Flynn Gains Appear to Be Gains in Actual Intelligence, Not “Hollow Gains”

Ben Steigmann writes:

Here.

“When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits — they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains.” – James R. Flynn

Yes, but he doesn’t really say that.

Flynn gains show major gains in abstract thinking. That is, humans have been getting better and better at abstract thinking and especially abstract verbal thinking via Flynn gains. The reason for this in that we engage in much more scientific thinking than we used to. Humans keep getting more and more scientific minded with each generation and this shows up on tests. A more scientific minded person is a more intelligent person than a less scientific person.

Flynn gains show major gains in the ability to solve new problems that we have never been confronted with before. We are better at problem solving ability due to Flynn gains. This may be due to the increased complexity of modern society.

Flynn gains show massive gains in visuospatial skills, particularly visuospatial analysis. We are simply more intelligent with regard to visuospatial analysis than we were before, possibly due to all of the gadgets that we use and the complex nature of modern society.

Let us go test by test to show what tests the Flynn gains are on.

Digit Span: This tests working memory. According to the results of this test, we have better working memory due to Flynn gains.

Coding: This is a test of raw processing speed. According to the results of this test, our brains are better at raw processing speed (they work faster than before) due to Flynn gains.

Block Design, Perceptual Reasoning, Picture Completion, Comprehension, and Similarities: The gains on Similarities are particularly striking. These are tests of verbal skills, primarily verbal analytical skills. According to the results of these tests, we are better at verbal analysis than due to Flynn gains.  This, particularly the Similarities gains, may be due to increased scientific thinking in day to day life. People are thinking much more scientifically than they used to be, hence they are more intelligent than they were before.

Picture Arrangement: This tests logical reasoning. According to the results of this test, we are better at pure logical thinking due to Flynn gains. Once again, I think the fact that we think more scientifically is the reason for this. Scientific thinking is based on logic and a more scientifically oriented person is more logical than a less scientific person.

Object Assembly: This is a test of visual analysis, synthesis and construction. According to the results of this test, we are better at visual thinking due to Flynn gains. We can analyze things visually better, we can synthesize visual input better with other visual input, and we can build and construct things visually better than before. These gains may be due to all of the tech gadgets that we increasingly use which are probably making us smarter in visual matters.

Digit Symbol: This is a test of raw processing speed like Coding above. It also tests visuomotor coordination. So now we have two tests that show that our brains are actually working faster due to Flynn gains. We are also better at visuomotor coordination due to Flynn gains. This seems like exactly the type of skill that would improve with all the computer, video game, TV remote control, cellphone, and smartphone use going on. All of those things would seem to require visuomotor coordination.

Block Design: This is a test of visuospatial motor skills somewhat similar to Digit Symbol above. This skill is excellent for those going into fields such as engineering and physics. This test is one of the best measures of visuospatial ability ever designed. People who excel at math and science due very well on this test. According to the results of this test, we are better at visuospatial motor skills of the type used in math and science fields due to Flynn gains.

Society is becoming increasingly scientific and also increasingly mathematical. Probably 50 years ago, most people did not need much in the way of math skills. Furthermore, mathematics teaching has dramatically improved in grade school over the last century. This is evidence that better mathematics teaching in elementary school causes actual growth in certain areas of the frontal lobe of the brain. Better math teaching actually gives you a better brain!

Similarities: This test shows perhaps the largest Flynn rise of them all. Similarities tests verbal comprehension, visual abstract processing and problem solving, particularly for brand new problems that the person has never encountered before (problem solving on the fly). According to the results of this test, we are better at comprehending verbal input, the processing of visual abstract thinking (also shown in other gains) and problem solving as a result of Flynn gains.

The suggestion is that the increased use of scientific thinking is possibly responsible for the huge gains on this test. Note that we are now better at problem solving on the fly for novel problems due to Flynn gains. This is why the “hollow gains” nonsense bothers me so much. Don’t you think that an improved ability to solve novel problems on the fly would come in handy at work and in life in general?

Comprehension: This is a test of the ability to deal with abstract social conventions, rules and expressions. I believe this is the test where they give you a saying and ask you to interpret it, like “People in glass houses should not throw stones.” According to the results of this test, we are better at figuring out abstract social conventions, rules and expressions in human society due to Flynn gains. Why we would become better at this is unknown, but the interpretation of sayings is probably due to improved logical and scientific thinking.

Picture Completion: This is a test of the ability to quickly perceive visual details. According to the results of this test, we can now see details in visual objects and scenes better as a result of Flynn gains. I would think that a society of people who spend so much time watching TV, on the Internet, at computers, playing videogames and using cellphones and smartphones would get better at quickly perceiving visual details in objects which you need to do to use any of these gadgets properly.

