Epicurus,

Why is it that everyone who dismisses Jensen and his research never point out the faults in his methodology, or specific reasons why the data he has collected is unreliable?

Because Jensen is an expert among experts. Because Jensen has been consistently honest and fair to science. Because the people who wish to discredit him show their near total ignorance of the subject. Because the most informed and prestigious scientists from around the world understand and respect Jensen as the most valuable living practitioner of differential psychology, as it applies to intelligence.

The reasoning seems to be that because we don't like the data, it is okay to dismiss the man who collected it.

Are you telling us that you have examined psychometric data sets? Would you mind listing them for us? After examining them, did you perform any analysis? If so, what tools did you use and did you publish your findings? Or, as I expect, are you someone who has never conducted intelligence research or carefully examined real data sets from that field?

How scholarly.

Are you a scholar? Do you mind listing the awards you have received in recognition for your scholarship? In which fields are you a noted scholar?

Mel,

Cognitive science is a field with vast potential and enormous current interest. The tiny corner of it occupied by the "g" fetishists has become the clubhouse of a right-wing cult.

You don't keep up with the literature, do you? If you did (you obviously don't), you would know that g is not something relegated to a tiny corner, it is the central focus of research and has been for a rather long time. Researchers are not arguing over g, but are instead using it as the most effective means yet found to evaluate intelligence. The only people who try to argue that g is not important or even that it is a false fabrication, are the journalists and arm chair philosophers who lack the energy and intellect to deal with the science of intelligence.

"The reasoning seems to be that because we don't like the data, it is okay to dismiss the man who collected it."

Translation: The reasoning among those who criticize Jensen seems to be that because his critics don't like the data, it is okay for them to dismiss the man who collected it.

"How scholarly."

Said sarcastically. Isn't that obvious from the context?

Jeesh.

Epicurius,

You are dealing with a man with no sense of humor. he also has a passion for demanding credentials of others while maintaining anonymity for himself.

MorganLee,

All the "scholarship" you insist is so important is within the narrow and arid field of "differential psychology," which is a pseudoscience. Saying Jensen is a giant within his own little field is like saying Jung was a giant within analytical psychology -- his own little deer park.

Few credible researchers in cognitive science have the slightest interest in the kind of "research" you penis-measurers do. You attach a massive architecture of statistical analysis to antique practices of folk psychology and colonialist social science.

But that's OK. You operate in a vacuum because nobody cares what you do.

"... driven into criminality by unconstitutional laws that try to limit what people put into their own bodies, ostentably for the 'protection' of society...... but the laws create more harm than the drugs themselves."

Prisons are big business... one of the only legal forms of slave labor left. Prisons in California make more money than Aerorspace, Hollywood, or Silicon Valley.

This is complicated, and their are more factors than we can get into here. Besides, this thread is not the place to deal with drug policy. But I will say that if drug laws were really to protect people from poisons, gasoline would be schedule I.

In case you didn't know, "huffing" gas is a hugely popular drug amongst the lowest classes of our society. They dip tube socks into gasoline and hold the elastic end over their noses and mouths until they are too high to keep it there any longer. It has a high that makes crack, meth, and heroin look like a joke. It is on the lines of Ketamine (a large animal tranquilizer, disassociative, and heavy hallucinogen). Interestingly, Ketamine, Morphine (and nearly all of the opiates including opium), various cocaine derivatives (lidocain, novacain etc.), and many methamphetamines are not schedule I drugs because they have accepted medical uses. Marijuana IS schedule I, despite having well known medical uses, being non-lethal, and not physically addicting... Oh and guess what? The majority of our drug felons (which make up the vast majority of our 2 million + prisoners in jail) are on marijuana charges. We have 25% of the world's prisoners.

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but I'm sure huffing gasoline (which is legal) doesn't do a lot of good for your IQ.

Huffing is invariably catastrophic to your intellect.

Interestingly, for a long time, almost no-one was huffing. But in the last couple of years, huffing has experienced a huge resurgence. Why?

Can't be picked up on drug testing.

The connoisseurs don't generally huff gas, though. The sophisticates won't settle for less than metallic paint aerosols or white-out thinner (though nail polish/remover will do in a pinch).

All the "scholarship" you insist is so important is within the narrow and arid field of "differential psychology," which is a pseudoscience.

May I ask how much you know about differential psychology? Do you work in that field? Teach it? Are you an intelligence researcher? Or, are you an armchair pundit who doesn't know either the details of the field of study or the people doing the research?

Few credible researchers in cognitive science have the slightest interest in the kind of "research" you penis-measurers do.

Is that your scholarly comment? What do you know about measuring penises? Is that your specialty?

You operate in a vacuum because nobody cares what you do.

I see. So, would you please tell us who cares what you do and why?

Have you contributed anything of value to the ongoing discussion? I haven't seen it, so please tell us all again.

Don't forget the ever-popular octane booster or glue.

The real deal is that a half gallon of gas (even at 2$) will get a dozen people wasted for the entire night. You don't even have to be 16 to buy gas. You can walk up with a gas can, and say that your Dad ran out of gas down the road and sent you to pick some up. They're usually not even inclined to ask kids why they want gas, because (unlike cigarettes or beer) there is no law forcing them to. You could be filling your lawn mower.

