The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

At least you're more intelligent than that dingbat idiot .. whose name escapes me .. Hang about ...

With talk like that, you'll barely have to buy me Dinner first...

[TheDemonLord]

What's the contradiction of maintaining plausibility?

Because you reject any other possibility, because as you say:

the definitive conclusion there is.

So far... remember how absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not that I necessarily believe your claims no studies have affected IQ through social means.

So Far... Okay, fine if you want to assume the mantle that any and all science is merely the best-fit predictive model for reality around us, until such time as a more accurate model can be generated, then sure - but then that means your "definitive conclusion" must also be treated with the same derision

As for the latter part - I'll deal with that in a later post.

The direction is not specified, read what you quoted again.

Given the context, the direction is clear.

But it is a fallacy to refer to their opinion as fact.

Well, that isn't strictly true, especially in the speech he gives multiple examples that lead to the conclusion.

Again, learn what the Fallacy actually is.

How am I supposed to know if he is sexist or not? I don't follow his opinions, beliefs, or his work.

Well, I linked to a speech of his, were he talks about the differences between the Sexes - based on that, is he Sexist?

[TheDemonLord]

And yet, a cursory search with the first article I picked reads:

"The IQ of an individual is multifactorial and is determined by a multitude of factors. Nature and nurture work together in determining human intelligence. Even though the genetic susceptibility plays a crucial role on the IQ of the individual, various modifiable environmental factors like education, premature birth, nutrition, pollution, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illnesses, and diseases can have an influence on an individual’s IQ. These modifiable factors can reinforce or weaken genetic susceptibility [63,64]." Oommen, Arun. (2014). Factors Influencing Intelligence Quotient. Journal of Neurology & Stroke. 1. . 10.15406/jnsk.2014.01.00023.

Notice how it is not concluding they definitely do have an influence, only that it is plausible. Do you see the difference in the way I interpret scientific findings to you?

Sure - all of those factors have an influence on IQ, but you've overlooked one teensy tiny detail. And I was very specific on including this details, mainly because you've done precisely what I thought you would do:

In order for Social Bias to be a factor, Societal Influence needs to have both a negative and a positive impact on IQ.

As you can see - I said Negative (which all those factors most certainly fall under) AND positive - and thus is where we get the problem:

First up: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-011-6129-9_19

The Study of the IQ of Twins raised in different environments:

The lack of a significant correlation (r = -0.15) between twin-pair means and twin-pair differences indicates that magnitude of differential environmental effects is not systematically related to intelligence level of twin pairs.

Then there is the Minnesota Adoption Study - I'd link the original article, but it's behind a paywall - so wikipedia will have to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...Adoption_Study

One of the studies' findings was the IQs of adopted black children reared by white families did not differ significantly from that of black children raised by their biological parents.

[Graystone]

Because you reject any other possibility, because as you say:





So Far... Okay, fine if you want to assume the mantle that any and all science is merely the best-fit predictive model for reality around us, until such time as a more accurate model can be generated, then sure - but then that means your "definitive conclusion" must also be treated with the same derision

As for the latter part - I'll deal with that in a later post.



Given the context, the direction is clear.



Well, that isn't strictly true, especially in the speech he gives multiple examples that lead to the conclusion.

Again, learn what the Fallacy actually is.



Well, I linked to a speech of his, were he talks about the differences between the Sexes - based on that, is he Sexist?

Do I? Where?

The suggestion is clear, but it isn't a conclusion. Learn to correctly interpret scientific conclusions.

And if they were valid, he could publish them. That is part of the fallacy, learn about that as well.

Didn't read fuck all of it then, can't be arsed going back to find it now. Perhaps that is because I hold the science itself in higher regard than opinions? something you should perhaps try...

[Graystone]

Sure - all of those factors have an influence on IQ, but you've overlooked one teensy tiny detail. And I was very specific on including this details, mainly because you've done precisely what I thought you would do:



As you can see - I said Negative (which all those factors most certainly fall under) AND positive - and thus is where we get the problem:

First up: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-011-6129-9_19

The Study of the IQ of Twins raised in different environments:



Then there is the Minnesota Adoption Study - I'd link the original article, but it's behind a paywall - so wikipedia will have to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...Adoption_Study

What an utter crock of shit. Perhaps I've done as you thought since on some level you realised the futility of your point? How is education a negative influence instead of a positive one?

[TheDemonLord]

What an utter crock of shit. Perhaps I've done as you thought since on some level you realised the futility of your point? How is education a negative influence instead of a positive one?

Or, I know the position you are arguing from well enough to predict your counter...

How is Education a positive influence?

There are a few studies that suggest education shifts IQ a few points (at most), but in the one I'm thinking of, it shows that whilst there is a small shift in the pre-pubescant stage, any improvements seen in the test group average out and diminish relative to the control group after adolescence.

a few others that say it has very little to do with actual IQ.