Picture Arrangement: This is a test of the ability to reason and the ability to understand the precursors and consequences of acts. According to the results of this test, we now have improved reasoning abilities and can understand the cause and effect relationship of things in life better as a result of Flynn gains. When I think “reasoning” and “cause and effect,” the first thing that comes to mind is scientific thinking. This once again may be a result of improved scientific thinking.

However, we have not improved at all on a number of tests, in particular on Vocabulary, Arithmetic and General Knowledge. That is, we know no more words, are no better at math and have no better general knowledge than people earlier in the last century. We have made no gains at all in these areas. The fact that we made no gains here, along with the fact that while we improved in one test of a battery but maybe did not improve in two others shows you the somewhat haphazard nature of the gains. It is true that we have not gained on “g” or general intelligence factor, but on the other hand, we are much more intelligent in certain areas and ways than we were before.

The phrase “hollow gains” is meaningless nonsense invented by Jensen to preserve his hard hereditarian beliefs.

 

 

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

68 thoughts on “Flynn Gains Appear to Be Gains in Actual Intelligence, Not “Hollow Gains””

  1. The gains aren’t on “g.” They are on the so-called “non-g” portions.

    Which, of course, makes sense if “g” is more a latent measure of specific culturally valuable knowledge that only certain people gain access to and practice in. GE correlation…

    So, people are in fact developing their intelligence to a higher level in certain directions. But at the same time, the gains by design are not going to be on the type I detailed above, because that knowledge is privileged.

    1. Swank can you summarize you views on humans, race and intelligence in one paragraph? Please?

      You say you’re not for the nurture argument, but everything you say is reinforcing that model.

      1. The evolutionary nature of “intelligence” indicates low genetic variation between humans. Also, the role genes play is not a role of independent effect; instead, genes reinforce learning. The muscle memory analogy is appropriate; a piano player who learns bad technical habits versus a player who learns good technical habits will have different outcomes wrt technique. One could even call this difference “genetic.” Yet, at the same time, the difference does not indicate a difference in latent potential.

        1. Even with differences in genetics present, a good environment could possibly push the “bad gene” guy ahead of the “good gene guy”, kind of like the fable with the turtle and the rabbit.

          For instance, an excellent teacher for a willing mentally disabled piano player might push him ahead of natural talent, but with bad teaching or some other problems, maybe the dude’s an ungrateful spoiled brat, 😆

      2. Swank lies like a rug. He is still promoting the same old 100% Nurture crap that he started on when he showed up, the only difference is he has been lying for a long time now and saying he is not promoting it.

        Hint: When Swank says he acknowledges a role for “genes,” it’s a nonsensical role because Swank says everyone’s behavioral genes are pretty much the same! So genes play a role, but everyone has the same genes! See how crazy that is? Then he says that genes play a role in behavior in terms of genes for muscle memory. But Swank says everyone’s genes for muscle memory are pretty much the same! Once again, ridiculous.

        Also behavioral genes play no role whatsoever in “ordering,” that is, making one person better at anything behavioral than any other person. Ok so genes play a role, but not in ranking. In other words, yep, genes play a role, a meaningless one! Because the only meaningful role behavioral genes play would be in ranking and ordering, and Swank rules that out.

        He is 100% opposed to hereditarianism, even the G + E model which he recently attacked Santos for promoting.

        G + E means say you get some genes that give you somewhat of a boost in basketball playing. Because of this boost, you play basketball all the time. You transfer to the best school for basketball. You make the team. The coach loves you. Somehow although your basketball talent by now would be mostly environmental, it might score high in heredity for some reason that eludes me.

        The model is correct as far as how it would work, but Swank opposes it because you see you got some genes that made somewhat better than others at ball. And behavioral genes don’t rank.

        That’s about the weakest hereditarian model of all, and Swank opposes that one too.

        He lies through his teeth, talks with a forked tongue, speaks diplomatese, uses half-truths, talks out of both sides of his mouth and in general makes a fine art out of sophistry.

        I have been following his arguments very closely on here to see exactly what is promoting today as opposed to yesterday, but it’s always the same kettle of fish cooked up a new way.

        These guys are still going pretty strong. Here is a recent book filled with articles and quotes by people pushing the exact same model as Swank. I believe this line is no longer consensus though. Most of these people are in the social sciences, mostly psychology and some in sociology. They do pretty much the same thing as Swank, deny that they are pushing 100% Nurture theories when that is what they are really pushing.

