Left skew , being on the wrong side of IQ

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

rcg & trend

Are you 2 seriously questioning the validity of this statement with respect to the studies of the distribution of IQ scores?

The differences vary according to the studies but in general , average distributions appear to be separated by a significant gap between black and white. Conservatively this gap for blacks is apx .8 to 1 standard deviations BELOW the norm for whites.
More...

As far as the lack of links to my OP, I apologize I used the Academic standard of omitting something not more exacting than paraphrasing another author and using my common knowledge.

You can verify this yourself quite readily.

Yeah , sure there are quacks out there that dispute it but they are not taken very seriously.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Excellent post above mav.

I'd like to encourage you to provide more on the genetics, race and heritablity issues as your knowledge (and sources) exceed mine.

One thing from my perspective is: race might not exist from an academic perspective but on theses tests people are asked to self-report which group they most closely identify with (in various wording of course). I doubt the researchers are assigning racial groups to individuals large scale.

This in my mind makes the PC academic stance irrelevant.
Someone who claims to be in a low performing group is unlikely to report identifying with the higher performing group elsewhere esp when govt bennies are at stake.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society

Are social changes dividing us into intellectual haves and have-nots? The question pushed aside in the 1970s is back, and the issues are far from simple

Earl Hunt

This article originally appeared in the July-August 1995 issue of American Scientist.

Last year, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Although it had more graphs than a Ross Perot speech, The Bell Curve made its authors' names household words, sometimes accompanied by four-letter words. Herrnstein and Murray maintained that America is splitting into the intelligent, who will move and shake society, and the less intelligent, who will be moved and shaken. They thought that the split is inevitable, because our technological society requires intelligence to run it. Finally, they said that intelligence is largely hereditary, and that numerous government programs, especially Affirmative Action, are undesirable because they amount to discrimination against the capable.

Such thoughts are not entirely politically correct. The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known to the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know but agree not to talk about."

The uproar over The Bell Curve is remarkably similar to a debate in the early 1970s. The earlier debate began when Arthur Jensen (1969) wrote that the educational enrichment programs of the Great Society were inherently limited by the immutability of intelligence and when Herrnstein (1973) claimed that differences in intelligence are largely genetic. Counterattacks followed, and by the early 1980s widely read books and articles maintained that there is no such thing as general intelligence (Gardner 1983), or that if there is it is largely a statistical artifact of the way that tests are constructed (Gould 1983), and that even if IQ exists it has little to do with life outside of a few narrow academic settings (Ceci and Liker 1986). Some of these authors have recanted (Ceci and bruck 1994, pg. 79).
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=878&y=0&no=&content=true&page=8&css=print

Contine next post.
More...

I challenge you to find ANY down's person :
1)Running any fortune 500 company
2) managing ANY endowment fund
3) Managing ANY mutual fund company

Just one and if you do I'm sure it will be VERY interesting:sure as hell hope it's a public company with a large float for shorting.

Thanks in advance.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society

Are social changes dividing us into intellectual haves and have-nots? The question pushed aside in the 1970s is back, and the issues are far from simple

Earl Hunt

This article originally appeared in the July-August 1995 issue of American Scientist.

Last year, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Although it had more graphs than a Ross Perot speech, The Bell Curve made its authors' names household words, sometimes accompanied by four-letter words. Herrnstein and Murray maintained that America is splitting into the intelligent, who will move and shake society, and the less intelligent, who will be moved and shaken. They thought that the split is inevitable, because our technological society requires intelligence to run it. Finally, they said that intelligence is largely hereditary, and that numerous government programs, especially Affirmative Action, are undesirable because they amount to discrimination against the capable.

Such thoughts are not entirely politically correct. The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known to the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means "truth that we all know but agree not to talk about."

