriage, rape. etc. etc.


Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.

Quote:
Wayne, WTF?


That is often part of this process, yes.


Quote:
Hi Wayne. How's life? xoxo


Given the alternative, better :mrgreen: for if the alternative ever becomes the better choice it is generally a one way trip ....... unless you subscribe to some of the religious beliefs that we continue the cycle until we get it right. I always viewed that as a kind of universal version of "Groundhog Day" but with changeable castes thrown in for good measure.

The odd part is I was just discussing this in relation to dementia with one of my neighbors who was amused at my reference to the Dire Straits song "Heavy Fuel".

"When my big ugly car can't make it up that hill, I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill" (from memory so maybe off just a little)

Life is good when you can discuss suicide with a psychiatrist and get agreement on your view with the possible exception of those who use suicide being punished by coming back as a politician ..... so the car still makes it to the top :twisted:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:40 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D317281


Quote:
Our technology may be getting smarter, but a provocative new study suggests human intelligence is on the decline. In fact, it indicates that Westerners have lost 14 I.Q. points on average since the Victorian Era.

What exactly explains this decline? , points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

But this isn't the first evidence of a possible decline in human intelligence.


Huh? Really? How can human intelligence even be adequately measured? Culture, tradition, availability of educational opportunity, access to birth control (including abortion) dictate how many children women have ..... not intelligence. Forced marriage, rape. etc. etc.

Wayne, WTF?

Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam is a using tax payers dollars to wield an academic sword that should be really used to slice up his brain for examination. Or maybe he should just go to the beach and stick his toes in the sand for awhile. Time better spent .... and off academic welfare to boot!

Just sayin'.


Hi Wayne. How's life? xoxo

Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture? You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?

Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.

WTF Wayne?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:00 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
Wayne, WTF?

Quote:
That is often part of this process, yes.


You mean rape and forced childhood marriage and prostitution out of impoverished desperation and lack of opportunity to be educated is the f##k that is part of the process? Are you with this academic whom you have quoted .... and his intellectual authoritative view that women who have many children, (with no mention of the men who rape them or who are "johns") are stupid?

Quote:
Given the alternative, better :mrgreen: for if the alternative ever becomes the better choice it is generally a one way trip ....... unless you subscribe to some of the religious beliefs that we continue the cycle until we get it right. I always viewed that as a kind of universal version of "Groundhog Day" but with changeable castes thrown in for good measure. The odd part is I was just discussing this in relation to dementia with one of my neighbors who was amused at my reference to the Dire Straits song "Heavy Fuel". "When my big ugly car can't make it up that hill, I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill" (from memory so maybe off just a little) Life is good when you can discuss suicide with a psychiatrist and get agreement on your view with the possible exception of those who use suicide being punished by coming back as a politician ..... so the car still makes it to the top :twisted:


What is this? Are you okay? Are you getting out to the lake? Taking walks in the woods?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture?


Ummm how does forced marriage and rape affect IQ exactly?

Quote:
You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?


It seems the IQ issue has confused you completely.

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.


It seems this goes a long way to prove the initial information concerning the loss of IQ in the Western society. :-

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:08 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


"Hopefully" isn't enough. And they didn't anyway, and because they didn't, they don't!. The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").

"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/

How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture? [/quote]

Quote:
Ummm how does forced marriage and rape affect IQ exactly?


Asking how forced marriage and rape affect IQ is like asking how culture affects IQ. You do realize that a "standardized" IQ measurement is extremely difficult considering culture?

In itself, forced marriage and rape do not affect IQ. But it does effect how many children are a born to some women regardless of their IQ, considering their culture. And .... something that does not seem to be discussed here or elsewhere, is that women are not routinely having virgin births. (I am making an exception for the Old Testament of course.)

Quote:
You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?


Quote:
It seems the IQ issue has confused you completely.


The IQ issue is trying to make some order where none exists. It seems you have placed a considerable weight in in IQ measurement as a homogenous process. It can never be. There are far too many factors to consider. So no, the IQ issue has not confused me but the IQ issue is confused in itself and you, being one who gratefully accepts these measures, ends up being a little confused.

Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.

Quote:
It seems this goes a long way to prove the initial information concerning the loss of IQ in the Western society. :-


Pffff. Attempt at insult and arrogance noted. And you've fathered at least one more child than I have. But don't worry, I won't hold it against you, especially not according to this study.

