Re: Watson, and black IQ

"Don Geddis" <don@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87odeg40cu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 30 Oct 2007:
"Don Geddis" <don@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87abq05vwu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kids who have received a lot of stimulation, end up more intelligent
than
children who have received less. Children who have recieved less
stimulation end up with less

Well, sure. And I've already agreed that there are plenty of ways of
suppressing intelligence (and IQ), if that was your goal.

You appear to be having difficulty digesting what I actually wrote. You
only see the bit about an impoverished environment lowering a child's
intelligence, but not the bit about a rich environment raising it.

A drastically impoverished environment can be easily shown to hugely
decrease
IQ scores. So there's no question that a "less stimulating" environment
can
cause harm.

It doesn't have to be drastically impoverished; impoverished will do.

However, the question of interest is the difference between a typical
"adequate" environment, and some hypothetical super-stimulating
environment.

You keep on selectively using superlatives to suggest extreme and
unrepresentative conditions. That smacks of sophistry.

There is no evidence at all that exposing kids to a super-stimulating
environment (vs. a merely adequate one) results in significantly higher IQ
scores.

Another misleading use of a superlative. It is an accepted fact that more
stimulating environments produce more intelligent children. You are
claiming that such a thing doesn't exist, when it is common knowledge.

But once you make it to a typical, average, upbringing, with US-level
nutrition and K-12 schooling, then you reach a wall.

*Sigh* Where did you get that from? It's not true.

Please show me _any_ study that suggests that a super-stimulating
environment
(of whatever style you prefer) can raise IQ scores more than 5-10 points
over
an ordinary, typical, "adequate" environment.

Another superlative. Please show me a study that proves that if you stop
breathing for 30 minutes, you will die. It took me about 15 seconds to
locate this:
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/cortical-plasticity. It's
not a direct study on human children, up to the point I read, but I hope you
are able to grasp the obvious parrallels.

It's _very_ hard to get average children to become superintelligent.

How do you know?

Well, because I've read a huge amount about both parenting and
intellectual
development in both children and adults, and nobody seems to have found a
reliable method yet.

Name a few of the unreliable methods.

The vast majority of data (for example, see the "parenting" chapter in
Freakonomics for a general-public overview) shows that the background of
the parents BEFORE THEY HAVE CHILDREN is highly predictive of the eventual
outcomes of the children, but hardly any conscious decisions that they
make
as active parents matters in the least.

The vast majority of people who stepped out into the road and got run over,
did not do so with the conscious intention of getting run over. This,
however, does not preclude one from consciously stepping out into the road
to get run over.

Meanwhile, you continue to assert that the proper environment will turn an
average child into a supergenius -- but with exactly zero evidence that
there
is any reliable training methodology to achieve this.

Supergenius? What's wrong with just an ordinary genius? Are you suspecting
that your position is weak? Does there need to be a study to prove
everything? Don't you have knowledge of your own, which doesn't have a
study behind it? I'm not saying anything which isn't observable.

Yet some children, without any apparent parental effort, are already
superintelligent.

Why is that?

Uh, because of their genetic gifts, of course.

That is unsubstantiated superstition.

They were lucky when the
DNA in the egg and sperm got split and chosen, and they wound up with DNA
that coded for superior raw brainpower.

Name the DNA sequence. You just made that up. The fact that most people
believe that nonsense, doesn't make it any less bogus.

Were you really confused about the alternative theory?

Which alternative theory?

I said I don't think genetic variation is practically significant.

Right, so you surely believe that the huge observed differences in things
like IQ tests (children who score 90 vs. children who score 140) must be
due
to some difference in their environment instead.

Yes.

And, in particular, if we
had only swapped their upbringings, then the first child would be scoring
a
140 instead, and the second a 90.

No, I didn't say that. You need to pay attention to what I actually wrote.

Yet there are absolutely zero studies which indicate that this wish of
yours
is true.

I keep explaining that it is not a wish, but an observation. Yet you do not
wish to see this.

Meanwhile, the IQ scores of the genetic parents are highly
predictive of the eventual IQs of the offspring, whether or not they are
involve in the subsequent child raising.

That doesn't prove that the ability to perform well on an IQ test was
transmitted genetically. You do know that IQ tests, test the ability to
think in abstract?

The natural hypothesis is that DNA codes for raw brainpower, although of
course intelligence is complex enough that nobody has yet isolated the
particular DNA fragments that have this obvious influence.

Hypothesis? It's a wild guess, poorly supported by evidence.

Height is also a mix. NOBODY says that genetics "determines" a
"particular" adult height.

Therefore height isn't genetic.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by that phrase. You've stated it before,
yet you reject all the obvious implications.

What implications are those?

Final expressed height obviously derives from a mix of the genetic
influence
and the environmental influence.

Your point?

When you say "height isn't genetic", do you mean to say that only the
environment matters, and the particular DNA you have has nothing to do
with
how high you wind up? Because I can't think of what else "height isn't
genetic" means, yet you also reject the obvious conseqences if height had
no contribution from genetics.