        They just keep dressing it up in new clothes and saying it’s a different animal. You might want to read this to figure out Swank’s speaking in code here. Most of the arguments Swank is making for his position can be found in this book.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=K9bon0TH_S0C&pg=PT533&lpg=PT533&dq=heritability+does+not+mean+genetically+determined&source=bl&ots=GxGpcLj_7U&sig=SpK_2zow6V-cOxnH0-RYa4K77xQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwi-6eu9xbfHAhVELYgKHYQCARI#v=onepage&q&f=true

        1. Swank does overkill on the inherited stuff, however, he is mostly right. Not completely though. Plus even with environmental stuff going on, real choice and free will play a role.

        2. Sorry, mistake mean to say “Swank does overkill on the environmental stuff, however, he is mostly right. Not completely though. Plus even with environmental stuff going on, real choice and free will play a role.”

        3. Robert,
          swank is not socialist nor there, neither in China, it is a fake with mental problems in coherence, as the vast majority, unfortunately, the leftists (or a israelian ”socialist”, double nationality). I’ve been almost an anti-white racist. When I was 18, gave me an anxiety to see Italy become so multicultural as France or Sweden. At that time I was beginning to study more deeply demographics and how I have Italian descent, also started to be curious for this country. Is insane when you want a country that is not his, will become less culturally legitimate and more like the silly ” multicultural ” American ”. Is disrespectful toward other people. I already suffer by abstract prison or mental confusion. Fake socialist or socialist morons, which are easily suggestible, use catchy phrases to legitimize their beliefs.

          The true socialist can not be partisan, on the contrary, it needs to be anti-party, anti-unjust and unequal system.

          The racial mixture is promoted in the West to destroy the sense of homogeneity and cultural uniqueness of the people to better accept the globalist (capitalistic) ideology. Instead of promoting the improvement of well-being, they want to atomize the population, to make it extremely vulnerable, as in Brazil, as in India, want to do the first world, a mixture of technological dictatorship with a cognitively stupid people and devoid of cultural uniqueness. A ” liberal ” rich is a contradiction, huge contradiction. If you want something sincere way, then you need to undoubtedly serve as an example and not use others. All anti-racists who do not put their children in multicultural schools, are liars or with serious deficits in mental coherence. Is very simple.

      3. He is still promoting the same old 100% Nurture crap that he started on when he showed up, the only difference is he has been lying for a long time now and saying he is not promoting it.

        Wrong. I stated all of this in the very first thread:

        QUOTE:
        “swank
        July 25, 2015 at 12:58 AM

        That said, I also believe genes play a strong role in IQ, but it’s not in the way suggested by HBDers.

        It’s an interaction.,,,”

        Position has remained unchanged.

        See how crazy that is?

        Any sufficiently nuanced argument, like technology, will appear as magic to the uninitiated. Here is the latest example.

        The genes for learning behavior likely show little genetic variation. However, the variation between people, under an interaction approach, could be said to be genetic. “A piano player who learns bad technical habits versus a player who learns good technical habits will have different outcomes wrt technique.” The difference between them could be said to be on account of muscle memory and hard to change for the same reason, even though their latent potential was roughly equivalent.

        Because of this boost, you play basketball all the time.

        That is so-called “genetic amplification” which itself is an interpretation of GE correlation that itself is a last gasp to pick up the pieces of “genetic determinism.” And I’ve already discussed why taking this viewpoint doesn’t make sense in connection with what humans evolved to do.

        but Swank opposes because you see you got some genes that made somewhat better than others at ball.

        Actually I have stated that some low amount of genetic variation is allowed for in my model.

        That’s about the weakest hereditarian model of all, and Swank opposes that one too.

        Indeed, and I’ve given the reasons why which you fail to address.

        He lies through his teeth, talks with a forked tongue, speaks diplomatese, uses half-truths, talks out of both sides of his mouth and in general makes a fine art out of sophistry.

        Sure. That must be why you can never QUOTE ME for all of these strawmen you erect.

        Most of these people are in the social sciences, mostly psychology and some in sociology.

        Incorrect. I have given several cites to geneticists and biologists.

        Nurture theories when that is what they are really pushing.

        You have yet to even accurately state my position.

        Most of the arguments Swank is making for his position can be found in this book.

        and most any basic scientific textbook on the matter.

        Though, like many others, I have come to a lot of these conclusions independently…like the theory I laid out for human intelligence evolution.

        @Jason:

        Not completely though.

        Wrt what?

        When we stripped it down, what you said was your “balanced position” in comparison to mine turned out to (when we actually pulled the QUOTES) roughly the same position.

        1. It’s not true that I am pushing your line. I am with Plomin and all the rest. The twin studies are good. I am a soft HBD’er and soft environmentalist. IQ itself is probably 50-80% genetic. I have an IQ of 147. Of the 47 IQ points between me and a person with a 100 IQ, 80% of my increased IQ is due to genes. That means 38 of the 47 point advantage is due to genes. All of my siblings have IQ’s over 140. That is because my mother’s IQ is 150 and my father’s IQ was 129. We are all very smart because we inherited high IQ genes from our parents. No other reason.

