the neoliberal vision of the future

[Bernie Gunther]

The Heritage Foundation are not like Stormfront, they are a "legitimate" think tank, albeit one that has supported overthrow of democratic governments.

To be fair, they are a *lot* more like Stormfront than socialists are like fascists

 

[ViolentPanda]

All that 'Bell Curve' stuff is another favourite hobby horse of several of the key sponsors of wingnut welfare, just like climate change contrarianism and parroting Jonah Goldberg's shite.

I bought "The Bell Curve" when it came out, and like I do with most "serious" books, I read it through, made notes and checked the sources (harder to do back then than it is now, usually involved a trip or six to an academic library). I usually find a <5% "bum steer" rate (i.e. references to vanity publications and non-peer reviewed work). Murray and Herrnstein's offering had >35%, more than a third of which were references to publications funded by the likes of the Liberty Lobby, pseudo-academic journals that publish articles about such things as the biological basis of racial inferiority, often using the same rhetorical style as Onar - the bulldozing conflation of disparate and mutually-unsupportable assumptions. The sort of intellectually-bereft dreck that could be used to fertilise deserts, it's so rich.

Even Murray himself eventually apologised for the poor quality of his research, claiming (possibly even honestly) that he hadn't realised that the journals wre kack.

 

[onarchy]

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Of course intelligence is "biologically based", but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

Well, actually it does. Every organism is an economy, a limited being that is utilizing limited resources to further its existence and to prosper. Therefore the very fact that something is "biologically based" most likely means that it can be measured and quantified in terms of performance. That something exists and is important to an organism's survival means that it definitely must be heritable and that there must exist heritable differences in performance, otherwise natural selection would have nothing to go on. So knowing that something is biologically based provides us with a whole lot of information based on what we know about evolution and biology.

In fact, it makes zero sense to talk about biology without locating it in a context of relationships with others. An infant left to their own devices will die. Infant development always takes place within a social context.

You do realize that this strongly indicates that sociality is biologically based, right?

What is now acknowledged in infant development, is that humans are born with potential and how that potential develops is down to interactions and relationships with care givers and others. There are "windows of opportunity" for infant brain development, and if these are missed, then the development is much harder. This is why, for example, infants learn languages very easily, but adults usually find it very hard to learn a new language. Empathy, sense of self, emotional regulation etc are all things that require "good enough" attachment relationships in early years to develop along normal lines.

All this is very fascinating and very important. However, as I mentioned in another post, there is also a lot of threshold behavior in biology. A plant that doesn't get any water will greatly benefit from just a tiny bit of water, but a plant that gets plenty of water will not benefit from any additional water. Thus, there are thresholds of utility, under and around this threshold there is great improvement in utility, but above it the effect wears off and significantly above the threshold the effect diminishes to nothing. All the things you mentioned have fairly low thresholds. It doesn't take a lot of stimuli for a child to develop normally and additional stimuli gives rapidly diminishing returns in terms of brain development. This is evidenced by the fact that IQ seems to correlate almost only with biological factors such as nutrition and genes. Sociality and education don't show up as very significant for long term IQ development. (There are some short term benefits for children, but they wear off with age as biology starts to manifest itself. IQ becomes more and more heritable with age.) This indicates that the thresholds for necessary stimuli is quite low.

When talking about "intelligence", well, it's very hard to actually define.

Not really. While not capturing intelligence perfectly, mental speed/energy pretty much sums up the meaning of intelligence. It is a biologically measurable unit, and you don't require IQ tests to measure it.

This is why "individualism" vs "collectivism" is such a fallacious argument. We are all part of a collective, indeed, babies can't be conceived purely by an individual! Humans require caring relationships with others to acquire language, emotional stability and intelligence. Or to put it another way - "no man is an island".

I have actually written an entire book manuscript about the kind of argument you put forth here, called "the religious atheists." Basically you are using a supernatural standard of individuality. You require that to be an individual it must somehow just manifest itself magically out of nowhere with no attachments to reality, and be independent in a supernatural manner (i.e. not be causally linked to anything in the universe). With supernatural requirements like that it's no wonder the religious atheists conclude that "no man is an island."

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I bought "The Bell Curve" when it came out, and like I do with most "serious" books, I read it through, made notes and checked the sources (harder to do back then than it is now, usually involved a trip or six to an academic library). I usually find a <5% "bum steer" rate (i.e. references to vanity publications and non-peer reviewed work). Murray and Herrnstein's offering had >35%, more than a third of which were references to publications funded by the likes of the Liberty Lobby, pseudo-academic journals that publish articles about such things as the biological basis of racial inferiority, often using the same rhetorical style as Onar - the bulldozing conflation of disparate and mutually-unsupportable assumptions. The sort of intellectually-bereft dreck that could be used to fertilise deserts, it's so rich.

