The Bell Curve

[_EAllusion]

Sam Harris: There is very little we can do environmentally to increase a person’s intelligence, even in childhood. It’s not that environment doesn’t matter, just that it appears that genes are 50% to 80% of the story

MSI: Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. (point 17)

You never did respond to my question earlier. The data set they work off of is a score derived from the ASVAB. To point this out, I simply linked a ASVAB preparation website. Since that aptitude test is our measure of IQ under discussion, do you believe it is possible to do things that will make you score better on the ASVAB? If not, do you think the idea of help prepping for it is illegitimate? If so, explain the above comment.

You have to be careful about what you are claiming here since you are saying Sam Harris channeling Murray is right on the money. Good education, even starting in childhood, is basically pointless when it comes to improving intelligence, which we can measure using aptitude tests that ask you high school math problems.

[_Chap]

Clearly different people have different opinions and "intelligence" is an incredibly abstract thing that can be thought about in different ways. That's what I think.

That's certainly not what you've been arguing.

If I may observe briefly - a major question relevant to the discussion on this thread is precisely whether or not 'intelligence' is a 'thing', whether abstract or not, or whether it is mostly just a word that people use when they are articulating certain political or social positions in the guise of stating facts about human beings.

I don't claim to have a definitive answer to that question.

[Anonymous]

Clearly different people have different opinions and "intelligence" is an incredibly abstract thing that can be thought about in different ways. That's what I think.

That's certainly not what you've been arguing.

Of course not. I've been studying this stuff for less than a week. My main argument on this thread has been about what the book in question actually says. I think I'm qualified to judge the statistical arguments, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of the research it is all based on.

ETA: This question reminds me of what Thomas Sowell said: "The differences between what Herrnstein and Murray said and what others believe is much smaller than the latter seem to think." From what I've read so far, I'm getting the distinct impression that many of this book's critics are often attacking strawmen.

[_Analytics]

Sam Harris: There is very little we can do environmentally to increase a person’s intelligence, even in childhood. It’s not that environment doesn’t matter, just that it appears that genes are 50% to 80% of the story

MSI: Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. (point 17)

You never did respond to my question earlier. The data set they work off of is a score derived from the ASVAB. To point this out, I simply linked a ASVAB preparation website. Since that aptitude test is our measure of IQ under discussion, do you believe it is possible to do things that will make you score better on the ASVAB? If not, do you think the idea of help prepping for it is illegitimate? If so, explain the above comment.

You have to be careful about what you are claiming here since you are saying Sam Harris channeling Murray is right on the money. Good education, even starting in childhood, is basically pointless when it comes to improving intelligence, which we can measure using aptitude tests that ask you high school math problems.

Yes, I think it is possible to increase your ASVAB score by studying for the test.

The above comments are two quotes from people who have more expertise in the area than I do about what the scientific literature says on the issue. Love them or hate them, they do have their fingers on a body of research to back up their claim.

If I understood what they were talking about in that God-forsaken webcast, Murray and Harris were talking about how if somebody studies for a particular test it will give them a boost, but that boost will wear out over time and their score will revert. It's also possible that studying for one particular format of IQ test will give little-to-no advantage for a different format.

[_Lemmie]

That's certainly not what you've been arguing.

Of course not. I've been studying this stuff for less than a week. My main argument on this thread has been about what the book in question actually says. I think I'm qualified to judge the statistical arguments, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of the research it is all based on.

I know there have been a lot of responses to keep up with, but like EA in his comment you just quoted, I had a statistical question you didn't address either (other than to mis-read it as a request for the definition of regression analysis !!).

You posted what I consider to be an invalid statistical conclusion, that tied in with EA's comment about "exaggerated relationships." Maybe I missed your response, but I didn't see where you addressed the actual statistical issue, either in my context or EAllusion's:

You are apparently addressing ONLY my last sentence, and that out of context, as you apparently thought I was asking you how regression analysis "works." I was not. I was actually pointing out that when you said the authors defined "a modest correlation" on one variable, combined with, as you also said, "individual factors that don't come through in the statistics [which] are collectively the driving determinants of success," you were not defining a regression that is reliably capturing the relationship, but more likely describing an issue with missing variable(s). You can't have it both ways.

Here is my actual comment addressing this, prior to that last sentence you quoted:

So if individual factors, NOT captured by the statistics, are the "driving determinants" of success, then the only way that IQ could still have "the most predictive power" would be if those individual factors WERE correlated with IQ. But the main argument of these outliers, if I am reading you correctly, was that these individual factors were NOT correlated with IQ. So, which is it? IQ predicts? Or individual factors predict? Or is it that the authors are carefully asserting no individual is being talked about here, but their analysis still holds for groups and averages, hence EA's "exaggerated relationship" comment?

And for reference, here is EAllusion's comment re: "an exaggerated relationship" that I was referring to, my bolding added:

They imply an exaggerated relationship which you have been repeating here to the point that it is determinant. Determinant means, in this context at least, a factor that is important enough to be decisive in observed outcomes. It doesn't mean "sole cause" which is the meaning you seem to have taken on. Their thesis is that cognitive ability is determinant of positive social outcomes and increasingly so. If it is the case that the top 10% in IQ are heavily stratified into upper economic brackets as a consequence of intellectual ability, it would be proper to say intellectual ability is determinant of income status, at least for that subgroup. That's not the case though. The correlation is quite modest.... The problem is that kind of correlation cannot account for the kind of stratification in IQ and income status your question states.