          I am not interested in arguments to moderation, though they are typically correct because most extreme positions are just wrong. But if an extreme position is correct, I will gladly take it.

        2. It’s not true that I am pushing your line.

          I didn’t say you were.

          I am a soft HBD’er and soft environmentalist.

          Yes because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

          IQ itself is probably 50-80% genetic.

          This is WRONG.

          “Heritability does not indicate the degree to which a trait is genetic, it measures the proportion of the phenotypic variance that is the result of genetic factors.”
          https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/quantgen/qgen5.htm

          I have an IQ of 147. Of the 47 IQ points between me and a person with a 100 IQ, 80% of my increased IQ is due to genes.

          DOUBLE WRONG.

          ” For example, it is incorrect to say that since the heritability of personality traits is about .6, that means that 60% of your personality is inherited from your parents and 40% comes from the environment.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Common_misunderstandings_of_heritability_estimates

          “This is often misinterpreted, for it does not mean at all that people’s heights are determined 90 percent by genetics and 10 percent by the environment. ”
          http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/homepage/45829.html

          Even Jensen agreed:

          “There is no way of partitioning a given individual’s IQ into hereditary and environmental components, as if the person inherited, say, 80 points of IQ
          and acquired 20 additional points from his environment. This is, of course, nonsense.”
          http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.980&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          We are all very smart because we inherited high IQ genes from our parents. No other reason.

          This is FALSE EVEN WITHIN THE G + E MODEL. If heritability < 100% then the higher the “phenotypic” IQ then necessarily, the better the environment.

          Even if it worked the way you wanted it to work: (145 – 100)(.8) = 36. sqrt(.8)15 ~ 13.4, 36/13.4 = + 2.7 SDs of “genotypic IQ,” which means that there was also sqrt(.2)15 ~ 6.7, 9/6.7 = + 1.34 SD of “environment.” As in, an environment around the 90th percentile is implied.

          But if an extreme position is correct, I will gladly take it.

          First you need to be able to correctly articulate the position. You have yet to do so.

          1. I don’t believe in my position because of argument to moderation. I reject the Nurturist Argument because it is flat out not true. The Hard heretarian argument may well be true, but I doubt if it is. Mostly the people who make it are ugly and awful and I hate them and they way they talk. They are all reactionary fucks. So I am rejecting both arguments.

            The 1997 Gottfredson editorial states that the consensus is that genes and environment both operate in IQ, and I believe that that consensus seems to be the most correct.

            I am pretty far to the left on the political spectrum. If I always used argument to moderation, I would be a Centrist and vote Republican half the time. The “center” or an ideological spectrum is not necessarily the best and sanest place to be. US “Centrists” say that, but US Centrism is like Hard Right in most of the world. So fuck US Centrism (US Centrism is political argument to moderation).

            I simply reviewed:

            1. Hard nurturism (Swank)
            2. Hard hereditarianism (Human Varieties and other jerks)
            3. Intelligence researchers consensus part nurturism, part hereditarianism.

            I simply find #3 most sensible. It has nothing to do with argument to moderation or any of that crap. I don’t even believe in Argument to Moderation. A lot of things are either 100% right or 100% wrong. In that case, splitting the difference is nuts.

        3. I simply find #3 most sensible.

          Because a) you keep misstating what heritability means, which b) causes you to believe the “consensus” is 50/50 “genetic” and “environmental,.”

          states that the consensus

          And you routinely omit the APA task force’s statement. You ignore the fact that only 10 of the signatories on your cited article were considered to be measurement experts.

          I reject the Nurturist Argument because it is flat out not true.

          Maybe but not based on anything you’ve offered (which is the funniest part; I’m not defending SSSM, but I don’t really need to, because every piece of evidence you think supports HBD is consistent with the exact opposite).

          A lot of things are either 100% right or 100% wrong.

          Yes, but you’re relying on a heuristic in this instance that essentially is Arg-to-Mod. First, you dismiss one position out of hand with vague notions about “consensus” (which, I have cited several scholars that cast a ton of doubt about what you call “consensus” — ignored, of course), one position. Second, you say ‘the other extreme position could be true but I don’t like those people they’re mean,’ so you reject the other position. The rejection of both appears to be the result of a strong prior (and in this case conflicting priors), rather than sober evaluation of the positions. That is classic Arg-to-Mod; it’s defaulting to heuristics that have little, if anything to do with the evidence behind both positions, to decide which position is right.