The uproar over The Bell Curve is remarkably similar to a debate in the early 1970s. The earlier debate began when Arthur Jensen (1969) wrote that the educational enrichment programs of the Great Society were inherently limited by the immutability of intelligence and when Herrnstein (1973) claimed that differences in intelligence are largely genetic. Counterattacks followed, and by the early 1980s widely read books and articles maintained that there is no such thing as general intelligence (Gardner 1983), or that if there is it is largely a statistical artifact of the way that tests are constructed (Gould 1983), and that even if IQ exists it has little to do with life outside of a few narrow academic settings (Ceci and Liker 1986). Some of these authors have recanted (Ceci and bruck 1994, pg. 79).
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=878&y=0&no=&content=true&page=8&css=print

Contine next post.
More...

Gould is wrong and a fraud to boot.
see purple then see red highlight.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

Nonlinearities in Intelligence

"Most of our everyday measurements are linear measurements. A linear measurement is one in which a constant interval means the same thing at any point on the scale. For instance, adding one inch to a six-foot board produces the same change in length that adding one inch to a five-foot board does. We are so familiar with linear measurements that we often assume that the properties of linear measurements apply to any characteristic that is described by numbers. That is not so, and the erroneous assumption can be particularly confusing when we deal with intelligence.

In psychometric theories intelligence is calculated by determining a person's standard score on an IQ test. The standard score is the deviation of a person's absolute score of a test from the mean test score of a reference population, divided by the standard deviation (a measurement of the variability of scores in the reference population):

zi

=

( xi - ? )
-----
Ã³

where xi is the ith person's score in absolute units (usually the number of correct answers on a test) and ? and Ã³ are, respectively, the population mean and standard deviation. If this equation were applied strictly, a person of exactly average intelligence would have a score of zero, and people with below-average intelligence would have negative scores. Since the ideas of zero and negative intelligence do not seem reasonable, it is conventional to report IQ scores by rescaling standard scores, using the equation

IQ = 15z + 100

This gives the person of average intelligence a score of 100. This equation is simply a scaling convention; the real definition is contained in the first equation, which makes the standard deviation the unit of scoring. Herrnstein and Murray refer to the standard deviation as "like an inch," but it is not. The standard deviation is determined not by the absolute values of the scores in a population, but rather by the extent to which one score is likely to be different from another. In addition, the zero point of the IQ scale (IQ = 100) is determined by the population mean, not by a definition of "average intelligence" in terms of intellectual performance. Therefore the IQ score of an individual is a relative score, compared to the mean and variability in the reference population, rather than an absolute measure of mental competence. If we measured height the way that we measured IQ, a six-foot, six-inch man would have a standard score of somewhat greater than 2, in the North American male population. The same person would have a standard score of about 0 if the reference population were professional basketball players.

The distinction between the relative and absolute definitions of intelligence becomes important when we consider the relation between IQ, defined by standard scores, and various dependent measures, such as school achievement and workplace performance. Suppose a psychometrician records the job performance and intelligence-test scores of a group of workers. The relationship would be expressed by this equation, where B is the regression coefficient, or the rate at which job performance changes as IQ changes:

job performance = average job performance + B * IQ

B is calculated to make predictions as accurate as they can be. The actual degree of accuracy is measured by the correlation coefficient , which varies from 0 (no accuracy at all) to 1 (perfect prediction). Determining the regression and correlation coefficients from a given set of data is straightforward. The problem comes when an extrapolation is made to new situations, where some data points lie outside the range of IQ units observed in the original study. An example might be extrapolating the grade-IQ relationship observed in high-school students to grade-IQ relations among college students. Such extrapolations implicitly assume that IQ scores are linear measures of the intellectual traits that they are supposed to measure. This is not true. Suppose that a person in his 20s suffered a brain injury or infection that reduced his IQ score by 20 points. (Such things are possible.) If he were a medical or law school student with an original IQ of 140, he would probably still complete his coursework, though perhaps with not quite so high a class rank as before. If the person were a blue-collar worker with an original IQ of 80 he would, at IQ 60, have a substantial risk of homelessness, poverty and a number of other serious social problems.