[Anonymous]

Here is my actual comment addressing this, prior to that last sentence you quoted:

So if individual factors, NOT captured by the statistics, are the "driving determinants" of success, then the only way that IQ could still have "the most predictive power" would be if those individual factors WERE correlated with IQ. But the main argument of these outliers, if I am reading you correctly, was that these individual factors were NOT correlated with IQ. So, which is it? IQ predicts? Or individual factors predict? Or is it that the authors are carefully asserting no individual is being talked about here, but their analysis still holds for groups and averages, hence EA's "exaggerated relationship" comment?

I only have a minute, but I'll try to answer this. The idea is that IQ has the most predictive power of the variables we have been able to study. Individuals do better or worse than what the prediction based solely on IQ predicts. On average however, IQ does a good job of predicting.

Why do some people do better than the prediction and others do worse? Presumably there is a reason. Or maybe it's just luck. Or both? The whole concept of predictive analytics and big data is to expand the scope of analysis, bring in more factors, look at other model forms, and make better predictions. The fact that the model has room for improvement doesn't invalidate the statistical relationships that it does explain.

Whether it "exaggerates" the relationship is a subjective claim, one that I'm not sure I agree with and don't know how to address.

Does that help?

[_EAllusion]

Yes, I think it is possible to increase your ASVAB score by studying for the test.

The above comments are two quotes from people who have more expertise in the area than I do about what the scientific literature says on the issue. Love them or hate them, they do have their fingers on a body of research to back up their claim.

If I understood what they were talking about in that God-forsaken webcast, Murray and Harris were talking about how if somebody studies for a particular test it will give them a boost, but that boost will wear out over time and their score will revert. It's also possible that studying for one particular format of IQ test will give little-to-no advantage for a different format.

Sam Harris, being Sam Harris, feels the need to argue that there is no better supported ideas in psychology than the bullet points he wants to say. He gives you a higher bar than "um, some research seems to back this up."

That said, the AFQT in particular is very strongly associated with educational achievement. This should be obvious because the ASVAB asks you questions that depend heavily on how well your schooling prepped you to answer them. Schooling, the depth and quality of it, is going to exert a very large influence on IQ if your measure of IQ is the AFQT. In this thread I've cited some research to back up that point. That's a separate question from, "how do differences in schooling in the actual sample explain differences in performance?" A lot of statistical games can be played depending on how you ask the question "does education improve IQ," so you should be really careful about what questions you are asking of the data, but I think there is a broad academic consensus that IQ can be made better by exposing people to practice on the mental tasks IQ tests, especially one that is scholastic, measure. This is intuitive. The contrary is an exotic claim. Since most people get some schooling; however, you have to think about what you are measuring when you are measuring differences.

You're unwittingly making a case for massively defunding education, though. Look at an actual practice ASVAB test and think about what it means if educational exposure isn't a major determinant of how well a person does. What does that say about the value of an education? In addition to you citing noxious racists popular among white supremacists to back up your points, I think it's only a matter of time before you look like this:

[_Always Changing]

I only have a minute, but I'll try to answer this. The idea is that IQ has the most predictive power of the variables we have been able to study. Individuals do better than worse than what the prediction based solely on IQ predicts. On average however, IQ does a good job of predicting.

Why do some people do better than the prediction and others do worse? Presumably there is a reason. Or maybe it's just luck. Or both? The whole concept of predictive analytics and big data is to expand the scope of analysis, bring in more factors, look at other model forms, and make better predictions. The fact that the model has room for improvement doesn't invalidate the statistical relationships that it does explain.

Whether it "exaggerates" the relationship is a subjective claim, one that I'm not sure I agree with and don't know how to address.

Does that help?

The problem is what people do with those variables. Do they assume that because x correlates with a, any person who is x is also a? Should a person be denied education beyond high school if their IQ is below 100? This is not a life insurance question about whether a person should pay $90 dollars a month instead of $70 because they smoke. The stakes are different.

[_EAllusion]

If I may observe briefly - a major question relevant to the discussion on this thread is precisely whether or not 'intelligence' is a 'thing', whether abstract or not, or whether it is mostly just a word that people use when they are articulating certain political or social positions in the guise of stating facts about human beings.

I don't claim to have a definitive answer to that question.

There are three major theories of intelligence in the milieu of psychology with some other ancillary theories here and there. The work Analytics is interacting with relies on factor analysis in an effort to prove that there exists general intelligence that explains relative performance a wide variety of different cognitive tasks. It's a respectable position, and is only worth challenging in this context if someone declares or makes an argument that relies on the idea that g factor is settled science.

[_EAllusion]

Otherwise, if you already did and think it checks out, I find this to be a weird moment for you to fall in with the alt-righters. I suppose you and ldsfaqs could now enjoy the same videos, though, which is fun. :p

The video I linked is Gottfredson discussing the evolutionary and biological basis for the profound intellectual inferiority of blacks in a mental race hierarchy with ldsfaqs favorite Stefan Molyneux. It's long. I initially just queued it up to a particularly ugly point that corresponded to a claim I made about her. But I had the thing on in the background as I did work and ended up listening to it all. This video probably functions as a better introduction of who she in terms of racial science is than a Southern Poverty Law Center article is going to capture.