BOOK WATCH:
35 Myths About Human Intelligence – Russell T. Warne https://russellwarne.com/2019/12/01/35-myths-about-human-intelligence/ via @Russwarne
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 19:32:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232750419664830467
Upcoming Book on Human Intelligence https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/26/upcoming-book-on-human-intelligence/ https://t.co/UKCU80fTql
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 19:32:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232750269429055490
Russell T. WarnePsychologist – Data Analyst – Educator(a book answering the science-denialists) [“E]arlier today I submitted the final text for my upcoming book In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence. It feels good to have it in the hands of my publisher. There is still some work to do, but most of it is work that my publisher has to do–not me. The book has 35 chapters (one per myth), plus an introduction and a conclusion. The chapters are each short enough that they can be read in one sitting, and the language is as non-technical as possible. My goal was to have the book serve as a convenient reference that people could use to combat common incorrect ideas about intelligence. The book will be published in fall 2020. In the meantime, here are the myths that the book addresses:
Section 1: The Nature of Intelligence Intelligence is whatever collection of tasks a psychologist puts on a test. Intelligence is too complex to summarize with one number. IQ does not correspond to brain anatomy or functioning. Intelligence is a Western concept that does not apply to non-Western cultures. There are multiple intelligences in the human mind. Practical intelligence is a real ability, separate from general intelligence. Fact: there are aspects of brain anatomy and functioning that correlate with IQ scores. Section 2: Measuring Intelligence Measuring intelligence is difficult. Content on intelligence tests is trivial and cannot measure intelligence. Intelligence tests are imperfect and cannot be used or trusted. Intelligence tests are biased against diverse populations. Section 3: Influences on Intelligence IQ only reflects a person’s socioeconomic status. High heritability for intelligence means that raising IQ is impossible. Genes are not important for determining intelligence. Environmentally driven changes in IQ mean that intelligence is malleable. Social interventions can drastically raise IQ. Brain training programs can raise IQ. Improvability of IQ means intelligence can be equalized. The reality is that geneticists have identified hundreds of DNA segments that are associated with intelligence. In fact, in some samples, genes have a larger impact than environment on IQ. Section 4: Intelligence and Education Every child is gifted. Effective schools can make every child academically proficient. Non-cognitive variables have powerful effects on academic achievement. Admissions tests are a barrier to college for underrepresented students. Section 5: Life Consequences of Intelligence IQ scores only measure how good someone is at taking intelligence tests. Intelligence is not important in the workplace. Intelligence tests are designed to create or perpetuate a false meritocracy. Very high intelligence is not more beneficial than moderately high intelligence. Emotional intelligence is a real ability that is helpful in life. It is a myth that schools can equalize children in their knowledge, academic skills, or intelligence. Section 6: Demographic Group Differences Males and females have the same distribution of IQ scores. Racial/Ethnic group IQ differences are completely environmental in origin. Unique influences operate on one group’s intelligence test scores. Stereotype threat explains score gaps among demographic groups. Section 7: Societal and Ethical Issues Controversial or unpopular ideas should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Past controversies taint modern research on intelligence. Intelligence research leads to negative social policies. Intelligence research undermines the fight against inequality. Everyone is about as smart as I am.