Even Murray himself eventually apologised for the poor quality of his research, claiming (possibly even honestly) that he hadn't realised that the journals wre kack.

Yep, key funding source was the Pioneer Fund, who seek to do for the 'negroes have smaller brains' crowd what Liberty Lobby do for the holocaust deniers.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/pioneer-fund

 

[onarchy]

Did you know that you get better at IQ tests if you practise them, Onarchy?

Yes, I know there is a practice component to IQ tests, but with diminishing returns. IQ tests aren't perfect at measuring intelligence, but they can be pretty accurate, given that it is possibly to predict people's IQs with a high degree of accuracy if you know their brain size (and especially the size of certain areas of the brain), the pH-level in the brain, the mental reaction time etc. From this you can predict IQ with a high degree of accuracy. What does that tell you?

 

[Blagsta]

Well, actually it does. Every organism is an economy, a limited being that is utilizing limited resources to further its existence and to prosper. Therefore the very fact that something is "biologically based" most likely means that it can be measured and quantified in terms of performance. That something exists and is important to an organism's survival means that it definitely must be heritable and that there must exist heritable differences in performance, otherwise natural selection would have nothing to go on. So knowing that something is biologically based provides us with a whole lot of information based on what we know about evolution and biology.

Errr...I don't understand your point here.

You do realize that this strongly indicates that sociality is biologically based, right?

How? I don't think you understood the point I was making. I'm pointing out that "the biological" and "the social" are dependent on each other. You are focussing purely on "the biological" as an abstracted category. A fundamental conceptual error.

All this is very fascinating and very important. However, as I mentioned in another post, there is also a lot of threshold behavior in biology. A plant that doesn't get any water will greatly benefit from just a tiny bit of water, but a plant that gets plenty of water will not benefit from any additional water. Thus, there are thresholds of utility, under and around this threshold there is great improvement in utility, but above it the effect wears off and significantly above the threshold the effect diminishes to nothing. All the things you mentioned have fairly low thresholds. It doesn't take a lot of stimuli for a child to develop normally and additional stimuli gives rapidly diminishing returns in terms of brain development.

Evidence?

This is evidenced by the fact that IQ seems to correlate almost only with biological factors such as nutrition and genes.

Evidence?

Sociality and education don't show up as very significant for long term IQ development. (There are some short term benefits for children, but they wear off with age as biology starts to manifest itself. IQ becomes more and more heritable with age.) This indicates that the thresholds for necessary stimuli is quite low.

Evidence?

Not really. While not capturing intelligence perfectly, mental speed/energy pretty much sums up the meaning of intelligence.

Which theory of intelligence is this? Reference please.

It is a biologically measurable unit, and you don't require IQ tests to measure it.

Measured in what units? Measured how? Reference please.

I have actually written an entire book manuscript about the kind of argument you put forth here, called "the religious atheists." Basically you are using a supernatural standard of individuality. You require that to be an individual it must somehow just manifest itself magically out of nowhere with no attachments to reality, and be independent in a supernatural manner (i.e. not be causally linked to anything in the universe). With supernatural requirements like that it's no wonder the religious atheists conclude that "no man is an island."

Errrr...that's actually your position.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is Onar Åm really a liberal, or is he a rightwing conservative pretending to be liberal?

Or is he a misanthrope conducting an attempt to prove to himself that it's not he that has a problem, it's the rest of the world, dammit!!! ?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Yes, I know there is a practice component to IQ tests, but with diminishing returns. IQ tests aren't perfect at measuring intelligence, but they can be pretty accurate, given that it is possibly to predict people's IQs with a high degree of accuracy if you know their brain size (and especially the size of certain areas of the brain), the pH-level in the brain, the mental reaction time etc. From this you can predict IQ with a high degree of accuracy. What does that tell you?

Since Afro-Americans consistently have larger brains than white Americans, what does that tell you?

Tobias, T.V. (1970). Brain Size, Grey matter and Race – Fact or Fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:3-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330320103/abstract

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Or is he a misanthrope conducting an attempt to prove to himself that it's not he that has a problem, it's the rest of the world, dammit!!! ?

I think he'll go far, I can see him on Fox News explaining that global warming is a hoax, that socialists are in fact Nazis and that negroes have smaller brains. He's actually better at it than most of them.

A lot smoother than say pbman for example (although not as funny)

... but seriously, that's the whole point about wingnut welfare. Some rich freaks want to prove negroes have smaller brains and you're willing to back 'em up, the bar is set much lower. Ditto climate contrarianism and all the rest of it. If you are willing to argue for what rich guys want argued, you can be a 'writer/thinker' without all the tedious effort required to do it straight. In fact, if you go the wingnut welfare route, dishonesty and the ability to shamelessly repeat complete shite as though it's a convincing argument is actually an advantage.