You didn't learn 'set theory' at school? If C is made up of A and B, is A
== C? This is the kind of *** they ask you on IQ tests.

Can you explain again, using different words?

See if the above question enlightens you.

Do you even know how genetics works? The child is not a copy of either
parent, but some mix of the two. And traits can be recessive in one
generation, only to reappear in a subsequent one. And any actual
feature
is influenced by environment in addition to genetics.

You cannot know what height the child will be from it's parents genes,
nor
from the child's genes.

Obviously, because height is also influenced by environment (e.g.
nutrition).

At the same time, you can know EVERYTHING about a child's environment, and
you will ALSO not be able to know what height the child will be.

Your point?

Because the child's height is a COMBINATION from BOTH genetics and
environment.

Then how does height come to be genetic?

I don't see why you think your statement was anything but a non-sequitur.
Height is mostly determined by genetic influences, but that doesn't imply
that you would be able to calculate the exact height of an individual
simply
by knowing their DNA code.

Nonsense. You said height was genetic. There are numerous cases of
identical twins with considerable height differences. The statement,
subject to scrutiny, simply does not make sense.

I don't know why you think it would imply that.

Because that is the implication.

But if you have one set of 5' parents, and a second set of 6' high
parents, to suggest that your prior probability of the final height of
the
children of each set is identical between the two, is just silly.

Straw man.

Straw man? But it seems a natural consequence of your claim that height
isn't genetic. I really can't figure out what you even believe, if you
reject this paragraph as a straw man, while at the same time reiterating
that "height is not genetic".

Probability is not equivalence.

It's clear that _because_ their cultures value education, then the kids
do
get educated, and we can see that this easily results in those kids
having
superior outcomes as adults.

You mean it's culture, not genes?

You're mistaken to believe that culture is not strongly influence by the
group's gene pool.

Strongly? I hope you understand that we're talking about genetic variance.
All of this is superstition, because no genetic correlation has every been
demonstrated. It's all conjecture.

So it isn't a matter of choosing between these
"independent" alternatives.

"Culture" can be the proximal cause, without being the ultimate cause.

Why is so much of your position based on wild speculation?

Well, because intelligence is a very complex feature, and running real
experiments on human populations is infeasible.

So, because you can't find sufficient evidence, either way, you feel at
liberty to guess?

So we're unlikely to ever have solid proofs of these things.

I already said that the whole area of study was problematic.

The best we can hope for is a large-scale
gathering of evidence (e.g. "natural" experiments), and then an analysis
attempt to see if it all points in the same direction.

No, you need to correlate DNA sequences with supposed effects. That's
proof. What you're presenting is unsubstantiated dogma.

And the preponderance of the evidence strongly points towards intelligence
being about 1/2 genetic, and also that it is far easier to depress it with
a poor environment, than to enhance it with a superior one. Once you put
a
child in an easy, typical, "adequate" environment, they wind up with an
intelligence/IQ that is very hard to raise significantly, regardless of
future
environmental influence (that anyone has tried, anyway).

None of that is true. It's all bull***.

If US black underperformance was mostly a result of US white majority
racism, and there is significantly less racism today than in 1950, than
I
would expect US black outcomes to be better today (more education, more
income, less crime -- all on average) than in 1950.

That expectation would be due to naivety.

You keep saying one-liners like this, yet you don't offer any theory of
your
own with superior predictive power. You just assert that the cause must
be
due to racism (despite the evidence), but you make no effort to explain
how
that works.

Why would you expect improved conditions to result in improved behaviour,
when every other precedent demonstrates the opposite? That is just pure
naivety.

Hence it casts doubt on the "underperformance is due to racism" theory.

No it doesn't. It's consistent with the theory.

Then present the theory. Leaving aside any particular historical case.
How, in general, does racism affect group performance?

Despite all your studying, you clearly haven't heard of the Pygmalion
effect. That's a clear example.

I'm asking you, what kind of evidence could I possibly give you that
would
have you change your mind?

Any that proves cause. I'm not fussed.

I'll ask again: please describe the setup of _any_ experiment, that would
"prove cause" to you. What experimental setup, if the observations came
out
in a certain way, would have you conclude "ah yes, A causes B"?

I am to prove your case, because you can't? Nah, that doesn't sound right.

Create conditions such that children retain their love of learning,
rather than quashing it.

See, I agree that you can take an average child, and quash their love of
learning, and wind up with a substandard child (as shown on IQ tests or
school grades, for example).

Yes, you only see one half of what I'm saying. Are you looking at the
screen with only one eye?

There is no reliable methodology to take a random group of US middle
school
students (which would probably have an average IQ of around 100, with a
deviation of 15), apply a curriculum designed to encourage "love of
learning", and wind up with the bulk of the class at 140+ IQ by the end of
high school.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of isolated kids who seem to already have 140+
IQ, despite no particular special conscious effort spent on encouraging
their
"love of learning" by any caretaker (parents, nannies, teachers).

