Theme: Science

  • Correct Richard Haier wrote a book on Neuroscience that is accessible to general

    Correct Richard Haier wrote a book on Neuroscience that is accessible to general college level audiences.

    FIND IT HERE:
    http://www.richardhaier.com/the-neuroscience-of-intelligence
    The counter-revolution against postmodern pseudoscience is almost complete.

    (We do not have it in the Propertarian digital library)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:48:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216779132085907457

    Reply addressees: @SiliconGroyper @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216764826854182912


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216764826854182912

  • It doesn’t matter. We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentatio

    It doesn’t matter. We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 07:58:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216630653418188800

    Reply addressees: @ovjocm @JayWamsted @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216253226325962752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ovjocm

    @JayWamsted @charlesmurray …test right, you are observing a combination of the actual factors and can’t resolve them statistically. This is superificllay plausible IMO, but not my specialty so maybe MO should not count for much. Will retweet to Murray to see what the people there think.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216253226325962752

  • What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurat

    What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology? The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 07:45:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216627198993620992

    Reply addressees: @JayWamsted

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1210975859001180160


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayWamsted

    Exactly. IQ science = Race science.

    If you follow the link in Bret Stephens’s article you’ll find that the IQ claims are based mostly on science from the 60s & 70s.

    Which is about the last time IQ science had any credibility. https://t.co/4lCWRyJ03R

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1210975859001180160

  • COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied,

    COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY

    What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology? The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    We combine IQ with Bi5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    Well that’s because you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. This determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive,Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, revolutionary. So demonstrated intel depends upon complex context.

    The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 03:25:00 UTC

  • COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied,

    COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY

    What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology? The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    We combine IQ with Bi5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    Well that’s because you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. This determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive,Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, revolutionary. So demonstrated intel depends upon complex context.

    The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 03:20:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 02:49:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216552754564431872

    Reply addressees: @Alt_Illegal @EricLiford @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216547160730157057


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Alt_Illegal

    @EricLiford @AnnCoulter @curtdoolittle You’re calling South of the border low IQ societies so I gotta say something. 🤦‍♂️

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216547160730157057

  • I need to find a week to write a paper challenging the scientific community to f

    I need to find a week to write a paper challenging the scientific community to falsify the IQ/Personality argument because as far as I know it’s solved.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-12 20:52:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216462949486866433

  • RE: THE NEUROSCIENCE OF INTELLIGENCE @charlesmurray 0. Correct but the opposite,

    RE: THE NEUROSCIENCE OF INTELLIGENCE
    @charlesmurray

    0. Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is trivial. The causes of defect in intelligence are almost limitless. It’s… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=553167525280142&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-12 20:47:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216461789178802176

  • The problem with this ‘mathiness’ so to speak is (a) we don’t know what cancels

    The problem with this ‘mathiness’ so to speak is (a) we don’t know what cancels what out,(b) we don’t know what’s important and what’s not,and (c) we don’t know how LITTLE in the variation makes for maximum differentiation. … But it’s almost entirely +NEOTENY and -Genetic LOAD.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-12 20:05:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216451155636695041

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215107284776431617


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    This article is from 2007. https://t.co/8xqaxxWNKG

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215107284776431617

  • @charlesmurray: Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is triv

    @charlesmurray: Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is trivial. The causes of defect in intelligence are almost limitless. It’s not so much that we need to understand intelligence (g), it’s that we need to understand why defects in intelligence are so common.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-12 19:49:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216447207832018945