The study needs criticism. It is far too simplistic. We ARE probably "dumber" than our ancestors in many ways and for many reasons. The study does not adequately investigate or address the reasons why. It is useful in opening up a discussion ..,.. but not for making conclusions. It's only a beginning. Hence, academic masturbation .... but most seeds begin that way ..... it's just that we don't give welfare to those who are masturbating other than in the academic way. As if they have more authority than the average wanker.

And subjects studied can rarely be homogenous, all things considered. But since this academic used historical data for his study ...... we cannot disregard the lack of homogeneity used in his calculations.

"Eckstein and Feist (1992) for example noted that most UK museum visitors are drawn from White and upper-middle-class populations."

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.se/2013 ... ation.html

If we do not at least recognize how unique we are, we will never, ever understand intelligence!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:11 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


But they didn't and because they didn't, they don't!.


They didn't what? Use IQ tests? Use standardized tests? Use culturally adjusted standardized IQ tests?

The IQ tests have been standardized for some time and have been adjusted for cultural differences for a while, too. IQ tests concentrate on areas not taught so educational levels are as little of an impact as possible.

animal-friendly wrote:
The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").

"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/


So it is not the standardization of the test, but the lack of homogenous sampling in the older data base? That could be a correctable aspect if the modern data were to exclude more of the lower classes for the comparison.

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture?


Ummm how does forced marriage and rape affect IQ exactly?


Quote:
Asking how forced marriage and rape affect IQ is like asking how culture affects IQ.


It does not. Culture will have an impact on the standardized testing to determine IQ, however.

Quote:
You do realize that a "standardized" IQ measurement is extremely difficult considering culture?


Not that difficult if the tests are adjusted accordingly. If you mean the standardized tests can create a cultural bias if not corrected, yes, I believe I did mention that once or twice.


Quote:
In itself, forced marriage and rape do not affect IQ. But it does effect how many children are a born to some women regardless of their IQ, considering their culture.


So the IQ data should still be somewhat valid since, as I mentioned, the more intelligent a woman is the less likely to be raped or become pregnant because she should be able to avoid those at least a little better. Unless you are saying the improvements in the the lives of women in the interim have skewed the data because there are fewer rapes and forced marriages?


Quote:
Quote:
You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?


It seems the IQ issue has confused you completely.


Quote:
It seems you have placed a considerable weight in in IQ measurement as a homogenous process. It can never be. There are far too many factors to consider.


No, I just understand the IQ testing does not focus on educational traits but on traits which are not taught, so education is not critical.

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.


Given two girls the same age and significantly different IQ scores, which is going to be less likely to have the most children because they recognize steps they can take to help prevent that or can find ways to terminate a pregnancy? That is something you seem to have missed in the leap to convert the point to abuse of women in some cultures.

Quote:
Quote:
It seems this goes a long way to prove the initial information concerning the loss of IQ in the Western society. :-


Pffff. Attempt at insult and arrogance noted.


Too bad the reason for the attempt was still missed.

Quote:
And you've fathered at least one more child than I have.


I could say that I did not know you had fathered any children .... but I know what you mean.

Quote:
But don't worry, I won't hold it against you, especially not according to this study.


Yes, there are intelligence groupies out there wanting intelligent men to connect with them ... or so I am told.

Quote:
The study needs criticism. It is far too simplistic. We ARE probably "dumber" than our ancestors in many ways and for many reasons. It's just that the study does not adequately investigate or address the reasons why.


That would be the subject of later studies to focus on various aspects and determine probable impacts. There are more reasons, I am sure, but the biggest are generally the easiest to determine.

Quote:
It is useful in opening up a discussion ..,.. but not for making conclusions. It's only a beginning.


You can conclude the intelligence factor seems to be significant in the determination of the average number of children in a culture.

Quote:
And subjects studied can rarely be homogenous, all things considered. But since this academic used historical data for his study ......

"Eckstein and Feist (1992) for example noted that most UK museum visitors are drawn from White and upper-middle-class populations."

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.se/2013 ... ation.html


Response time would be one of the aspects which can be improved through training, such as video games. Improved hand/eye coordination is also an off shoot which can impact RT.

Quote:
If we do not at least recognize how unique we are, we will never, ever understand intelligence!


If we understand intelligence we will understand how unique we are ..... on this planet.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:55 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


But they didn't and because they didn't, they don't!.

Quote:
They didn't what? Use IQ tests? Use standardized tests? Use culturally adjusted standardized IQ tests?


