0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of the revolution). Only response tests from later in the 1800’s. 1) the response tests have dropped. (I am still fussing about this one), and response time is pretty much a proxy for iq (which in an age of neural networks we should understand is obvious). 2) The flynn effect has stopped and now reversed. 3) All the gains were at the bottom of the distribution, and the top has remained the same or decreased. (age confirms it) 4) The differences are not in g-loaded parts of the tests, and g-loaded parts are unchanged. 5) Relative positioning remains constant: —“While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivale”—- 6) We do in fact get a bit better with practice. Not a lot better but better enough to reduce volatility, which would not improve test coverage, but reduce error in tests performed. In other words we aren’t smarter we reduce errors. 7) General knowledge ‘saturation’ produces patterns involuntarily that has to be learned intentionally (or by reading) as in the past. HOWERVER As I understand it, people are ‘smarter in general’ for the simple reason that by ‘thinking scientifically’ we in fact are training ourselves to apply general rules. In other words, people at the turn of the century were more likely to think in instance-rules and commands, than general rules, and we have in fact gotten better at the use of general rules. Hence why I am an advocate for the German and English Languages, and in particular operational language, because I am certain that the same gains will be produced as were produced by scientific thought (general rules). Ergo, this is much scarier: that means some ideas not only make us dumber, they imprison us in dumbness. MORE LATER.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Group Genetic Indifference at Scale
Our group genetic differences are indifferent at scale as long as our distributions of the classes are indifferent at scale. The problem facing all groups is the size of their underclasses: THEY ARE NEVER SMALL ENOUGH.
-
Group Genetic Indifference at Scale
Our group genetic differences are indifferent at scale as long as our distributions of the classes are indifferent at scale. The problem facing all groups is the size of their underclasses: THEY ARE NEVER SMALL ENOUGH.
-
It Doesn’t Matter if Rich People Breed.
(It matters that the underclasses don’t) Rich people are outliers. It’s not that important that rich people reproduce. Although we should laud the great (noble) families that persist in the reproduction of excellence across generations and ask them to serve us by greater reproduction. But wealth tells us very little. Economies are lotteries, and they must be or people would cease to play the economic game. So in the end, the general necessity is that the middle class is afforded all opportunities to breed, and the underclass is afforded all opportunities to consume rather than breed, so that we constantly defeat the red queen’s regression to the mean.
-
It Doesn’t Matter if Rich People Breed.
(It matters that the underclasses don’t) Rich people are outliers. It’s not that important that rich people reproduce. Although we should laud the great (noble) families that persist in the reproduction of excellence across generations and ask them to serve us by greater reproduction. But wealth tells us very little. Economies are lotteries, and they must be or people would cease to play the economic game. So in the end, the general necessity is that the middle class is afforded all opportunities to breed, and the underclass is afforded all opportunities to consume rather than breed, so that we constantly defeat the red queen’s regression to the mean.
-
What I’m also getting at is the possibility that the out of africa IQ regardless
What I’m also getting at is the possibility that the out of africa IQ regardless of generation was higher and that in some cases it declined and others it increased.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:45:00 UTC
-
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF RICH PEOPLE BREED. Rich people are outliers. It’s not that
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF RICH PEOPLE BREED.
Rich people are outliers. It’s not that important that rich people reproduce. Although we should laud the great (noble) families that persist in the reproduction of excellence across generations and ask them to serve us by greater reproduction. But wealth tells us very little. Economies are lotteries, and they must be or people would cease to play the economic game. So in the end, the general necessity is that the middle class is afforded all opportunities to breed, and the underclass is afforded all opportunities to consume rather than breed, so that we constantly defeat the red queen’s regression to the mean.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:09:00 UTC
-
GROUP GENETIC INDIFFERENCE AT SCALE Our group genetic differences are indifferen
GROUP GENETIC INDIFFERENCE AT SCALE
Our group genetic differences are indifferent at scale as long as our distributions of the classes are indifferent at scale. The problem facing all groups is the size of their underclasses: THEY ARE NEVER SMALL ENOUGH.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:03:00 UTC
-
INCENTIVES OF INDIVIDUALISTS —“My collectivism and ethnocentrism is ultimately
INCENTIVES OF INDIVIDUALISTS
—“My collectivism and ethnocentrism is ultimately founded upon individualism. Individual incentives and self interests lead individuals into groups, because they can obtain more in groups than they can on their own. Kinship just happens to be a sensible criterion around which to organize a group, for a variety of evolutionary reasons. Individual incentives also lead people to group others into groups and consider them in terms of statistical, rather than individual, criteria. People will consider each other as individuals when they have individual information at hand. But sometimes, in light of statistical data, the cost of obtaining the individual information, or the risk of getting it wrong, do not outweigh the expected benefit from doing so.”— Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 11:05:00 UTC
-
THE FLYNN EFFECT EXPLAINED 0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of
THE FLYNN EFFECT EXPLAINED
0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of the revolution). Only response tests from later in the 1800’s.
1) the response tests have dropped. (I am still fussing about this one), and response time is pretty much a proxy for iq (which in an age of neural networks we should understand is obvious).
2) The flynn effect has stopped and now reversed.
3) All the gains were at the bottom of the distribution, and the top has remained the same or decreased. (age confirms it)
4) The differences are not in g-loaded parts of the tests, and g-loaded parts are unchanged.
5) Relative positioning remains constant:
—“While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivale”—-
6) We do in fact get a bit better with practice. Not a lot better but better enough to reduce volatility, which would not improve test coverage, but reduce error in tests performed. In other words we aren’t smarter we reduce errors.
7) General knowledge ‘saturation’ produces patterns involuntarily that has to be learned intentionally (or by reading) as in the past.
HOWERVER
As I understand it, people are ‘smarter in general’ for the simple reason that by ‘thinking scientifically’ we in fact are training ourselves to apply general rules. In other words, people at the turn of the century were more likely to think in instance-rules and commands, than general rules, and we have in fact gotten better at the use of general rules. Hence why I am an advocate for the German and English Languages, and in particular operational language, because I am certain that the same gains will be produced as were produced by scientific thought (general rules).
Ergo, this is much scarier: that means some ideas not only make us dumber, they imprison us in dumbness.
MORE LATER.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-17 23:01:00 UTC