Oh, and gasoline has a high that makes white out or nail polish look ridiculously pale in comparison. It is more hallucinogenic than LSD. It is making a huge comeback because, in addition to being cheap as all hell, it isn't a sketchy, illegal "you might get narced out" kinda score. The lack of availability of cleaner, less dangerous drugs (and the fact that people have to pay more for a gram of good weed than for a gram of gold) is forcing the youth to fry their brains.

I've heard of bikers who used to open their tanks while driving and use a funnel and a tube to huff. Of course, one huff too many and you're gonna crash.

Neither huffing nor crashing will help you score well on an IQ test. (...just gotta keep tying it back in to the thread ;-)

sun wrote:

You should refrain from calling names. Even when we disagree, we should be civil... especially when we disagree.

What kind of mental condition causes you to call me an "assh*le" then comment as you did above? What we have from you is bragging about your IQ, inane comments about intelligence, which demonstrate your complete ignorance of the topic, then your outburst of name calling.

Just explain why it was okay for you to resort to vulgar name calling (a violation of Slate policies), yet you want to lecture someone about what you did first?

Is it possible social / cultural organization by choice of each individual still remains the key factor in intelligence. Ashkenazi's in the most part seem to have been prostelized as a orgaized way of life...jewish, yet not wholly original by blood lines. After the Fall of the Temple in 70 AD, a new organization became comitted to prostelize. Seemingly there are closer genetic blood lines, within the Sephardic Jew communities.Not to mention not long ago wasn't it revealed, there are even closer gentic blood lines as the original hebrews in Africa.The Ashkenazi's held onto a tradition of organized communities, and only married within the community. Yes the Chinese, and many Aboriginal peoples, have continued to do so. The Kogi's in Columbia, have literally close there door to the rest of the world. The Elder Brother's, believe we are less evolved spiritually, and have passed down the stories to every generation for 1000 years. They were happy to meet some younger brother's, who seemed to not be like the stories of old, as they finally opened their doors to a select few. Read about the horrifying ways they were killed for their gold artifacts, including they were accused of homo sexual acts, because they lived separate from their wives.( just an excuse to kill)

It was short lived...they have been subjected to greed, deciet and murder, and prefer to keep to themselves. im not as articulate as the rest of you speaking to this subject, I often wonder, if the human race would be better equiped to fight disease, and live well spiritually.. if we married outside our community, and organizations....not less, so as to increase our power to Love one another more???. All the intelligence in the world, has continued to fall short......

"The socialist position is, "No one has a firm idea on what 'intelligence' is other than it's what IQ tests measure."

Not sure what borrow and spend economics has to do with IQ tests. I think our pseudo-con friend is delusional and likely doesn't really understand the words he uses.

"Not sure what borrow and spend economics has to do with IQ tests. I think our pseudo-con friend is delusional and likely doesn't really understand the words he uses."

The fundamental concept underlying socialism is that we all come into the world as blank slates, waiting to be molded by social forces. This belief gave rise to the idea that mankind could be re-molded in as little as a generation by drastic social change--collectivization, subordination of individual rights to the will of the state, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.--which then led to things like the gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's collectivization of agriculture which resulted in the starvation of millions. I tend to believe our physical and mental gifts and our personality are as much affected by our genetic heritage as they are by nurture, maybe more so. Thus, I think the study of "g" is intriguing and worthwhile, and we shouldn't shun it simply because it has sometimes been promoted, and distorted, by fringe political groups.

BTW, we cannot blame Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot for borrow and spend economic policy. Borrow and spend has reached its zenith under Bush, and I don't know anyone who would call him a socialist.

"Are you a scholar? Do you mind listing the awards you have received in recognition for your scholarship? In which fields are you a noted scholar?"

Is there a positive correlation between "g" and the ability to discern things like sarcasm, satire, and irony?

Once agqain, what are YOUR credentials? What papers have YOU published?

Measuring penises is, as you well know, a continuing passion of your hero J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton heads up the Pioneer Fund, about which you have yet to issue a single honest word. The Fund has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a HATE GROUP, because of its lengthy history of subvening racist and white supremecist pseudoscholarship. Is that your specilaty? Is that the field in which you do"research?"

What I have contributed to this dissussion was some needed common sense regarding race and also regarding the goals and motives of genuine science. Your little cult of fake science has neither the goals nor the ethical standards of genuine science, and yet you moan about how you have been martyred by the "forces of PC" and other postmodern ignoramuses. That is, as you well know, not true.

You attempt to wrap yourself in the mantle of pure science but the history of your academic cult makes it clear how fraudulent that claim is. Of course to you the only credible critics are your fellow cultists. That should not surprise anyone. Nor is it a surprise that, though you continue to demand everyone's credentials as if you were some kind of border guard, you lack the courtesy to display yours first.You, like your "field," are an obnoxious fraud, perpetrated and sustained by bigots.

"Bright people rise to higher SES levels than dull people, even when those people are siblings and have had the same family environment. Bright people earn more than dull people, partly because they have more education and partly because they perform better at their jobs than do dull people. Bright, high SES people have bright children. Dull, low SES people have dull children. Bright, low SES people have bright children. Dull, high SES people have dull children."

"Statistically IQ declines with family size. There are two reasons for this. First, the fraction of first borns is smaller in a group that has large families (first borns are believed to be smarter, per the study from Finland this year and prior studies that had the same finding). Second, dull people have higher fertility levels than bright people and the difference is large."

To those who criticize the possibility of a biological basis for intelligence, do you deny that these findings are true? If so, do you have reasons for doing so other than that they are disturbing?