I'll tell you what they DID use. They used IQ tests. Then.

Quote:
The IQ tests have been standardized for some time and have been adjusted for cultural differences for a while, too. IQ tests concentrate on areas not taught so educational levels are as little of an impact as possible.


'As little an impact as possible' is just that. All things being equal. We do our best to homogenize. It is more comfortable to explain it away than face it.

The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").

"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/ [/quote][/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


But they didn't and because they didn't, they don't!.


They didn't use the standardized tests? Or they did not use a cultural adjustment? They would not have to use a culturally adjusted test to compare England and the US, but would have to do so for England and say, Sudan.

Quote:
Quote:
They didn't what? Use IQ tests? Use standardized tests? Use culturally adjusted standardized IQ tests?


I'll tell you what they DID use. They used IQ tests. Then.


Which have no connection to your rape and forced pregnancy issues, but do give a means to compare.

Quote:
Quote:
The IQ tests have been standardized for some time and have been adjusted for cultural differences for a while, too. IQ tests concentrate on areas not taught so educational levels are as little of an impact as possible.


'As little an impact as possible' is just that. All things being equal. We do our best to homogenize. It is more comfortable to explain it away than face it.


Huh? The impact is on the test so there is no homoganization of the people, just the data so that it can be honestly and accurately compared. I do not know what would be explained away rather than faced and I am beginning to think you do not either.

Quote:
The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").


What cultural differences would there be in the west which would require a modification of the test?

Quote:
"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/


Assuming the lower class was less intelligent, the upper classes more intelligent, and there were no corrections possible, this would be a problem with comparisons. Of course, the first two assumptions are what you seem to oppose.

As for the link, someone who has not looked at much of the supporting work is drawing "informed" conclusions? The background and qualifications of the blogger would be important in this case if they had looked at the supporting work, but as they did not it does not matter. They are half informed at best and carry no weight in such a discussion. That is the problem with using unknown blogs as references, they can be worth less than the paper upon which they are not written. At least find one that understands the use of the upper case key in allowing one to capitalize. Basic English failures do not support credibility.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1274
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


But they didn't and because they didn't, they don't!.


Quote:
They didn't what? Use IQ tests? Use standardized tests? Use culturally adjusted standardized IQ tests?


They used IQ tests which were not adjusted for other factors such as poverty, etc. in those days. And yet, these old statistics (ill-begotten) were included ..... They should not have been because they were not adequately adjusted for the poverty factors, education levels, etc. that more modern tests would have adjusted for.

Quote:
The IQ tests have been standardized for some time and have been adjusted for cultural differences for a while, too. IQ tests concentrate on areas not taught so educational levels are as little of an impact as possible.


"educational levels are as little of an impact as possible."

Bullshit. It is impossible to include all factors .... even now. The researcher included the data from way back then .... when it was even less standardized.

animal-friendly wrote:
The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").

"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/


Quote:
So it is not the standardization of the test, but the lack of homogenous sampling in the older data base? That could be a correctable aspect if the modern data were to exclude more of the lower classes for the comparison.


Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture?


Ummm how does forced marriage and rape affect IQ exactly?


Quote:
Asking how forced marriage and rape affect IQ is like asking how culture affects IQ.


Quote:
It does not. Culture will have an impact on the standardized testing to determine IQ, however.


Standardized testing cannot be the soothsayer of war, for example. Therefore, it can never be standardized enough to predict the inequalities. It cannot adjust for such events since the events are unknown.

Quote:
You do realize that a "standardized" IQ measurement is extremely difficult considering culture?


Quote:
Not that difficult if the tests are adjusted accordingly. If you mean the standardized tests can create a cultural bias if not corrected, yes, I believe I did mention that once or twice.


They cannot adjust because they cannot determine what to adjust for. ..... and so the bias is inevitable.


Quote:
In itself, forced marriage and rape do not affect IQ. But it does effect how many children are a born to some women regardless of their IQ, considering their culture.


Quote:
So the IQ data should still be somewhat valid since, as I mentioned, the more intelligent a woman is the less likely to be raped or become pregnant because she should be able to avoid those at least a little better. Unless you are saying the improvements in the the lives of women in the interim have skewed the data because there are fewer rapes and forced marriages?


Well now, here is where I will disagree whole heartedly. This is actually the crux. There is absolutely no indication that a more intelligent woman will be able to avoid rape better than a less intelligent woman. There is however, data that shows that a woman with more resources will be less likely the subject of such a crime. But why are we even talking about women here. Why aren't we talking about men?