The issue of nonlinearity applies to the very definition of intelligence, and in particular to the question of whether there is one type of intelligence or several. Suppose that general intelligence is equally important at all levels of mental competence. In this case the results of a factor-analytic study of test scores, based on data from people with high levels of intelligence, should be similar to the results of a study based on data from people of lower absolute levels of intelligence. Historically there have been suggestions that this is not so. The general-intelligence model was first developed by Charles Spearman (1904, 1927), based on analysis of test results from English schoolchildren. In 1938 L. L. Thurstone challenged Spearman's conclusion because he found very little evidence for general intelligence in a sample of University of Chicago undergraduates. It was observed at the time that the discrepancy might have arisen because Spearman and Thurstone had taken data from people of widely different intellectual levels, which would be evidence that intelligence changes qualitatively as the level of mental competence changes. However, the results were not definitive because Spearman and Thurstone had used different tests.

An important study by Douglas Detterman and Mark Daniel (1989) showed that the relations between subtests do change as the level of scores changes. Among other things, Detterman and Daniel examined correlations between subtests of the WAIS and found higher correlations between subtest scores for people with below-average IQ than for people with above-average IQ. David Waller and Derek Chung and I found the same thing when we analyzed the ASVAB scores that Herrnstein and Murray used in The Bell Curve to determine the relation between IQ and various indicators of social adjustment. It appears that general intelligence may not be an accurate statement, but general lack of intelligence is!

The conclusion that the relation between different indices of mental competence depends on the general level of competence is not consistent with psychometric approaches, but it is consistent with the cognitive-psychology approach. Recall that the cognitive-psychology approach assumes that mental competence is produced by a cascade of progressively more refined abilities, moving from information processing to problem-solving techniques to knowledge possession. It follows that problems at the information-processing level will be general, whereas potentials established at higher levels will be specific. In fact, Detterman and Daniel did find that the relation between information-processing measures and intelligence-test performance is higher at low levels of intelligence. Similar observations have been made by scientists who have studied very high-level performance, in fields ranging from physics to literature. A certain amount of intelligence seems to be needed to gain entry to an intellectually demanding field, but beyond that point success is determined by the effort put into the job, social support, and just sheer experience. (See Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Romer (1993) on expertise, Simonton (1984) on creativity, and Gardner (1993) for some interesting biographical data.)

In economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much. My regrets to Mensa, but that is the way things are. Nonlinearity becomes important when we ask a key question raised by Herrnstein and Murray: What is the relation between intelligence and workplace performance?"
More...

Sorry 1 standard deviation is one standard deviation regardless of how scores are normed.

Nobody claimed there are not differing factors of intelligence.
Since all the factors appear to be correlated anyway .

Can you figure out WHY "g' stands for GENERALIZED, I figured not.

Quite simply the information must be broken down into mathematical terms for ease of analysis. one doesn't multiply by "apples" nor dvide by grapes.

btw: Trend this is pretty pathetic because the limit of my math expertise is 5th grade math. Yours however is not one necessarily lacking in technical knowledge but inferior logic ,the innate inability to recognize someone baffling you with bullshit ie (aka piss poor IQ)

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

It seems quite apparent some people are unable accept the facts of the data concerning the mean distribution differences In IQ (identified in my OP), namely between white and black.

In the next few days I intend to post some links reporting said observances.

Since I'm not a researcher this is not intended to be comprehensive nor intended to report on first hand sources.

I'm just going to put it out there o prove my info is not unlike my critics would have you believe "pulled outta my ass".

pspr · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

In the next few days I intend to post some links reporting said observances.
More...

This should be interesting.

You are going to drive RCG to drink! Or worse. He could go postal if he knew how guns work.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from RCG Trader:

1a)You may not because you cannot. You do not understand the term, targeted. 1b)I would not post what I do not clearly understand, and there is very little in this area I do not clearly understand.

2)Are you going to continue talking or are you going to refute my rebuttal to this ridiculous assertion of yours.

More...

I've read most of the article presented by
ned block (phd of nyu) that you presented.

1a)Specifically what targeted term are you referencing?

Please note this is not discussion of undercover covert agent's identities. You can actually use descriptive nouns instead of pronouns.

