I note that you didn't answer the direct questions again. Why is that?
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:Nope, when I'm looking for ignorant people with a lack of self-discipline I would look among spoiled rich kids. Or reality show contestants, definately those. Whenever they have combined those two factors there have definately been some zingers. Like "the Simple life" and whatever that show on MTV with Jessica Simpson and her then husband was called. My oh my, that is ignorance and lack of self-discipline in a tight package.
Reality contestants are usually poor, as are celebs before they become famous (which, of course, is not to deny they became rich, but it's only a tiny fraction of the sample). And yes I also will grant you that many rich kids become ignorant or lazy because they don't need to know anything or work to maintain their lifestyle, but again only a tiny sample of the not-poor population.
So you are lucky enough not to know the shows that I referenced, good for you, they were a detriment to humanity. But just for clarity Jessica Simpson, Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton was from high SES.
Then most reality show contestants are not poor. Usually this myth comes out of people not realising how many poor there are as a % of the pop and how few you usually meet. So while a reality show might have more poor than you are used to they usually have less than the pop. The overrepresentation are usually from the middle class. Lets google top 10 reality shows and pick the first option, OK I got eonline so UK which is where you're from if I'm not mistaken?http://uk.eonline.com/news/watch_with_k ... _of/281119
The voice - good sampling of the population, overrepresentation of the middle class and underrepresentation of the upper class.
The glee project - good sampling of thepopulation, overrepresentation of the middle class and underrepresentation of the upper class.
The x factor - good sampling of thepopulation, overrepresentation of the middle class and underrepresentation of the upper class.
Jersey shore - middle class, almost exclusively.
Amazing race, overrepresentation of the middle class.
Real housewives - overrepresentation of the upper class (or really movers from low SES to high SES)
Top chef - overrepresentation of the lower and middle class.
Dancing with the stars - overrepresentation of the middle and upper class.
Kardashians - middle class.
SYTYCD - good sampling of thepopulation, overrepresentation of the middle class and underrepresentation of the upper class.
Same thing with most celebs, they usually come from middle class background, its just that you hear more about the poverty to riches thingie because it makes a better story. Maybe you only listen to metal or gangstarap? Where indeed the poorer SES were overrepresented in the beginning. However just like with most such celebrity slowly but surely that is no longer the case. You see we know this from looking at older youth culture. Jazz and rock did the same class migration. So did punk for a while until it was outcompeted by grunge. Becoming mainstream does correlate with the middle class taking over the making and shaking of the celeb culture.
This because getting good at music, acting, etc takes effort, time and you guessed it - usually some money. So you are more likely to have that due to parental support and SES conditioning. Which means middle class. If the middle class embrace a culture then they can outcompete the poor because the poor can't afford the equip and/or training that takes you up a notch.
HMS Conqueror wrote:I simply do not see how anyone can deny that bad social norms, low IQ, etc. would lead to poverty, and that therefore one would expect these traits to be more common (not universal) in the impoverished population.
Because chavs are not representative of the poor? Because british and american "poor and proud of it" white trash counter culture doesn't really translate that well to the rest of the world? Because rich can have bad social norms and low IQ and still remain rich or even increase their wealth? Because hitting someone hard over the head with metal while also wearing metal has been the staple standard qualification for the very rich in the UK for at least a thousand years?
I gotta ask if you are religious at this point, because these types of views usually stem from christian and hindu dogma. That the poor should be poor because they "deserve" it.
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:First note that I made no such claims, instead I showed why your theory couldn't be true. You see it's usually so that it is customary for the one proposing a theory to provide backing evidence while to disprove a theory all you need to do is show any discrepancy to it.
So if we back up, do you dispute that kids adopted will have an IQ more closely resembling their adoptive parents than their biological ones?
Yes. So does the empirical evidence. This is one instance where even wiki is a good reference: "Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.9." These results come from twin studies.
2 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 468a0.html
"Maternal effects, often assumed to be negligible, account for 20% of covariance between twins and 5% between siblings, and the effects of genes are correspondingly reduced, with two measures of heritability being less than 50%. "
NB: This is only a low estimate of genetic contribution
to IQ, claiming that some is due to conditions in the womb. It isn't disputing that IQs end up in line with biological rather than adoptive parent IQs, only the proportion of this that can be assigned to genetics. And despite this genetics remains the largest single factor.
5 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/t08 ... 43/?MUD=MP
"The powerful quantitative genetic design of identical and fraternal twins reared apart (112 pairs) and matched twins reared together (111 pairs) was employed to assess the extent of genetic influence on individual differences in cognitive abilities during the last half of the life span. General cognitive ability yielded a heritability estimate of about .80 in two assessments 3 years apart as part of the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging."
