I assume the smart smart scholars have figured out a way to figure intelligence as distinct from being good at taking iq tests. Also, I assume they have figured out what part of intelligence can be influenced by culture and which parts are innate and unalterable (short of a blow to the head).

Why are discussions of intelligence all so stupid?

I assume the smart smart scholars have figured out a way to figure intelligence as distinct from being good at taking iq tests.

I hate to tell you, but smart people do well on IQ tests and dumb people do poorly.

Also, I assume they have figured out what part of intelligence can be influenced by culture and which parts are innate and unalterable (short of a blow to the head).

They have found that culture is not a factor in human intelligence. People differ in intelligence primarily because it is over 80% heritable (genes, you know). The environmental factors that influence intelligence all cause it to be lowered (no boosters have yet been discovered) and include disease, shortage of iodine, exposure to toxins, etc.


Why are discussions of intelligence all so stupid?

Largely because most of the people who engage in them are ignorant of the facts.

I hate to tell you, but smart people do well on IQ tests and dumb people do poorly.

You would really love to think that wouldn't you? Did little Morgan do well on his IQ test? Guess what, I know several people that did poorly on standardized test who had more intellect and creativity than the vast majority of people I've ever met. Your generalization is pretty unfounded, which goes well with your overall cockiness.

They have found that culture is not a factor in human intelligence. People differ in intelligence primarily because it is over 80% heritable (genes, you know).

Who is this infamous "they" you are referring to? Intelligence is not inheritable through genetics. You do realize you are implying that smart parents are more likely to have smart children and I would love to see your scientific journal link that says this is ONLY attributable to genetics and has nothing to do with college educated people having hire incomes, less children, and more concern about education for their children.

But gee, who needs honest discussion when you can just try and assert your inherent superiority over a billion people because of your SAT score. Don't you grow weary of your elitism?

Have you ever taken an IQ test, soundgarden? They're nothing like the SATs, which actually are a test of education, not intelligence. There are many types of IQ tests, and they're all very different from the standardized tests Americans have to take in public schools. These aren't tests of knowledge like math problems, or even of reading comprehension. They're tests of logic, reasoning skills, problem solving, and the like.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I do think you should do a little more research on the subject (perhaps take a test yourself so you can see what they're like?) before trying to comment on it.

Dear garden,

You would really love to think that wouldn't you?

Actually, I don't have a preference one way or the other, since this is a matter of science and not preference. I was not consulted when leaves were made to be green, nor when humans were made to vary in intelligence. The issue here is one of understanding science. Your comments reveal that you have not managed that understanding.

Your generalization is pretty unfounded, which goes well with your overall cockiness.

My generalization is nothing more than the findings that have been reported in scientific journals over the past three or so decades. I have read and understood them; you have not.

Who is this infamous "they" you are referring to?

The authors of scientific papers that have been published in peer reviewed journals for decades. You obviously have not read them and would not recognize the names, if I was willing to take the time to cite them to you.

Intelligence is not inheritable through genetics.

Wrong. Your ignorance is on public display. Please hide to protect yourself from further embarrassment.

You do realize you are implying that smart parents are more likely to have smart children

Yes, that is the way it works. The probabilities take on the form of a Gaussian distribution that is centered half way between the means of the parents IQs and the mean for their breeding group. If you wish to learn about this, look for information pertaining to regression to the mean. You need to do a LOT of learning.

and I would love to see your scientific journal link that says this is ONLY attributable to genetics and has nothing to do with college educated people having hire incomes, less children, and more concern about education for their children.

You might want to read these books before taking on journals:

Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Brand, C. (1996). The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Chichester, England: Wiley

Lynn, Richard 2006 Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis ISBN 1-59368-020-1

After you understand those, please read the journal Intelligence.

Let me remind you of my comment in the earlier post:

Why are discussions of intelligence all so stupid?
Largely because most of the people who engage in them are ignorant of the facts.

I hate to tell you, but smart people do well on IQ tests and dumb people do poorly.

If you define smart people as those that do well on tests which researchers have currently devised, this is true. If you define smart people as those that perform mental tasks, of any nature, at an above average capacity, then you are only loosely correct.

The issue is the ability to break complex, difficult to quantify abilities down into simple, easily quantified abilities. For any intelligence test to be authoritative, the tasks included within it would have to fully and precisely account for every observed operation of the mind. Logically, any researcher who could prove such a test to be authoritative could also take any observed mental activity and reduce it, in mathematical detail and proportion, to the tasks which constitute his test. No such feat has ever been accomplished.

