|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:37 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 03:33 Beyonder wrote:
Read several articles which basically say the same thing. The flynn effect (global rising of intelligence) is most extreme in developing countries, most likely because of better healthcare, better education and so forth. Disease = worse healthcare = most likely worse educational system, etc, etc. Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings). If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these.
Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways 
@ Ahseyo: really, if you believe EQ has a higher validity, reliability and is a better construct in such a discussion, then I highly doubt you ever read scientific literature on this subject.. If you are going to propose such a thing, elaborate and back it up, or don't post please.
|
They sell this as science ? As a physicist, I am not amused.
IQ tests have problems in itself, but comparing IQ tests on a global scale? Give me a break.
Let me quote wikipedia on their IQ data set:
source
The figures were obtained by taking equally-weighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations. The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available
Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.
A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.
The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed..There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.
|
On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways
That doesn't really address my point. Maybe I was vague, I'll try to make it more specific. Assume a simplistic model where IQ is determined by environmental and genetic factors.
My argument is that the IQ gain over time is a better lower bound for the environment's contribution than twin studies.
You could say that people that the genetic pool is different from 40-50 years ago. However there's some reason to believe that it is actually worse (in terms of intelligence). Selection pressure has been weaker and people with lower socioeconomic status have more children on average.
So if we accept that the genetic contribution in our model is close to 0 or even negative, the Flynn Effect has to come from environmental factors. Since IQ gains in some populations have been over 15 points we have to assume that the environmental contribution can be more than 15 points (and probably much more since the Flynn Effect would then measure the average environmental contribution, so we would expect both lower and higher values in specific cases).
|
On July 10 2010 02:08 Maenander wrote:sourceShow nested quote +The figures were obtained by taking equally-weighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations. The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available
Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.
A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.
The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed..There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.
Yikes. I wonder why didn't they use higher quality data, even if it meant not doing a global comparison. I wonder if any European country had conscription forms with IQ scores, medical history and maybe socioeconomic data.
|
On July 10 2010 02:26 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 02:08 Maenander wrote:sourceThe figures were obtained by taking equally-weighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations. The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available
Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.
A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.
The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed..There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures. Yikes. I wonder why didn't they use higher quality data, even if it meant not doing a global comparison. I wonder if any European country had conscription forms with IQ scores, medical history and maybe socioeconomic data.
Not that they did even do it themselves. They took the data from Lynn and Vanhanen, who found a correlation between GDP and IQ. Note that GDP and the prevalence of parasites are most likely also correlated. You could probably take the same dataset and find a correlation to dozens of environmental factors, and there is no way to separate the individual contributions.
That's why I don't like this study.It adds nothing new and makes some obvious statements. I don't even doubt their basic conclusion, that people in countries infested by parasites score worse in IQ-tests, they probably have other things to worry about. But their more far-reaching conclusion, that parasites actually are the cause of this, would have to be tested under much more controlled conditions, and not by simply collecting numbers from different sources and plotting them.
|
|
|
Singapore
So intelligent we can't even build a sewage system to make sure our main streets aren't flooded.
|
On July 08 2010 19:33 endy wrote:
Stephen Hawking does not agree.
Stephen Hawking was already an adult (21 years old) when his ALS set in.
|
Just thought i'd point this out.
Average human IQ is exactly 100 since the IQ test is a test of relative ability. IQ is definitely overrated. IQ only takes into consideration ability to recognize patterns. Creativity is also another form of genius that is not really identified well. Also socialization skills are important as well. Finally, I would argue that physical strength, and spritual calmness (or whatever you want to call it) also play an important role in the advancement of human life. Picking out intelligence as a main factor is not the greatest thing. For example, the united states is so average because of the extremely diverse population. Whereas koreans might have more reasonable mind when it comes to pattern recognition, but when it comes to things like passion and creativity, I would have to say americans win that contest.