Superstition: attributing arbritrary cause to unexplained effect.

So: I completely reject your claim that you have a methodology for turning
average kids into geniuses (via environmental influences).

I completely reject that if I drop arsenic in your drink, you will die, as
this hasn't been proven.

I want to know how you take a perfectly fine, ordinary child,
well-adjusted, getting solid B's in middle school ... and turn them into
a
genius who scores 750+ on the SAT and 140+ on IQ tests.

Because there already ARE some kids in middle school who score 140+ on
IQ
tests. And they will continue to achieve those scores throughout high
school and college.

How do you know they will continue to achieve those scores throughout
high
school and college? That sounds to me like divination.

Because if IQ scores in middle school are predictive of ANYTHING, they are
predictive of IQ scores in later life.

Based on what evidence?

In fact, I challenge you to find a _better_ predictor of high school IQ
scores, than to use middle-school IQ scores.

Would this also mean that a person's grades would generally remain
consistent throughout their schooling? You don't think there is any
reliable way of raising a person's grade point average?

I know of no training that will turn an ordinary (NOT substandard) child
into a genius child.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of
assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

Ah, but the point is that you know of no such training either. Yet you
seem
to have great faith that the difference between average folks and geniuses
MUST be environment. Based on absolutely zero evidence.

No. Based on my own observations and those of many qualified individuals
who study such matters.

Whereas, at least I have tons of suggestive evidence for the influence of
genetics on IQ, and for the stability of IQ throughout life.

You've presented nothing but fluff.

My evident intelligence varies considerably. I've taken a test where I
wasn't so focussed and I apparently merely scraped through and another
battery of tests, which mattered to me, which would statistically, place
me
in the top two percent of the population.

"Judge talent at its best and character at its worst." -- Lord Acton

Poor performance on an IQ (or other test) is only weak evidence of a lack.

On the other hand, even a single excellent performance is strong evidence
of intelligence.

Smart people sometimes have off days. Stupid people never get great IQ
scores.

A good part of the reason for the wild swing was poor motivation on the
first test and strong motivation on the second. I think you will agree that
motivation affects grades. It also affects IQ scores. Do IQ tests control
for motivation?

What happens to those kids whose brains are not yet mush, but who score
100 (the average) on IQ tests?

One hundred is a magic number to you, isn't it? You think it's a glass
ceiling. There is nothing special about that number.

Of course there's nothing special about 100. It's just the US average for
IQ
(by design).

The question still stands: how do you take an average kid and make them
super-smart?

The same way you'd take a dumb kid and train them up to be smart. I've
explained how - appropriate stimulation.

You, who believe genetics don't matter and only the environment
matters for intelligence, surely have a training methodology to accomplish
this miracle.

It's not a miracle. You claim to have done a lot of studying on the matter,
yet you continually ask naive questions. I'm wondering what you actually
studied.

For that matter, a standard deviation is about 15, so 2/3 of the kids
will
score between 85 and 115 on IQ tests. I want you to take this massive
middle population, and turn them into kids who score 140+ on IQ tests.

You mean run that experiment in my head, in the same place you are
running
yours? Then tell you the results?

I'm asking you to give me a methodology that you have confidence will
achieve
the result. Perhaps we can find a study where this was tried. Perhaps I
can
try it myself. I don't care whether you already know the outcome. What I
want to know is what methodology you suspect will turn average (100 IQ)
kids
into geniuses (140+ IQ kids).

With all that you've perportedly studied, you shouldn't need to ask me that
question.

Come up with a specific training plan to make it happen, or admit that
you
have no idea how to create kids with 140 IQ (unless they happen to
already
be born that way).

I have no idea why you keep inserting those magic numbers.

I was just being concrete. Any numbers will do. Turn 90-IQ grade-school
children into 120-IQ very-above-average high schoolers. Or whatever.

I don't think you can come up with ANY reliable methodology for ANY
significant (say, 30+ IQ points) change for ANY age range. I don't care
about the particular numbers I picked. You're welcome to use slightly
different ones if you prefer.

But what's the methdology. That's my question.

Try having them play chess. That will raise their IQ.

And remember: we're not talking about taking deprived kids and making them
average (by eliminating the bad influences). We're talking about taking
average kids, already in a perfectly adequate environment, and turning
them
into geniuses.

I don't consider the average environment in which children are raised, to be
adequate. I consider that the natural genius of children is routinely
suppressed.

That's the trick which DOESN'T seem to be a function of environment,
despite
your desires.

It doesn't seem that way to you, because you don't know what I know, believe
what I believe, nor have you experienced what I have experienced.

I don't need to come up with what you are asking for, as I am referring
to
proof which is evident to all of us. The correlations are unmistakable.

I really don't know what you're talking about. What is the "proof" you
have
in mind? What are the "unmistakable correlations"?

The ones between a good environment and good performance.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"


.