        4. There is certainly no [empirical] support for a genetic interpretation.” (p. 97). This conclusion, on its face, is at variance with the survey of expert opinion conducted by Snyder man & Rothman

          WRONG AGAIN

          Only 1% of psychologists adopted the view that the gap was due to “genetic variation.” 15% adopted an extreme “nurture” position, i.e. fifteen times the amount who say it is all “genetic.” The “plurality” simply said “genes and environment” WITHOUT naming any proportion.

          Even MY position falls into the last camp, because I have said that there is low genetic variation and it’s likely of the type you’d see between world beaters.

          And remember that the responses were all framed in response to a question about heritability. So “genetic variation” may well explain a lot of it by way of GE correlation (and not in the amplification sense).

        5. What are you world beaters?

          For example, elite 100m dash sprinters. We can probably agree that these guys have seen the best possible environment — maximum training, maximum nutrition. Plus, they have all been selected (to the extent any natural physical propensities exist) to be the most elite “genetic” samples of their races. And indeed, black guys dominate.

          But the difference between the fastest black guy and the fastest white guy is…… .34 seconds. Trivial.

        6. Swank still hasn’t responded to my question on the other thread.

          Which one? The ridiculous one where you ask me to list “all” my possible sources?

          You aren’t even grasping the basic facts that animate this discussion, and you haven’t grappled or seriously contended with the sources that I have already put forward.

          An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community

          Such a broad unquantified statement that even myposition would qualify.

  2. ”Flynn gains show major gains in abstract thinking. That is, humans have been getting better and better at abstract thinking and especially abstract verbal thinking via Flynn gains. The reason for this in that we engage in much more scientific thinking than we used to. Humans keep getting more and more scientific minded with each generation and this shows up on tests. A more scientific minded person is a more intelligent person than a less scientific person.”

    Where is the prove or evidence that flynn gains are contribute to increase abstract skills of human beings**

    Humans, because ”iluminism”, are being exposed earlier to abstract verbal or philosophical ideas and not ”humans are naturally more engaged to think abstractly”.

    Humans, on average, are not become naturally little philosophers, sorry!! Maybe, because possible higher mutational genetic scenario, more subgroups of abstract smart are born as well problematic.

    In a secular social scenario they are being strongly influenced by abstract ideas and because urbanization.

    I read that higher attitudes reduce ”iq scores” reduced disposition of oxygen in these areas that affects brain size development.

    1. Humans, on average, are not become naturally little philosophers, sorry!!

      Also wrong. Go speak to an old person. I guarantee they will have some systematic way of viewing life.

      1. are not become naturally…

        enphasize the word ”naturally”.

        Schopenhauer and Nietzche, both that lived in religious traditional scenario, were or become (larger elastics or inborn potential to complex verbal abstract thinking) real philosophers and not people who need to be exposed by mainstream media to engage in abstract ideas.

        Is like ”Animal Farm” romance, before and after the revolution.

        Before, it is likely that the animals ”were not naturally” engaged in abstract thinking or, as the social environment of the farm, was not propitious in popularizing these ideas, they do not feel the need to do it.

        Abstract ideas as ” race does not exist, ” is not something that ordinary people are capable of

        invent
        -sofisticate conceptually
        And internalize it, live it, even if most do not do it.

        1. ”Wrong. What I am talking about is far outside the G + E model. The interaction model is very complex and it’s where your thoughts are headed whether you realize it or not.”

          Ok.

          ”But not necessarily from the genes themselves. The environments correlated with those genes have equal explanatory power.”

          Equal** with ”genes”***

          People who tend to have sex earlier and does not care to make condoms are more likely to have greater mutational load and this behavioral impulsivity (as well as the problem of attention) is just the result.

          The environment has a major impact because many of the genes that make up the cognitive profiles in populations such as the European and African, are not fully fixed. So there is a greater fluctuation in these features, a wider range, yet it is very clear that there are marked differences between the personality profiles between the two groups. It’s not just the physiological phenotype, it is also the behavioral phenotype, which can be grouped, somewhere around 80% of Europeans do not behave like Africans (or more), and the same for Africans. This is complex because the environment and the habits changes can produce different populations, which, however, tend to be more uniform, especially with respect to behavior.

          For example, schizophrenia and probably its spectrum are related to low birth weight. In periods of famine, it may be possible that schizophrenia become more common for environmental reasons (and also happen that can be selected and becomes more fixed, the only environmental and temporary). Better nutrition seems to be related to the increase in cases of autism (not to mention the over-diagnosis), increased brain size and can be selected, resulting in increased heritability of these traits to the next generation. Likewise one can change the habit of a population and cause them to have children later, increasing mutational load and the incidence of these disorders.