Quote:
Quote:
You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?


It seems the IQ issue has confused you completely.


Quote:
It seems you have placed a considerable weight in in IQ measurement as a homogenous process. It can never be. There are far too many factors to consider.


Quote:
No, I just understand the IQ testing does not focus on educational traits but on traits which are not taught, so education is not critical.


Of course education is not critical to IQ ..... but one's culture and the environment one lives in are. There is not a hope in hell that men can be tested for the influence of advertisement or military rape culture .... and so, the onus cannot be on women who have less power to determine the outcome.

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.


Quote:
Given two girls the same age and significantly different IQ scores, which is going to be less likely to have the most children because they recognize steps they can take to help prevent that or can find ways to terminate a pregnancy? That is something you seem to have missed in the leap to convert the point to abuse of women in some cultures.


I am a "privileged" woman. I had the benefit of education and a supportive, loving family. But there were girls who had fewer supports who may have been more intelligent than myself ...... that ended up with more kids than they intended to. The researcher used data from a time when IQ tests were not as well adjusted for the discrepancies in opportunity, education, economic realities, etc. And then there's war which can never be adjusted for. Why not focus on the IQ of men who sign up and not only rape their colleagues, but, having done so without scruples, ...... imagine what they are doing to women of so called "enemy" nations who are barely able to attain food for their families let alone adequate birth control. I find it weird beyond measure that he should even focus on women at all!

But what is even more interesting is that he judges a woman's IQ ...... What about their cohorts? Who were they dancing with? Were they stupid to be dancing with stupid? Concrete example: Were the women who joined the US military stupid? Or is it the men who raped them that are stupid?

Quote:
Quote:
It seems this goes a long way to prove the initial information concerning the loss of IQ in the Western society. :-


Pffff. Attempt at insult and arrogance noted.


Quote:
Too bad the reason for the attempt was still missed.


Attempt.

Quote:
And you've fathered at least one more child than I have.


Quote:
I could say that I did not know you had fathered any children .... but I know what you mean.


Parented. Of course you know what I meant .... no need to comment.

Quote:
But don't worry, I won't hold it against you, especially not according to this study.


Quote:
Yes, there are intelligence groupies out there wanting intelligent men to connect with them ... or so I am told.


They are probably poor and had fewer opportunities than you did. Intelligence is real and it does differ, but the researcher's is superficial!

Quote:
The study needs criticism. It is far too simplistic. We ARE probably "dumber" than our ancestors in many ways and for many reasons. It's just that the study does not adequately investigate or address the reasons why.


Quote:
That would be the subject of later studies to focus on various aspects and determine probable impacts. There are more reasons, I am sure, but the biggest are generally the easiest to determine.


We have not even begun.

Quote:
It is useful in opening up a discussion ..,.. but not for making conclusions. It's only a beginning.


Quote:
You can conclude the intelligence factor seems to be significant in the determination of the average number of children in a culture.


No, I cannot conclude such a thing for the reasons I have outlined. Women have been, historically and currently, less able to decide on the number of births in certain economic and political climates, than those situations dictate. And subjects studied can rarely be homogenous, all things considered. But since this academic used historical data for his study ...... the results must be "off".

They would be anyway ...... even now .....
But I can look to other factors .... like education, community, access to viable opportunities and birth control ..... (other than the military). Are we to suppose that women who live in Republican states are less intelligent because the men who occupy the gov. seats have decided that birth control and abortion are not to be covered by medical insurance?
I will say it again ...... academic welfare!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:08 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

Quote:
Since they mentioned the IQ levels, the best choice would be the standardized tests and hopefully the ones which are adjusted for culture.


But they didn't and because they didn't, they don't!.


Quote:
They didn't what? Use IQ tests? Use standardized tests? Use culturally adjusted standardized IQ tests?


animal-friendly wrote:
They used IQ tests which were not adjusted for other factors such as poverty, etc. in those days. And yet, these old statistics (ill-begotten) were included ..... They should not have been because they were not adequately adjusted for the poverty factors, education levels, etc. that more modern tests would have adjusted for.


The purpose of standardized IQ tests is to EXCLUDE education and the adjustment for poverty would be what exactly? There are some cultural adjustments, but poverty is not a separate culture. The concerns with the base comparisons not being representative of the population not being adequately made will always be made unless both tests are designed and implemented in the same manner with that in mind.

