Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
8
Comments
1,537
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You keep trying to put words into my mouth, maybe focus on positions I actually hold?

  • These attacks are against Hamas, the once-elected government of Gaza who has widespread support there, not civilian populations.

    Yes yes keep crying wolf until the word genocide is meaningless.

  • Did you know that reprisals for unprovoked attacks don't have to be symmetrical and that doesn't make it any less defensive?

  • Of all the questions I asked you, you tried to answer one. Not a great start.

    Oh you wanted me to respond to all the rhetorical bullshit you were projecting onto me? Sorry, no. I'd rather ignore that and try to have an adult conversation about this topic. I addressed some of your questions that weren't entirely bad faith projection by pointing out that IQ is sociological/behavioral, based on test averages, and does not measure anything physical.

    I never once insisted that non-physical does not exist.

    You clearly implied that g isn't a thing because it has no physical basis.

    With IQ you claim to have developed a detection of the G-Spirit and your proof is that it came out to a round number.

    What on earth are you talking about? It seems like you're arguing with what you imagine I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying. Do you understand average distributions of test results? Because they are a real thing and not "G-Spirit."

    A reasonable criticism would be that these tests don't accurately measure G, or that G doesn't exist, instead it seems your position is that well-established ways to refer to these probabilistic distributions of test results, (with round numbers!) is equivalent to pseudoscience bullshit.

    It's like saying inches are pseudoscience because the length is arbitrary and the basis for the metric is biased. Okay, but does that imply length doesn't exist? Our measurement of it may be arbitrary but we are measuring a real thing.

    Similarly, general intelligence seems to be a thing, there are smart people and there are dumb people. Someone who experienced neurological developmental problems probably won't be as good at taking tests, or be as adept at skills that require complex abstract reasoning as someone with normal development. I don't believe this is a controversial statement.

    Perhaps our rulers for measuring aren't the best, perhaps the person that invented the yardstick was an asshole, perhaps the units could be better defined, but none of that means that length doesn't exist. Just like intelligence, it's pretty clear that it does.

    I am glad you bothered to look up your hero. It does matter.

    Believing that G is a thing that may or may not be accurately measured by IQ doesn't make him my hero. Voltaire was a racist, does quoting him mean he is your hero and you agree with his ideology?

    What you are doing has no difference at all than those who dress in black and claim to have found ghosts on the history channel.

    A measurement of average human intelligence distribution is just like ghost hunters? You're not even wrong, you're clearly here in bad faith, and I'm done wasting my time with you. Good day.

  • Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I'll wait.

  • IQ is supposedly the measure of G, in which 100 is average human intelligence, and +-15 represents one standard deviation. It is a measurement based on population averages, derived from various forms of testing, and not some natural unit.

    However, if you must insist that non-physical things don't exist, (like many mathematical and sociological constructs are,) note that intelligence has physical correlates.

    Now admit the father of eugenics is the person responsible for its invention as a concept.

    Okay, evidently he was. I fail to see why this is relevant though. Whether IQ is valid conceptually or not has nothing to do with the one who invented the concept; this is fallacious reasoning. It does, however, make it clear that you think veracity is at least in part determined by ideology of the messenger.

  • That's probably because the article we're discussing is about a eugenicist's paper.

  • 5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.

    Did you read the article? That's what it's about.

  • It is a construct. One can argue that G / general intelligence factor does not exist, I believe it does since mental ability seems to correlate with general competence across many domains. I believe it's a better argument that IQ tests may not be an effective method of deriving it.

    The g factor (also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligence factor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gfactor(psychometrics)

  • Memri translations can be suspect but there is nothing to translate in that clip, it speaks for itself. There are many clips like it if you search for them. Hamas even runs a summer camp for children that looks a lot like a boot camp.

    This isn't about ethnicity, it's about Israel's neighbor trying to murder them for 70+ years.

  • I acknowledged this in my first post:

    [to criticize categorizing groups by IQ scores] cite the cultural bias of most IQ tests and how IQ tests may not be accurately measuring G

    I'm not sure what made you assume I thought IQ testing was perfectly accurate and unbiased. Lots of people here are arguing against positions they imagine I hold rather than what I actually wrote.

  • I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:

    groups are adapted to different environments and on average each have different abilities because of these adaptations and none are objectively superior to another

    Please don't project positions onto me that I do not hold. That's called the straw man fallacy.

  • Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted.

    Acknowledging heritability of IQ makes me neither of these things. There's a lot of studies confirming this all cited at the wikipedia link above. Guess they're all "junk science" because they don't fit with your philosophy.

    Correlation is not causation.

    One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

  • I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:

    Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeritabilityofIQ

    Thanks, I'll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.

    It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc.

    One cannot discount the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. Some twin studies are quite remarkable in illustrating the significant role it plays.

  • Voluntarily eliminating heritable genetic diseases is also eugenics, unfortunately many people inappropriately associate the term exclusively with the atrocity of forced eugenics/genocide.

  • I expect reclassification to happen just before the election.