Nobel Prize Not SJW-Proof, As Scientist Discovers

[SuburbanFarmer]

You do not understand what intelligence is. Go take graduate level cognitive science coursework and then we can hang.

There is no magic in nature. Intelligence is 100% genetic.

How you use it, whether you use it, etc., is another matter. The IQ test just measures something called g, which underlies all the various forms of intelligences (spatial, verbal, and so on). Culture and society probably plays a role in your ability to develop the g factor, but the g factor itself is inherited.

To wit: unfortunately, you cannot make yourself more intelligent. You can only learn new skills to better utilize the intelligence you have.

Uh huh. And so having the opportunity to 'develop your g' has absolutely nothing to do with growing up in a first- vs third-world country...

Never seen a more mealy-mouthed admission of defeat.

The test does not measure that. It only measures the g factor.

Culture and society probably plays a role in your ability to develop the g factor, but the g factor itself is inherited.

Ya think a kid that did 12 years of school and play will have a ‘more developed g’ than a kid that’s been struggling to survive in a shithole?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

A fun, short article that relates (somewhat) to the OP, and the value of truth.

Consider a scientist who is asked an unusual question. They are not asked whether or not science gives us access to the truth of reality. Instead, they are asked to given an account of the value of science. Why should we prefer true scientific explanations of reality over untrue, but potentially more gratifying narratives?
***
Once one moves past all the contingent explanations about the use of scientific discoveries for the satisfaction of subjective human desires, one typically sees appeals to the intrinsic value of scientific discovery and the beauty of a true conception of the world. In some respects these are powerful answers, and I largely find them convincing. But there is no doubt that appeals to the satisfaction of human desires or feelings about the intrinsic beauty of scientific truth can be further challenged.

[Zlaxer]

https://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php

The above reports demonstrate that schooling is an important factor that affects intelligence. By schooling, one can improve knowledge of specific facts for intelligence tests, familiarity with testing practices, concentration and attention span, and verbal problem solving skills. Therefore, there is no doubt that education helps raise one's IQ.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258640/

Although some scholars maintain that education has little effect on intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, others claim that IQ scores are indeed malleable, primarily through intervention in early childhood. The causal effect of education on IQ at later ages is often difficult to uncover because analyses based on observational data are plagued by problems of reverse causation and self-selection into further education. We exploit a reform that increased compulsory schooling from 7 to 9 y in Norway in the 1960s to estimate the effect of education on IQ. We find that this schooling reform, which primarily affected education in the middle teenage years, had a substantial effect on IQ scores measured at the age of 19 y.

Not saying you can take someone with shit genes and make them a genius via schooling....but IQ flexes...just like muscles...Use it or loose it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Confusing knowledge and skills with intelligence. Social science is a political dumpster fire of "activist research".

You inherit intelligence. It is possible that some small mutation can increase it. Other than that, you are locked in.


If your premise were true, then people would be able to improve their intelligence. Sadly that is not the case. You can gain knowledge, wisdom, and learning skills, but not really intelligence.

I mean.. I suppose somebody can prep you for the test and boost your score a little, but that really amounts to nothing more than pre-knowledge of the test, not an actual increase in intelligence.

[Zlaxer]

Confusing knowledge and skills with intelligence. Social science is a political dumpster fire of "activist research".

You inherit intelligence. It is possible that some small mutation can increase it. Other than that, you are locked in.


If your premise were true, then people would be able to improve their intelligence. Sadly that is not the case.

Ummm...did you read the articles? People test higher on IQ tests after several years of schooling....

Is not a higher score a sign of increased IQ?

I would say genes set the upper and lower potential bounds of one's IQ.

[Fife]

A fun, short article that relates (somewhat) to the OP, and the value of truth.

Consider a scientist who is asked an unusual question. They are not asked whether or not science gives us access to the truth of reality. Instead, they are asked to given an account of the value of science. Why should we prefer true scientific explanations of reality over untrue, but potentially more gratifying narratives?
***
Once one moves past all the contingent explanations about the use of scientific discoveries for the satisfaction of subjective human desires, one typically sees appeals to the intrinsic value of scientific discovery and the beauty of a true conception of the world. In some respects these are powerful answers, and I largely find them convincing. But there is no doubt that appeals to the satisfaction of human desires or feelings about the intrinsic beauty of scientific truth can be further challenged.

That link is bad, can you provide another link? I hate to admit it, but I might need this article to get my Two Minutes Hate on this morning.

[Speaker to Animals]

Confusing knowledge and skills with intelligence. Social science is a political dumpster fire of "activist research".

You inherit intelligence. It is possible that some small mutation can increase it. Other than that, you are locked in.


If your premise were true, then people would be able to improve their intelligence. Sadly that is not the case.

Ummm...did you read the articles? People test higher on IQ tests after several years of schooling....

Is not a higher score a sign of increased IQ?

I would say genes set the upper and lower potential bounds of one's IQ.

(1) Your link does not work.

(2) Social sciences are totally overrun with leftists who do activist research.

(3) I can match any of your no-name researchers with the best minds in biology and cognitive science who will tell you the truth (including Professor Watson who discovered DNA). The only "debate" is by people who object on political grounds to what the great scientists discover. It's not legitimate.

Even you cannot stand what I am saying because you want to believe nature didn't do this to most of the human race. Yet it did do this to us. Most of the developing world problems are actually IQ problems as much as other genetic behavioral adaptations (like future planning).

[Speaker to Animals]

Your genes determine most of your potential destiny. Nurture and social structures determine whether you can fulfill them. You can take a tribe of pygmies from Africa and try to educate them from birth in America to become scholars, and it's just not likely to happen. You can, however, successfully help them to not fuck up their potential. But you have to be realistic about the fact that human diversity is a real thing.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

A fun, short article that relates (somewhat) to the OP, and the value of truth.

Consider a scientist who is asked an unusual question. They are not asked whether or not science gives us access to the truth of reality. Instead, they are asked to given an account of the value of science. Why should we prefer true scientific explanations of reality over untrue, but potentially more gratifying narratives?
***
Once one moves past all the contingent explanations about the use of scientific discoveries for the satisfaction of subjective human desires, one typically sees appeals to the intrinsic value of scientific discovery and the beauty of a true conception of the world. In some respects these are powerful answers, and I largely find them convincing. But there is no doubt that appeals to the satisfaction of human desires or feelings about the intrinsic beauty of scientific truth can be further challenged.

That link is bad, can you provide another link? I hate to admit it, but I might need this article to get my Two Minutes Hate on this morning.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/16/on-the-value-of-truth/

Hopefully this gets you there.

[Fife]

Hopefully this gets you there.

Yes thanks. When I get a break in my hovel from insipid correspondence and blathering from the horn, I'm going to get another cup and dive in. Keep a good thought.