Also, I hate those tests. I took an IQ test as a kid for some program and got 100% on their test which meant that my IQ was at a minimum of 140, however I'm only moderately good at a game like starcraft. IQ doesn't automatically mean skill at computer games just like strength doesn't automatically mean you are good at boxing. IQ helps you make rational decisions, but the Korean's have something for starcraft that americans simply don't have which is an obsession for being the best at a single task. At a math camp that I went to as a kid, there were students from all over the world including china and korea and what I noticed was that most of the americans talked about stuff other than math when not in class. We talked about chess, girls, politics, religion, etc. But the 2 korean kids I was with would study math while not in class it was crazy! The 3-4 chinese people I personally knew were more like the americans, but still focused a lot on studies. It's all part of the psychology of the different peoples.
I think the best example of why korea is good at starcraft is what flash said after one of his games in an interview. He said essentially that he believed that practice and hard work were the only way to get better and that the only way to master something was to do it for 10,000 hours which is from an old korean saying. In the US, however, we emphasize moderation, and playing starcraft for 12 hours a day would be considered obsessive. The best United States and european players will probably play close to 4-6 hours a day and take days off. Even one of my close friends who was working on becoming a master in chess only played about 6 hours a day of practice, not 12.
In the end I have to say IQ is probably best thought of as a measure of potential intelligence. Some are able to surpass their own potential, while others are not motivated or passionate enough.
|
On July 10 2010 02:22 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways That doesn't really address my point. Maybe I was vague, I'll try to make it more specific. Assume a simplistic model where IQ is determined by environmental and genetic factors. My argument is that the IQ gain over time is a better lower bound for the environment's contribution than twin studies. You could say that people that the genetic pool is different from 40-50 years ago. However there's some reason to believe that it is actually worse (in terms of intelligence). Selection pressure has been weaker and people with lower socioeconomic status have more children on average. So if we accept that the genetic contribution in our model is close to 0 or even negative, the Flynn Effect has to come from environmental factors. Since IQ gains in some populations have been over 15 points we have to assume that the environmental contribution can be more than 15 points (and probably much more since the Flynn Effect would then measure the average environmental contribution, so we would expect both lower and higher values in specific cases).
I think it also doesn't help that IQ and income have almost 0 correlation. The best way to analyze it is to look at the type of sexual preferences people have and to examine which type of people are having more children. For example, in european society, men who were considered gentleman and more intelligent were highly like to get married and have children, whereas in modern society, intelligence has almost nothing to do with the likelihood of having children. In fact, I would say in the united states the 2 main factors contributing to children are 1. physical appearance and weight (which is why the population has probably reached a cap on average weight) 2. education levels: Women with less education tend to have more children. However, with genetic mixing of the genes, children will often turn out significantly smarter and with better health than their parents, just like how a mixed breed dog tends to be the healthiest dogs, so it balances out the equation pretty well.
|
16950 Posts
On July 10 2010 03:14 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 02:22 hypercube wrote:On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways That doesn't really address my point. Maybe I was vague, I'll try to make it more specific. Assume a simplistic model where IQ is determined by environmental and genetic factors. My argument is that the IQ gain over time is a better lower bound for the environment's contribution than twin studies. You could say that people that the genetic pool is different from 40-50 years ago. However there's some reason to believe that it is actually worse (in terms of intelligence). Selection pressure has been weaker and people with lower socioeconomic status have more children on average. So if we accept that the genetic contribution in our model is close to 0 or even negative, the Flynn Effect has to come from environmental factors. Since IQ gains in some populations have been over 15 points we have to assume that the environmental contribution can be more than 15 points (and probably much more since the Flynn Effect would then measure the average environmental contribution, so we would expect both lower and higher values in specific cases). I think it also doesn't help that IQ and income have almost 0 correlation. The best way to analyze it is to look at the type of sexual preferences people have and to examine which type of people are having more children. For example, in european society, men who were considered gentleman and more intelligent were highly like to get married and have children, whereas in modern society, intelligence has almost nothing to do with the likelihood of having children. In fact, I would say in the united states the 2 main factors contributing to children are 1. physical appearance and weight (which is why the population has probably reached a cap on average weight) 2. education levels: Women with less education tend to have more children. However, with genetic mixing of the genes, children will often turn out significantly smarter and with better health than their parents, just like how a mixed breed dog tends to be the healthiest dogs, so it balances out the equation pretty well.