Quote:
Quote:
The IQ tests have been standardized for some time and have been adjusted for cultural differences for a while, too. IQ tests concentrate on areas not taught so educational levels are as little of an impact as possible.


"educational levels are as little of an impact as possible."

Bullshit. It is impossible to include all factors .... even now. The researcher included the data from way back then .... when it was even less standardized.


You believe any factor which may have an impact negates any research or its conclusions? You have just shot down any point you ever want to support with evidence because there will be such a question. It is not scientific, but it seems that is not important to you in a discussion.

animal-friendly wrote:
The researcher used historical studies ....... which were even more challenged in being standardized than we have now in considering ALL aspects of socio-economic and cultural differences (even cultural differences in the "west").

"so galton’s sample is not representative of the victorian british population — it was unbalanced in that it did not include enough subjects from the lower classes."

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/2 ... rphy-2013/


Quote:
So it is not the standardization of the test, but the lack of homogenous sampling in the older data base? That could be a correctable aspect if the modern data were to exclude more of the lower classes for the comparison.


Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
How can an IQ test be "standardized" and "adjusted for culture" when forced marriages and rape are an aspect of said culture?


Ummm how does forced marriage and rape affect IQ exactly?


Quote:
Asking how forced marriage and rape affect IQ is like asking how culture affects IQ.


Quote:
It does not. Culture will have an impact on the standardized testing to determine IQ, however.


Quote:
Standardized testing cannot be the soothsayer of war, for example. Therefore, it can never be standardized enough to predict the inequalities. It cannot adjust for such events since the events are unknown.


WHAT?!? Do you even know what an IQ test is? The cultural adjustments have nothing to do with "rape", "marriage", "war", or "poverty". The adjustment would be something like the comparison of a picture of one each of a dog, a cat, a chicken, and a pony with the instruction to pick which was different from the set of the others. In one culture the chicken might be picked because the others are pets, but in another culture the choice might be the cat because the others are food. That is the cultural adjustment.

Quote:
Quote:
You do realize that a "standardized" IQ measurement is extremely difficult considering culture?


Quote:
Not that difficult if the tests are adjusted accordingly. If you mean the standardized tests can create a cultural bias if not corrected, yes, I believe I did mention that once or twice.


They cannot adjust because they cannot determine what to adjust for. ..... and so the bias is inevitable.


What?!? You mean there is no idea of what cultural differences are? Except for you, of course, since you know they negate everything else.


Quote:
Quote:
In itself, forced marriage and rape do not affect IQ. But it does effect how many children are a born to some women regardless of their IQ, considering their culture.


Quote:
So the IQ data should still be somewhat valid since, as I mentioned, the more intelligent a woman is the less likely to be raped or become pregnant because she should be able to avoid those at least a little better. Unless you are saying the improvements in the the lives of women in the interim have skewed the data because there are fewer rapes and forced marriages?


Well now, here is where I will disagree whole heartedly. This is actually the crux. There is absolutely no indication that a more intelligent woman will be able to avoid rape better than a less intelligent woman.


Really? A more intelligent woman would not be able to better recognize threats and do it faster than a less intelligent woman? A more intelligent woman would not be better able to learn from the experiences of others and apply those to her life?

Quote:
There is however, data that shows that a woman with more resources will be less likely the subject of such a crime. But why are we even talking about women here. Why aren't we talking about men?


Because YOU brought up the supposed impact of rape and forced marriage on IQ.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You mean the ones adjusted for poverty and the women forced into prostitution as a way to provide for their children which they were forced to have? You mean those ones? The children born from rape? Shall we test these women for IQ? Or should we test the ones who never had an opportunity to be educated?


It seems the IQ issue has confused you completely.


Quote:
It seems you have placed a considerable weight in in IQ measurement as a homogenous process. It can never be. There are far too many factors to consider.


Quote:
No, I just understand the IQ testing does not focus on educational traits but on traits which are not taught, so education is not critical.


Of course education is not critical to IQ ..... but one's culture and the environment one lives in are. There is not a hope in hell that men can be tested for the influence of advertisement or military rape culture .... and so, the onus cannot be on women who have less power to determine the outcome.


How does advertisement affect IQ if education does not? It seems you have gotten yourself so confused as to be arguing with yourself over nothing at this point.

Quote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Thus the modifier "tend". All other things being equal the more intelligent woman will have more control over the number of children they have on average.