Ah, I see. So does your view comes from a misunderstanding of those studies then? Have you read them? Or any other studies in the field from the last decade?
Let's bring you up to date shall we? I'll respond to the rest of your post first, then I'll make another post with the studies and discoveries, OK?
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:In that passage you were defending a claim that ignorance is related to IQ which in turn is related to poverty.
Be careful: the most we can say in absence of evidence is that we don't know, since both are positive claims. It's like saying that in absence of evidence that the sky is blue, we must assume it to be composed of a spectrum of every colour except blue.
What? Uhm, its your words not mine, so it should follow that it should have been you who should have been careful. Let's review shall we? You said:
"Because poverty and excess eating have similar causes: ignorance, lack of self-discipline, low time preference, etc."
See? Not careful at all with your statements. Instead a pretty straightforward CAUSE>EFFECT statement.
Then you replied with this:
"For instance, ignorance is also related to IQ, which is heritable."
See? Not careful at all with your statements. Instead another straightforward X CORRELATE WITH Y statement.
So do you stand by those statements? Or do you have an ERRATA for what you reall meant? Otherwise you did actually claim that "ignorance is related to IQ which in turn is related to poverty" so do you agree with yourself that such a statement is the same as saying the sky is a spectrum thing? (Which funnily enough is closer to the truth of light passing through the atmosphere creating the appearance of different colors).
So again, why do you try to weasel away from your straightforward statements? Why do you try to shift this away from what you actually said to something else?
And again, such tactics only make you look worse and puts doubt to your claims.
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:Did you miss the lesson on the Flynn Effect?
No one claims the Flynn effect is due to state education. It has been observed in populations that have already graduated from school. The most plausible education-related explanation is increase in 'teaching to the test' which somewhat increases familiarity with IQ test-type questions.
Let's see if I can sum this up in an easily digestibly short lesson.
The flynn effect has been observed in INFANTS so the INFANTS education does not matter. Instead its thought to relate to nutrition etc. (Can you see where I'm going? Pause and think before moving to the next sentence...)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9608000998
That's right, better nutrition correlates with SES aaaaaand with? Yupp, that's right, education of the mothers. Wow you could almost see that one coming from miles away, couldn't you?
So higher SES statistically correlate to higher education. Higher education correlate to better informed mothers. Higher SES correlate to better nutrition during/after pregnancy.
So let's see if we can bring you onboard.
What do you think would happen if we educate would be mothers and give them and their infants better options when it comes to nutrition? (It should be an easy question).
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:As in the MENSA IQ tests which you consistently score better at if you study for them?
Short term IQ increases have been demonstrated from educational training, but they almost always revert over a period of months or years.
Revert? Do I detect a misunderstanding of what IQ is and what it predicts?
You can train for IQ tests. Who do you think will train most for IQ tests and when? ....
That's right, higher SES like academics is more likely to train their offspring, during the years when IQ "matters" ie before and during school. So of course that effect will wear off with time when your parents influence isn't as "strong".
HMS Conqueror wrote:
Spoonist wrote:Are you one of those who think that africans scoring lower than euros on IQ tests are more related to their genetical heritage than it is due to their living environment?
This is possible. People who think strongly otherwise do so for political reasons - the evidence is currently inconclusive.
Nope, people who think otherwise does not do so for political reasons. You see scientists try to exclude all other factors before jumping to conclusions. But the reverse is true. Nationalists and racists want there to be such a correlation and thus intrerpret the data into their world image.
Lets take your sky analogy as an example.
Lets assume we have people who claim the sky is blue, lets call them daytimers.
Then we have people who claim the sky is black, lets call them nighttimers.
Then we have people who claim the sky is gray, lets call them brits.
When collecting evidence we get inconclusive data, we get data that the sky is blue, black, gray but also red, orange and to everyones startlement sometimes the sky contains strange phenomena like TWIN RAINBOWS omg omg omg omg.
Now the nighttimers come out and say they were right all along because their data said that mostly the sky was black, same with daytimers and brits. But something about lovely weather this time of a year and umberellas was mentioned as well.
So what would a scientist conclude from this?
The first conclusion is that daytimers, nighttimers and brits were all wrong. The sky isn't blue/black/grey instead it shifts colors depending on many factors.
The second conclusion would be that each such factor should be explained by itself.
Weather gets its own explanation to satisfy the brits. Solar and planetary movement gets its own explanation to satisfy the night and day people. Then light reflection and spectrum gets its own explanation to satisfy parts of the data related to colors etc.
That is how science works.
So right now lets start with the first step.
Anyone claiming that africans are less intelligent than euros because the do less on IQ tests is wrong. Instead there are plenty of factors involved.