This comes down to the foundational premise of (for example) the Minnesota experiment - that if we change the Environment, then the IQ should be positively increased.

But as per the results - it didn't.

[TheDemonLord]

Do I? Where?

Right where I pointed it out.

The suggestion is clear, but it isn't a conclusion. Learn to correctly interpret scientific conclusions.

The suggestion that the findings of the paper may help explain the Causal biological link....

And if they were valid, he could publish them. That is part of the fallacy, learn about that as well.

Again - it's not how the Fallacy works. Besides - if memory serves, he has published a variety of works and books on the subject.

Didn't read fuck all of it then, can't be arsed going back to find it now. Perhaps that is because I hold the science itself in higher regard than opinions? something you should perhaps try...

It's a simple question - is he a Sexist? you've got a few paragraphs to read to draw a conclusion.

[Graystone]

Or, I know the position you are arguing from well enough to predict your counter...

How is Education a positive influence?

There are a few studies that suggest education shifts IQ a few points (at most), but in the one I'm thinking of, it shows that whilst there is a small shift in the pre-pubescant stage, any improvements seen in the test group average out and diminish relative to the control group after adolescence.

a few others that say it has very little to do with actual IQ.

This comes down to the foundational premise of (for example) the Minnesota experiment - that if we change the Environment, then the IQ should be positively increased.

But as per the results - it didn't.

That is still debated, their original findings paint a different picture...

"Given the above-average IQ scores of black/interracial children adopted transracially, it may seem that we are endorsing the adoption of black children by white families as a social policy. There is no question that adoption constitutes a massive intervention, as noted earlier, and that it has a favorable impact on IQ scores"

and was re-iterated in their follow up: Weinberg, R. A.; Scarr, S.; Waldman, I. D. (1992). "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence"

"Our original study (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976) was intended primarily to examine the effects of cross-fostering on the IQ scores of black/interracial children. The focus was on the relative effects of genetic background and social environment on IQ levels and variations among socially classified black children. The results of the longitudinal follow-up continue to support the view that the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black and interracial children and that both social and genetic variables contribute to individual variations among them. "

Both are published in respected scientific journals if you want to educate yourself, wikipedia is not such a great source I'm afraid.

And this is for a measurable increase, this is far, far more significant than a minor change in variance. If environmental factors can have a measurable increase on average IQ scores, it logically follows that they can have a measurable impact on variance as well. And as above, there is most certainly positive influences.

[Graystone]

Right where I pointed it out.



The suggestion that the findings of the paper may help explain the Causal biological link....



Again - it's not how the Fallacy works. Besides - if memory serves, he has published a variety of works and books on the subject.



It's a simple question - is he a Sexist? you've got a few paragraphs to read to draw a conclusion.

You have yet to point out where I reject any other possibility.

Suggestion. May. This does not a conclusion make.

Actually it is how the fallacy works. He does not have authority on the facts you say he presents.

Where?

[Katman]

Lord knows you probably more than most know my Disagreements with Katman on just about anything

It's like it's become an obsession for you.

[TheDemonLord]

You have yet to point out where I reject any other possibility.

I pointed out your own words.

Suggestion. May. This does not a conclusion make.

Re-read - the words Suggest and May are not in relation to the causal link.

Actually it is how the fallacy works. He does not have authority on the facts you say he presents.

No. It isn't. I've already posted the definition, and why your usage is wrong.

Where?

The exact same place.

[TheDemonLord]

That is still debated, their original findings paint a different picture...

And this is for a measurable increase, this is far, far more significant than a minor change in variance. If environmental factors can have a measurable increase on average IQ scores, it logically follows that they can have a measurable impact on variance as well. And as above, there is most certainly positive influences.

From memory - they didn't account for the Flynn effect, which changes it from a "significant increase", down to a few points.

[Graystone]

I pointed out your own words.



Re-read - the words Suggest and May are not in relation to the causal link.



No. It isn't. I've already posted the definition, and why your usage is wrong.



The exact same place.

Which were taken completely out of context to suit your agenda.

"Studies of young infants and children (Matsuzawa et al., 2001), and especially longitudinal studies (Giedd et al., 1999), may help explain the causal direction and the development of sex differences in the relation between brain neuroanatomy and cognitive performance."

See how there is an 'and' between causal direction and the rest of the sentence. That is a separator of ideas, forget a scientific education, start with a BA or something and learn to read.

He is not an authority for the facts you portray him as presenting, thus it is an argument from authority fallacy. It's a simple concept.

You're getting awfully diversionary and redirecty with no attempt to add anything new to thee discussion, this is not the scientific way, this is the way of one who knows he has lost the argument but lacks the humility to admit it.

[Graystone]

From memory - they didn't account for the Flynn effect, which changes it from a "significant increase", down to a few points.

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

[RDJ]

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

Casual, certainly. Causal, doubtful.