Well of course unless you intend to to keep the topic of discussion, secret known only to you, like your mythical 5 points (greatly advertised but never mentioned) in another thread.

I've never seen such unbelievable cowardice.
9paraphrasing rcg){oh you won't debate my points, you don't understand my targeted term}, when they've never even been mentioned by name. run away rcg run away .
Funny thing here is all the liberals are cringing at your obvious attempts at obfuscation (yeah I know look it up dumbass).

1b ) I seriously doubt you understand your mystery "targeted term " upon which you evidently wish to hang your argumentative hat, but I'm willing to investigate it.

2) I'll make a rebuttal IF, YOU EVER MAKE ONE!
Describe what rebuttal you are attempting to make, otherwise you're just being silly making irrelevant quotes and associated links.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

Quote from pspr:

This should be interesting.

You are going to drive RCG to drink! Or worse. He could go postal if he knew how guns work.
More...

aw ! Now I wish I hadn't gone and told rcg, m-16 ammo is incompatible with a 22 rimfire.

I'm sure attempting that would yield an unforgettable youtube video.

PS: I haven't even scratched the surface of the wealth of information out there.

PHOENIX TRADING · Aug 25, 2012

(especially take note trend & rcg)

Gould commits academic fraud in order to promote his personal idiot-ology and mislead the lay public on studies involving race.

Good thing this mf has/had tenure eh?

was struck by how many evolutionary biologists viewed Gould as a charlatan and were willing to say so in public. John Maynard Smithâs comment gets it exactly right: Gould âhas come to be seen by non-biologists as the pre-eminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with. . . . All this would not matter were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.â

Gouldâs importance comes from his position at Harvard as well as his access to the media. (Gouldâs Chair for Politically Correct Popularization of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard is now held by Steven Pinker.) My treatment in Culture of Critique emphasized his obvious political motivation and his defamations of various 19th- and early 20th-century scientists, such as Samuel George Morton.

The point is that Gouldâs political motivation, his lack of academic credibility, and his fraudulent use of sources were well-known before the 2011 study showing that in all likelihood Gould committed scientific fraud in his analysis of Mortonâs data on race differences in skull size (âStephen Jay Gould: Next to Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius in the Devilâs Mouth at the Center of Hellâ).
http://hardons-blog.blogspot.com/2012/05/stephen-jay-goulds-jewish-motivation.html
More...

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_fudge_hi.html

In 1981, Stephen J. Gould wrote an infamous book called The Mismeasure of Man, which was a wildly influential attack on nineteenth century âscientific racism.â In the 1990s, Gould savagely attacked The Bell Curve, which had just been released at the time, in the second edition of his book and was treated as a respected authority figure by the MSM.

The polemical book attempted to show that nineteenth century racialists like Samuel Morton had falsified their scientific findings to justify âracismâ against African-Americans. It played a huge role in fostering the myth among the DWL intelligentsia that âscientific racismâ was pseudoscience.

Steve Sailer and other ârace realistsâ have long pointed out that The Mismeasure of Man enjoyed far more acclaim among DWLs than it ever did with Gouldâs peers in the scientific community.

Stephen J. Gould had a reputation for being an ideological charlatan and a publicity hound who flattered the anti-racist prejudices of the DWL media in order to promote himself as a scientific celebrity. Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs, and Steel fame is another example of a âscientistâ of this persuasion.

The scientific reputation of Stephen J. Gould suffered a blow when John S. Michael, an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, checked Samuel Mortonâs skull measurements and found that they were reasonably accurate.

Now, a team of physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania have gone back and remeasured the infamous skulls, and they have discovered that Mortonâs measurements were not only entirely accurate, but gave a larger than accurate volume to the African skulls.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/06/14/the-mismeasure-of-man-stephen-j-gould-refuted/
More...

geez why is it liberals everywhere find it necessary to fake their data?

Oh that's right because as I stated before REALITY is not kind to liberals; therefore they must lie ie falsify data (like in the AGW debate) to sound remotely plausible.

Don't take my word for it do your own search on this charlatan!