Russell T. WarnePsychologist – Data Analyst – Educator(a book answering the science-denialists) [“E]arlier today I submitted the final text for my upcoming book In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths About Human Intelligence. It feels good to have it in the hands of my publisher. There is still some work to do, but most of it is work that my publisher has to do–not me. The book has 35 chapters (one per myth), plus an introduction and a conclusion. The chapters are each short enough that they can be read in one sitting, and the language is as non-technical as possible. My goal was to have the book serve as a convenient reference that people could use to combat common incorrect ideas about intelligence. The book will be published in fall 2020. In the meantime, here are the myths that the book addresses:
Section 1: The Nature of Intelligence Intelligence is whatever collection of tasks a psychologist puts on a test. Intelligence is too complex to summarize with one number. IQ does not correspond to brain anatomy or functioning. Intelligence is a Western concept that does not apply to non-Western cultures. There are multiple intelligences in the human mind. Practical intelligence is a real ability, separate from general intelligence. Fact: there are aspects of brain anatomy and functioning that correlate with IQ scores. Section 2: Measuring Intelligence Measuring intelligence is difficult. Content on intelligence tests is trivial and cannot measure intelligence. Intelligence tests are imperfect and cannot be used or trusted. Intelligence tests are biased against diverse populations. Section 3: Influences on Intelligence IQ only reflects a person’s socioeconomic status. High heritability for intelligence means that raising IQ is impossible. Genes are not important for determining intelligence. Environmentally driven changes in IQ mean that intelligence is malleable. Social interventions can drastically raise IQ. Brain training programs can raise IQ. Improvability of IQ means intelligence can be equalized. The reality is that geneticists have identified hundreds of DNA segments that are associated with intelligence. In fact, in some samples, genes have a larger impact than environment on IQ. Section 4: Intelligence and Education Every child is gifted. Effective schools can make every child academically proficient. Non-cognitive variables have powerful effects on academic achievement. Admissions tests are a barrier to college for underrepresented students. Section 5: Life Consequences of Intelligence IQ scores only measure how good someone is at taking intelligence tests. Intelligence is not important in the workplace. Intelligence tests are designed to create or perpetuate a false meritocracy. Very high intelligence is not more beneficial than moderately high intelligence. Emotional intelligence is a real ability that is helpful in life. It is a myth that schools can equalize children in their knowledge, academic skills, or intelligence. Section 6: Demographic Group Differences Males and females have the same distribution of IQ scores. Racial/Ethnic group IQ differences are completely environmental in origin. Unique influences operate on one group’s intelligence test scores. Stereotype threat explains score gaps among demographic groups. Section 7: Societal and Ethical Issues Controversial or unpopular ideas should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Past controversies taint modern research on intelligence. Intelligence research leads to negative social policies. Intelligence research undermines the fight against inequality. Everyone is about as smart as I am.
THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF ELITE UNIVERSITIES
Elite universities open the door to cushier jobs – meaning they don’t have to work with commoners – without having to compete in the ‘real’ market. Top universities are, to some degree, a test of character – which is why governments prefer to hire from them when possible. Not because people are more capable, but because they are less likely to take risks that would jeopardize their investments in their privileged and high status positions. This strategy has worked in china and in europe. It has worked less well in the USA for reasons well understood.
Creative, innovative, high agency, high risk takers are not suitable for the top universities and the ‘academic grind’.
This is the hard wall that I didn’t hit, but Taleb did. It’s why he went off the deep end. Its because it turns out that there is a very good reason those people from good schools get those jobs and more ‘dynamic’ people don’t.
Because the more responsibility the higher the risk to those one is responsible to. And europeans do not seize non-productive opportunities.
There are opportunities for profit that men of character do not seize because they are unproductive. Taleb did. So did Soros. And Bernie Madoff’s don’t go to Harvard or Yale.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 09:30:00 UTC
More on Learning Operational Grammar https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/more-on-learning-operational-grammar/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:11:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232367603307491329
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!
I’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the Chinese way of life.
I find education pedantic? Infantile? Like most autodidacts, I prefer self study. Only fine art was deeply interesting. Although I should have gone into the literature or philosophy departments when they asked me. I was too immature to understand what being asked meant.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 15:45:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232330663879159808
Reply addressees: @ubermensch11111 @NISquadron
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232329641819545600
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@ubermensch11111 @NISquadron ? Autism. I didn’t want to go to college. I felt unready, and I thought it was unnecessary. If I went, I wanted to be close to home. It was the closest engineering school. Once I got into college I studied a year of engineering, year of pre-law, and then four years of fine art.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232329641819545600