I'm afraid this is simply a standard case of people who know a little bit assuming they know everything. Solid, reliable research is wasted as grasping analysts insert conjecture and inflate the meaning of the studies to match their own overblown egos. The error is not with the data, it is with the interpretation.

Why are discussions of intelligence all so stupid?
Largely because most of the people who engage in them are ignorant of the facts.

I believe you exemplify your own point. No honest scientist would claim to be in possession of the facts at this point in the development of our understanding of the brain, only some facts.

If you define smart people as those that do well on tests which researchers have currently devised, this is true. If you define smart people as those that perform mental tasks, of any nature, at an above average capacity, then you are only loosely correct.

The latter is no different than the former.


The issue is the ability to break complex, difficult to quantify abilities down into simple, easily quantified abilities.

I agree. The degree to which people can resolve abstract problems and their speed of learning is much of the essence of intelligence. IQ tests sort people out well according to those abilities.


For any intelligence test to be authoritative, the tasks included within it would have to fully and precisely account for every observed operation of the mind.

Not so. A good intelligence test has to do just one thing: measure g. That's it. If you don't understand that and the nature of the positive manifold, I suggest that you do some self education.

Logically, any researcher who could prove such a test to be authoritative could also take any observed mental activity and reduce it, in mathematical detail and proportion, to the tasks which constitute his test. No such feat has ever been accomplished.

Your knowledge of testing is showing... it is showing very little. You are confused. The thing to measure is g.

You might want to read these books before taking on journals:

I am willing to wager you've never read a journal topic on the subject matter. Those books (or at least their content) has been debated and debunked many times by the scientific community.

These are the facts, no matter how much you'd love them to be otherwise.

1) There is no consensus on what intelligence is. The science that will deliver that answer is neuroscience. And it hasn't.

2) We have no idea how IQ relates to intelligence in general. We don't really know what IQ measures.

3) We have no idea why some studies break down along racial lines but we do know that there is (and has been) inherent bias in the testers and tests. There have been skewed and manipulated results. Many factors could explain any bias. The most pointed out factors here and elsewhere are cultural norms, histories of oppression, poverty rates and so on.

I would suggest sir that you came by your opinions first and your evidence afterwards. You bring science's good name into disrepute.

I am willing to wager you've never read a journal topic on the subject matter.

Bet and lose. I have read hundreds of papers on the subjects of intelligence research and psychometrics. How many have you read?

Those books (or at least their content) has been debated and debunked many times by the scientific community.

Wrong. Have you read them? Or are you able to know their merits without reading them?

Those books are sound and are accepted as standard references by intelligence researchers. If you think otherwise, you are exposing yourself as badly misinformed.

These are the facts, no matter how much you'd love them to be otherwise.

Sorry, you can't bluff or fool me in this area. I know better and I can tell you that your comments are wrong.

1) There is no consensus on what intelligence is. The science that will deliver that answer is neuroscience. And it hasn't.

I agree with that one. For that reason, the use of g as the parameter defining cognitive ability is better. But, before you get carried away, have you read this:
Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An
Editorial With 52 Signatories, History,
and Bibliography
Wall Street Journal, Dec 13, 1994

If not, you might want to look it up. It is on the web. Please note the scholars who signed the document and what they said about "intelligence."

2) We have no idea how IQ relates to intelligence in general.

IQ measures intelligence to the extent that it measures g. "We" do know how that happens, but I doubt that the "we" involved includes "you."

We don't really know what IQ measures.

Wrong. It measures g and group factors.

3) We have no idea why some studies break down along racial lines

"We" are not so confused as "you."

but we do know that there is (and has been) inherent bias in the testers and tests.

Wrong. Please read Bias in Mental Testing and then tell us about the errors you found. You must know that the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the findings and agreed with them. Your comments about "debunking" are garbage.

Many factors could explain any bias.

Yes, and some tests are biased in some situations. That does not mean that the findings of experienced scientists are in error because of your assertion. Any tool can be used incorrectly. IQ testing by trained professionals is highly reliable.


The most pointed out factors here and elsewhere are cultural norms, histories of oppression, poverty rates and so on.

If you think that there is a finding that is wrong, please show us how those items caused the error.

I would suggest sir that you came by your opinions first and your evidence afterwards.

I would suggest that you are wrong and ignorant of this topic.

Oh MorganLee,

You and your g. What is intelligence we ask. It's g he says! What is g? Group factors. And what are group factors? Intelligence he says! You and your g.

Seriously: Ignorant though I am - let's try this one on for size.

1) Define intelligence.

2) List the genes involved in promoting intelligence.

3) Describe how these genes interact with our hormones and which ones. Describe how they influence brain development and how. Describe the proteins, chemical reactions and neurobiology involved.