I'd disagree. Especially in the United States, it seems that people who are of lower intelligence generally have more children. You can also consider education level; people with lower education levels are also likelier to have children. Many intelligent people (and the highly educated) are very busy with their careers to have many children. Also, many of the very religious tend to have large families; those who are very religious also are generally less educated (though probably of the same intelligence) than those who are not.
|
I don't know why people make such a big fuss about iq and go on ranting about "iq != success" or "iq != creativity" or "iq != intelligence." Ok true but who even makes all these claims in the first place. Iq tests measure your ability to see and recognize patterns, visualize things and your short term memory (to some extent). Certainly this is not the be all end all of things but it does have relevance. If one can't think logically then it impacts one's ability to make rational decisions. Recognizing patterns is an important ability. In science or math for example, it lets one make good observations and conjectures.
Yes "intelligence" can definitely be a vague word but people shouldn't go ranting about how the things iq attempts to measure are irrelevant.
|
What's the next number in the sequence: 3, 5, 7, ...
(a) 9
(b) 11
(c) 23
(d) All of the above
|
On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 21:37 hypercube wrote:On July 09 2010 03:33 Beyonder wrote:
Read several articles which basically say the same thing. The flynn effect (global rising of intelligence) is most extreme in developing countries, most likely because of better healthcare, better education and so forth. Disease = worse healthcare = most likely worse educational system, etc, etc. Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings). If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these. Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways @ Ahseyo: really, if you believe EQ has a higher validity, reliability and is a better construct in such a discussion, then I highly doubt you ever read scientific literature on this subject.. If you are going to propose such a thing, elaborate and back it up, or don't post please.
I did back it up. Read the whole thing again or don't reply.
*edit*
I also forgot to say that EQ is harder to measure since there are so many fractions involved, just like IQ. IQ doesn't really give accurate measures either of intelligence. And scienstific litterature on IQ? You know, IQ is almost as unreliable as physics where thereas only a few laws can actually be proven to be right and precise. Many, many laws in physics are still under development just like IQ research and EQ research.
|
if singapore really is the 'smartest' country, humanity is doomed... there's no way this study can be right.
|
Lol at using iq to measure anything. Who funded this shit study? Talk about unnessecary psuedo science.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 10 2010 17:11 kalleralle wrote:
Lol at using iq to measure anything. Who funded this shit study? Talk about unnessecary psuedo science.
FINALLY! Someone who is agreeing here.
|
Did anyone else here know that high schoolers in Korea attend school from 8AM to 10PM?
|
On July 10 2010 17:13 Ahseyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 17:11 kalleralle wrote:
Lol at using iq to measure anything. Who funded this shit study? Talk about unnessecary psuedo science. FINALLY! Someone who is agreeing here.
Actually, I think you've both missed the point. This is a study done to see if helping sanitation could help raise a population's average IQ. No matter how many other factors there are in life that determine success, raising a population's IQ can't be a bad thing, and would be good for a country in the long run.
At the very least, this would show direct benefits of governments spending more on health care for poor communities within their countries.
So I don't see what you're screaming about. Nobody is saying that IQ is the be all and end all of success.
If I say well educated people, in general, earn more, are you going to complain that money isn't the only thing that makes you happy?
I can understand people saying that this study might be flawed because of the source material, but to say IQ is completely useless?
|
On July 10 2010 17:39 The Storyteller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 17:13 Ahseyo wrote:On July 10 2010 17:11 kalleralle wrote:
Lol at using iq to measure anything. Who funded this shit study? Talk about unnessecary psuedo science. FINALLY! Someone who is agreeing here. Actually, I think you've both missed the point. This is a study done to see if helping sanitation could help raise a population's average IQ. No matter how many other factors there are in life that determine success, raising a population's IQ can't be a bad thing, and would be good for a country in the long run. At the very least, this would show direct benefits of governments spending more on health care for poor communities within their countries. So I don't see what you're screaming about. Nobody is saying that IQ is the be all and end all of success. If I say well educated people, in general, earn more, are you going to complain that money isn't the only thing that makes you happy? I can understand people saying that this study might be flawed because of the source material, but to say IQ is completely useless?
I have yet to see further studying of IQ. I don't think I've seen it. So no. Link please of further studying and if it does not contain flaws then I'll shut up and stop saying it's worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