Is that right? Really?

Thank goodness for modifiers such as "tend" .... all others being equal. As if they are "things" which are equal in regards to access to either education or birth control or the prevention of rape even in forced marriages of 12 year old girls .... who evidently have low IQ's and are somehow held responsible for how many children they have .... and are the perpetrators of the allegedly lower IQ of humanity.


Quote:
Given two girls the same age and significantly different IQ scores, which is going to be less likely to have the most children because they recognize steps they can take to help prevent that or can find ways to terminate a pregnancy? That is something you seem to have missed in the leap to convert the point to abuse of women in some cultures.


I am a "privileged" woman. I had the benefit of education and a supportive, loving family. But there were girls who had fewer supports who may have been more intelligent than myself ...... that ended up with more kids than they intended to.


The point you so conveniently overlook is not whether they have the number of children they intended to have, but whether they have the number of children a less intellignet woman would have had in the same situation. You think not and the logic you use does not support your belief.

Quote:
The researcher used data from a time when IQ tests were not as well adjusted for the discrepancies in opportunity, education, economic realities, etc.


How exactly does that impact the IQ tests? It affects the sampling accuracy, but that is correctable.

Quote:
And then there's war which can never be adjusted for.


How does war impact IQ exactly? You seem to be going farther and farther into the ether in this grapsing for straws.

Quote:
Why not focus on the IQ of men who sign up and not only rape their colleagues, but, having done so without scruples, ...... imagine what they are doing to women of so called "enemy" nations who are barely able to attain food for their families let alone adequate birth control.


What?!?! You have gone through the ether and into an alternate dimension now. I do not know where you think the connections are in this, but they are not evident nor are they relevant.

Quote:
I find it weird beyond measure that he should even focus on women at all!


"He" did not, YOU made the connection, or tried to make one, to the impact of forced marriage and rape on IQ.

Quote:
But what is even more interesting is that he judges a woman's IQ ......


"He" doesn't, but you did.

Quote:
What about their cohorts? Who were they dancing with? Were they stupid to be dancing with stupid? Concrete example: Were the women who joined the US military stupid? Or is it the men who raped them that are stupid?


No, this line of reasoning, or more correctly lack thereof, seems to be pretty stupid though.

Quote:
Quote:
But don't worry, I won't hold it against you, especially not according to this study.


Quote:
Yes, there are intelligence groupies out there wanting intelligent men to connect with them ... or so I am told.


They are probably poor and had fewer opportunities than you did. Intelligence is real and it does differ, but the researcher's is superficial!


Not poor, not without opportunities, but a goal. You have been far more superficial in this discussion then any researcher.

Quote:
Quote:
The study needs criticism. It is far too simplistic. We ARE probably "dumber" than our ancestors in many ways and for many reasons. It's just that the study does not adequately investigate or address the reasons why.


Quote:
That would be the subject of later studies to focus on various aspects and determine probable impacts. There are more reasons, I am sure, but the biggest are generally the easiest to determine.


We have not even begun.


Given the rambling to this point, it scares me where you would take it in the future.

Quote:
Quote:
It is useful in opening up a discussion ..,.. but not for making conclusions. It's only a beginning.


Quote:
You can conclude the intelligence factor seems to be significant in the determination of the average number of children in a culture.


No, I cannot conclude such a thing for the reasons I have outlined.[/quote]

Sorry, an average person with a reasonable level orf understanding would conclude intelligence as being a factor given the evidence.

Quote:
Women have been, historically and currently, less able to decide on the number of births in certain economic and political climates, than those situations dictate.


Which is why you are confused, the comparison os ONLY between women of differing intelligence in similar situations. That is the normal and reasonable basis for comparison to determine the impact of intelligence.

Quote:
And subjects studied can rarely be homogenous, all things considered. But since this academic used historical data for his study ...... the results must be "off".


And your conclusions based on random comparisons is not?

Quote:
They would be anyway ...... even now .....
But I can look to other factors .... like education, community, access to viable opportunities and birth control ..... (other than the military). Are we to suppose that women who live in Republican states are less intelligent because the men who occupy the gov. seats have decided that birth control and abortion are not to be covered by medical insurance?
I will say it again ...... academic welfare!


This does tend to support the claim of women being less intelligent given the seriously flawed basis for the logic and the inability to understand what is actually being discussed and that these spurious "factors" are unrelated.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group