          If indeed the Flynn effect is having some effect to enhance some aspect of human intelligence, at least in Western countries, it could be because of the increased presence of ” autistic personality ”, in its wider spectrum if autistics tend to think more literal way and supports more with scientific thought, despising magical thinking, schizophrenic style-ish. Still, most people still stupid, unwise.

          However, if you increase the African nutrition, on average, it is likely to reach a brain the size limit, because as you know, the brain is a muscle, and the potential to become very muscular, tends to be inversely proportional to size of the muscle-brain.

          ”’I never said it didn’t.”’

          Never…

          ”Because it largely determines access and practice in and with the knowledge that allows one to excel on IQ tests, and that’s what the GE covariance model picks up. Facts that support — cultural loading rising along with ‘g-loading,’ and being more heritable. Done.”

          The most intelligent people who have more active brains, are more prone to develop their potential, than those without this’ ‘irritation’.

          Continues to treat people as inanimate beings. And you would be what God **

      2. (larger elastics or inborn potential to complex verbal abstract thinking)

        You’ve come a long way, santo. Now you’re holding on to the last vestiges of genetic determinism pathology, the ‘slight propensity that amplifies.”

        Let’s try to have a conversation for once.

        Do you believe all knowledge is equally valuable in all environments?

        Your viewpoints on IQ suggests that you do not.

        1. As is expected, still confuse things.

          It may be true that environmental fluctuations may have a greater impact on genetics than I have imagined that we call epigenetic.

          But that does not mean there is no such thing as behavioral heredity.

          It is a false correlation.

          You can have behavioral changes caused by changing environmental circumstances, which necessarily will not mean that the behavior is not hereditary, it will only prove that the intergenerational transmission of behavioral traits can be disturbed by changes in these circumstances.

          For example, you have a couple who had the first three children in their 20’s. So the eldest son of this couple is the one who procreates, while others do not procreate. And this is her first child at 32 years old. This is a demonstration that changes in habits can increase or reduce the mutational load, for example, children later than to have children earlier.

          Now, this will not prove your point, which for now, has not been proven anywhere, just through their verbose studies, which are not empirically proving their point, the idea that humans have little genetic variation and that because of this, present little behavioral variation can be equalized by interventions.

          Any extremism is pathological. Its environmental extremism, as well.

          My views on iq, is to correlate with some dimensions of intelligence, which does not mean that they are the same thing. Just as chess game to correlate both with intelligence and with strategy, but does not make it the most perfect conceptual representation of the two.

          IQ tests do not measure all dimensions of intelligence, being smart is not just give the correct answers to questions ” culturally neutral ”, that’s just part of it.

          The correlation between intelligence and income, better social situation, is mainly based on those higher cognitive skills (specific, what you call ‘skills’) but also because there is a whole mechanism of promotion of these kinds of smart. Ie born with certain cognitive profile and personality, to be rewarded by the system. This is a form of privilege, but it is not racial, it is cognitive.

          But that does not change my ‘beliefs,’ ‘proven daily, as racial differences in intellect and personality.

        2. Your earlier statement:

          If you are born smart in a less intelligent family, the chances for you to have an intelligent child, or an intelligent offspring, will be smaller than born into a family where most people are smart for the same reasons of being born with blue eyes in a family people with brown eyes or a family of blue or light eyes.

          My response, that you disagreed with:

          no, not necessarily for “the same reasons.”

          Your words today:

          it will only prove that the intergenerational transmission of behavioral traits can be disturbed by changes in these circumstances.

          So you admit exceptions to the original statement above (but cling now to the fact that they are not dispositive) and accordingly, that your earlier statement was false.

          the idea that humans have little genetic variation

          This part is beyond proven.
          Chimps in neighboring groups have more genetic distance between them than most any humans.

          and that because of this, present little behavioral variation can be equalized by interventions.

          Every IQ gap round the world that has closed, closed following the low-scoring group gaining wealth and political inclusion.

          And you didn’t answer my question: are all types of knowledge equally useful in all types of environments?

          as racial differences in intellect and personality.

          No one is arguing that there are not phenotypical differences in personality and IQ.

        3. Different from you i can change my position when i feel that i may be wrong.

          Yes but you’re never going to admit that what I said seems to coincide a lot with these “changes.” The above exchange took place not long ago at all.

          It’s ok. Many people who consider themselves learned call me names and then end up grudgingly acknowledging the merit of my ideas — in many cases outright stealing them.

        4. Again, you reduce something more complex, with more details, to corroborate with your beliefs.

          When i said ”Color eyes and intelligence are inherited by the same reasons” i want to say ”because heredity”, intelligence is more complex by obvious reason than color eyes but it doesn’t mean that no have a important ( and essential) genetic component.