I'm just having this horrible vision now of Onar on Fox News, brought in to 'balance' the views of Roger Penrose or Stephen Hawking or someone like that with his 'ether theory' ... could happen though, which illustrates exactly what the problem is with wingnut welfare and the media not having enough science graduates in it to tell good science from bad, or caring much.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I know there is a practice component to IQ tests, but with diminishing returns. IQ tests aren't perfect at measuring intelligence, but they can be pretty accurate, given that it is possibly to predict people's IQs with a high degree of accuracy if you know their brain size (and especially the size of certain areas of the brain), the pH-level in the brain, the mental reaction time etc. From this you can predict IQ with a high degree of accuracy. What does that tell you?

Um, if you can gather enough information about a brain, you can predict how well it performs certain tasks. Particularly if certain parts of the brain are larger, that indicates certain abilities. For instance, musical ability is a complex thing that involves many areas of the brain. However, "An area used to analyze the pitch of a musical note is enlarged 25% in musicians, compared to people who have never played an instrument. The findings suggest the area is enlarged through practice and experience. The earlier the musicians were when they started musical training, the bigger this area of the brain appears to be." ref

This is but one of thousands of examples of how brains develop in response to their environments. That is one of the keys to human success as a species – such a remarkable level of brain plasticity whereby we can adapt to a huge range of environments and develop hugely differing skills as a result.

So what you're saying isn't anything particularly remarkable at all. All you're saying is that if you can gather enough information about a person's brain, you can accurately predict that person's abilities. I'm sure there isn't a single poster on this thread who would dispute that.

Note, btw, how I'm referencing things such as studies published in journals like Nature. You might like to start referencing studies people yourself.

 

[yield]

given that it is possibly to predict people's IQs with a high degree of accuracy if you know their brain size

This thread keeps on giving.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here's another interesting study showing how music lessons aid brain development in children, and among other things raise their IQs.

After one year the musically trained children performed better in a memory test that is correlated with general intelligence skills such as literacy, verbal memory, visiospatial processing, mathematics and IQ.

This study was published in the journal Brain.

 

[Blagsta]

There was a feature on Radio 4 this week about colour perception. Apparently learning different names for colours increases brain density.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't doubt that if you look inside the brains of visual artists, you'll find enlarged areas that deal with colour perception compared to people who aren't visual artists.

Onar seems to think this contradicts what others are saying. It really doesn't.

 

[audiotech]

This study was published in the journal Brain.

Editor 'Brains' perchance?

 

[Steel Icarus]

Editor 'Brains' perchance?

Lol. I had that pic stuck on my bedroom door by some funny fucker when I lived in a shared house.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Editor 'Brains' perchance?

That reminded me of this:

Since it would be pretty hard to derail this thread any further I thought I might as well post it.

 

[goldenecitrone]

That reminded me of this:

Since it would be pretty hard to derail this thread any further I thought I might as well post it.

Quite frankly, that's a huge slur on International Rescue.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Quite frankly, that's a huge slur on International Rescue.

It's an old one from just after the General Election but don't blame me, blame this blogger. Although I must admit that it did make me LOL.

 

[TruXta]

A properly rigorous twin study showing the effects of nature/nurture would have to separate the twins not at birth but at conception.

But nobody has denied a heritable factor to intelligence, and if you are effectively clones of each other, you share the identical genetic starting point to life. Bernie's quote from Gould covers this completely and adequately with regards to its implications for the 'Bell Curve'.

For those with a bit of stats and maths, this is as good a refutation of g-type intelligence concepts and theories as I've seen anywhere: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

 

[goldenecitrone]

For those with a bit of stats and maths, this is as good a refutation of g-type intelligence concepts and theories as I've seen anywhere: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

You don't even really need the stats. Just a bit of common sense and experience of the world we live in.

 

[TruXta]

You don't even really need the stats. Just a bit of common sense and experience of the world we live in.

Of course, but hard cold numerical proof helps as well.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Of course, but hard cold numerical proof helps as well.

The eugenicists had their own proofs. I don't think they've changed that much.

 

[TruXta]

The eugenicists had their own proofs. I don't think they've changed that much.

Which ones are you referring to? The old ones, the new ones, or all of them?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Which ones are you referring to? The old ones, the new ones, or all of them?

All the Neo-Nazi cunts, dressing their racist shit up in the language of outraged liberal minorities.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All the Neo-Nazi cunts, dressing their racist shit up in the language of outraged liberal minorities.

Yes. TBH I think I and a lot of other people have given far too much time to this wanker. I am going to stop prodding now I think. Except perhaps to shout 'cunt' at him every now and then.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

From onarchy:

t is possibly to predict people's IQs with a high degree of accuracy if you know their brain size

 

[TruXta]

Noone disses The Giant. NOONE.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't doubt that if you look inside the brains of visual artists, you'll find enlarged areas that deal with colour perception compared to people who aren't visual artists.

I don't think that's necessarily so.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Besides: we don't want to get into that whole 'localization of brain function' argument again.