4) As a result of this, describe how much effect environment has on intelligence, so defined.

5) And finally... Prove that genetic racial differences exist with respect to intelligence and describe how and why they came about.

Can you? No.

You say: Those books are sound and are accepted as standard references by intelligence researchers. If you think otherwise, you are exposing yourself as badly misinformed.

Here is what Scientific American says about sound author, Richard Lynn:

"Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund"

And here is a reprint.

Regarding sound author Mr Jensen, here is the opening abstract from a psychology paper:

"Jensen (1998) differs from Jensen (1969) only in statistical elaboration. Although 'intelligence' is described as a construct' and therefore something that should be discarded as a word, it lives on as 'g' which in fact is a construct of factor analysis. 'Races' may themselves be social constructs, but since people believe in them, they live on as entities to be invested with varying amounts of 'g'. However, not only do races have no biological coherence, but an assessment of the millions of years of hominid prehistory leads to the espectable null hypothesis that there should be no difference in mental capability between any of the human groups in the world. Assumptions to the contrary qualify as racialism and actions based on those assumptions qualify as racism."

And here is the link

I've trawled through enough of this muck - you'll forgive if I wade in no further.

Thus again I assert: I would suggest sir that you came by your opinions first and your evidence afterwards.

By all means reply but I have grown a bit tired of you and humanity needs my services so don't expect a response in return.

All the best now!

1) Define intelligence.

g will do just fine

2) List the genes involved in promoting intelligence.

Please consult the recent papers of Robert Plomin for a good understanding of this topic.

3) Describe how these genes interact with our hormones and which ones. Describe how they influence brain development and how. Describe the proteins, chemical reactions and neurobiology involved.

Genes determine the biological factors that act at the lowest level to influence the higher level parameters. Examples of the lowest level parameters: volumes of the Brodmann areas that are involved in cognition; nerve conduction velocity; brain wave oscillatory rate, pH, and myelination. Examples of the higher level variables: glucose uptake rate; working memory capacity; speed of reaction to a stimulus; and sensitivity to short duration stimuli.

4) As a result of this, describe how much effect environment has on intelligence, so defined.

The environment accounts for about 18% of the variance in intelligence in adults.

5) And finally... Prove that genetic racial differences exist with respect to intelligence and describe how and why they came about.

This is a long topic. You can easily read the answer by reading this:
Rushton, J.P. and Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.

Here is what Scientific American says about sound author, Richard Lynn:

Those comments are liberal twaddle. The Pioneer Fund has been criticized for notions that may or may not have been fairly associated with it in the distant past, but which do not apply today or for many decades.

Regarding sound author Mr Jensen, here is the opening abstract from a psychology paper:

"Jensen (1998) differs from Jensen (1969) only in statistical elaboration.

Jensen is one of the most brilliant and scientifically honest scientists of the past half century.

Although 'intelligence' is described as a construct' and therefore something that should be discarded as a word, it lives on as 'g' which in fact is a construct of factor analysis.

I understand that you didn't write that, but you quoted it. Do you believe that a "construct" in inherently invalid? If so, why? Are you familiar with other constructs used in science?

'Races' may themselves be social constructs, but since people believe in them, they live on as entities to be invested with varying amounts of 'g'. However, not only do races have no biological coherence, but an assessment of the millions of years of hominid prehistory leads to the espectable null hypothesis that there should be no difference in mental capability between any of the human groups in the world. Assumptions to the contrary qualify as racialism and actions based on those assumptions qualify as racism."

That comment is at odds with reality in every respect. It is easy to measure the biological differences between groups using true ratio scales. Those measurements consistently align with the differences in intelligence that have been shown from IQ testing. The test results accurately predict educational attainment (worldwide) and predict per capita GDP (with the logical understanding of the roles of natural resources and Communist rule).

Thus again I assert: I would suggest sir that you came by your opinions first and your evidence afterwards.

Please speak for yourself. Your apparent opinions are simply incorrect and at odds with science.

Here is what Scientific American says about sound author, Richard Lynn:

What a canard. Why didn't you tell us the article was written by Kamin? Even Gould seems sensable beside Kamin. You really need to look into the merits of your source material!

Verbiage aside, if you *really* understood the influence of genes on intelligence as well as you seem to think you do, you'd be able to do the following

Look at the DNA sequence of a randomly chosen baby born today and predict that baby's IQ scores at age 25.

Good luck; I presume we'll be hearing from you in 25 years.

Types of questions from the WISC:

"On what continent is Argentina?"

"Why are streets usually numbered in order?"

(from James R. Flynn, What Is Intelligence.)