          I don’t see contradictions. People who born in less smart family are more prone to be less smart because shared family genes, Brothers are 50% similar one each other. remember when you told about ”twins shared greater proportion of sames genes…to refute twins study in heredity”??

          Can be… Don’t falsified my earlier statements.

          Again, reduction of something more complex to fit with your ideological beliefs.

          Prove that income equality equalize…skills???? Skills = the conceptual panacea of intelligence???

          Civilizations tend to accumulate much more useful knowledge than hunter gatherers tribes. Behavioural local adaptation don’t prove your point, you need decide yourself!! Skills are the whole concept of intelligence or not?? Iq is intelligence or not??
          If iq gap w/b were strongly reduced still would not mean nothing, if as you said ”iq is just skills and don’t measure intelligence”.

        5. Again, you reduce something more complex, with more details, to corroborate with your beliefs.

          Wrong. What I am talking about is far outside the G + E model. The interaction model is very complex and it’s where your thoughts are headed whether you realize it or not.

          People who born in less smart family are more prone to be less smart because shared family genes

          But not necessarily from the genes themselves. The environments correlated with those genes have equal explanatory power.

          it doesn’t mean that no have a important ( and essential) genetic component.

          I never said it didn’t.

          Prove that income equality equalize…skills????

          Because it largely determines access and practice in and with the knowledge that allows one to excel on IQ tests, and that’s what the GE covariance model picks up. Facts that support — cultural loading rising along with ‘g-loading,’ and being more heritable. Done.

        6. Don’t say idiocy, i don’t copy ”’your”’ ideas.

          Yes…now you didn’t just contradict your earlier statement, I know.
          You’re just getting irritated and trying to avoid the unspeakable truth: I’m right and you’re moving slowly outside the G + E paradigm.

          Get to it, already!

        7. Then why do Blacks burn shit down on all continents, and whites, regardless of continent, build countries, and/or pay for them to be rebuilt?

  3. ”Yes…now you didn’t just contradict your earlier statement, I know.
    You’re just getting irritated and trying to avoid the unspeakable truth: I’m right and you’re moving slowly outside the G + E paradigm.

    Get to it, already!”

    Where do you think you are correct **

  4. And again, is that there is an average or collective ceiling, larger brain for different racial groups **
    Other explanations, less hbd-like and more sociological in nature, as in the link above, showed the surface and as I said in the comment.
    We live in a smarter environment, provided by the secularization of society, where we spent socializing ideas who despise the religious or magical thinking. It is smarter and makes us appear to have larger intelligence (skillsssss) than our grandmo and grandpa. A significant percentage of culturally micher people that can change their beliefs if there is a change in the cultural environment.
    But if the best nutrition increases the size of the brain, then it may be possible (of course, a great speculation) that people can become autistic (and scientific) in their ideas. The individual ceiling for each, may be causing some or many people have reached the maximum intelligence, by increasing the size of the brain, they might have had.
    this also explains the increase in bisexual or fluid sexuality, showing that ” moderate ” persons, at any spectrum, are more flighty than those at the end of each spectrum, for example, the average conservative, is much more likely to change some of their opinions, than an extreme conservative.

    1. I mean, i could to say ”just the natural unconformists who are the real smart, based on potentital for wisdom”.

  5. Swank,
    my turn, ”skills measured by iq tests are the same than whole concept of intelligence***”

    If not, why you continue using it as ”intelligence gap” or ”intelligence heredity”. It is contradictory.

    1. Well, I never said this —> ”skills measured by iq tests are the same than whole concept of intelligence***”

      And state this question “If not, why you continue using it as ”intelligence gap” or ”intelligence heredity” more clearly, whatever you’re trying to ask isn’t coming through.

  6. It seems clear (is not **) there is a tendency for relative randomness of combinations for the design. So if I inherit a lower intelligence than my father and mother, it can only mean that the combination of his genes with those of my mother, resulted in this product, close to 0% environment. Its evident that the environment has an impact, do not live in bubbles, but there must be an interaction between genes (which you despise completely) and the environment, and more, the influence of genes is even greater than the environment, even in environments that many are stressed.

    We inherit genes and microorganisms as well, because the genes are as vaccines, are decanted o stabilized microorganisms to our body. We come from simple lives, complex lives are systemic agglomerations of this simple lives.

    1. there must be an interaction between genes (which you despise completely)

      I don’t “despise them” at all. From my first post I acknowledged they play an important role. Further, I never stated that intelligence itself wasn’t “genetic.” I only talked about the variation in intelligence and behavioral traits generally.

      1. I didn’t “talk with the other hand.” I’ve stated this point several times. A trait can be completely genetically determined and the variation on the trait be totally environmental. One need not deny genetics for that result to occur.

        1. blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

  7. I had an extreamly extensive (and expensive) cognitive text done when I was 25. It took three days of five hour testing by two trained neurologists to complete.

    The results showed an overall iq of about 128. However, it also showed that I had the short term memory (digit span of a young child.

    My psychologist said that my higher order skills like visual spatial reasoning, long term memory, general knowledge, perceptive reasoning and comprehension were significantly above average. But the short term memory tests dropped my score by like 20 points.

    As you can imagine such a large gap between higher order cognitive skills and a lower order memory task.

    In fact it the gap was so wide the test administrators almost had me retake part of it because they just couldn’t believe I scored so low on it compared to everything else.

  8. Robert, the rules of your blog appear to be quite unclear.

    For exemple, I saw you, several weeks ago, ban Santoculto because he disrespected you. But he is now back in the comment section.

    How does it work when you ban someone ? Do you just pick his comments and moderate them and them someone you banned a long time ago can go back in the comment section because you forgot that he got banned ?

    1. Well yes I banned him. But he kept on commenting. Banned people have their comments continuing to go into spam. I check spam all the time. I forget what happened but somehow he got back on. A lot of petition to be let back on. If your petition is successful, I let you back on. Some are just persistent and keep posting after a ban, and if the comments are pleasant, I start approving them one by one. I think Santo did not petition, but he started posting again. His comments went to spam and seemed to be decent so I started approving them one by one to see if he was going to behave. He hasn’t said he was going to be good, but he has been behaving himself since he was let back on, so he seems to have gotten the message.

      Hope that cleared thing up for you.

  9. Or, IQ tests in the past were simpler than those of today ***

    If true, then it helps us to explain why the results of the Victorian British, when standardized and compared with modern results were so low, the impossible iq 75.

    You are applying two tests, one of which is designed to detect children with mental retardation, the second is to measure the average intelligence of adults. Tests for children were … (is) administered in adults in the past.

  10. It’s as if you compare the scoring methods of an individual sport (like gym) in the 30s with today’s days. Believe that the psychology of Galton times was methodologically perfect if today remains as battered as soon as possible …

  11. When you solve compare the results of a test to another, it will be obvious that the first, originally applied to children, will be reduced in relation to each other. Of course, just speculating, as always.

  12. I’d like to ask, is there any qualitative difference between a 120 40 years ago, and a 108 today? A 108 today, according to the Flynn effect, is a 120 40 years ago. How were 120’s like back in ’88?

      1. This is actually really really strange. If there are gains in intelligence, then a 108 today would be like a 120 40 years ago. Flynn himself says that these gains are due to the teachability of certain skills, but still, people should be seeming smarter.

        Also, if that’s the case, wouldn’t a guy with a 103 IQ today be able to win a Nobel Prize in Medicine, since that’s the equivalent of a 115 IQ 40 years ago?

        1. You are not going to get a Nobel Prize in Medicine with a 115 IQ. Just not going to happen. I believe I saw an analysis of Nobel Prize winners and I believe they had average IQ’s of 145+. I am not sure if all of them had IQ’s that high, but that was the tendency. And quite a few had IQ’s up to 160 or even higher.

          We are only smarter on certain things. We are no smarter than our grandparents generation at mathematics, vocabulary and verbal and basic knowledge. If my grandfather took that test in 1910, he would get the same score as someone he would today.

          It’s hard to explain. We are smarter, but we are not really smarter.

        2. Ok, you are wrong on the premise that a 115 IQ can’t get a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Sure, it’s extremely rare, but Francis Crick got it with a 115 IQ.

          Also, the Arithmetic subtests measure working memory, not mathematical ability. You can be bad at this subtest but excellent at Math. Actually, many mathy people are.

          Tbh, the fact that Vocab and General Knowledge didn’t change through the Flynn Effect by much is shocking. Those are the most crystallized of all things on the IQ test.

    1. Well, I cannot find any source myself which does not claim Watson’s IQ is 117. Just look it up, many sources claim Crick to be 115. Watson’s IQ is 124.

      Also, what’s the difference between 115 and a 117? Two points doesn’t make a difference especially at this range (even ten points doesn’t make much of a difference at this range).

      1. There is no reputable source for Crick’s IQ being 115. It’s just not there. However, Feynman did win the Nobel Prize with a 125 IQ.

        In many cases, the differences between 115 and 105 are going to be pretty significant. Also between 115 and 125 in a lot of cases. You can really see the difference.

        1. I see. I still wouldn’t be surprised by Crick’s IQ. He was a very hard worker, which can certainly compensate, and he was passionately curious. Where’s your source of Watson’s IQ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.