Free speech is censorship!

[Fragony]

'So when it comes to these little studies that “follow” a few subjects over the years, the alarm bells should be going off. No way that this is anywhere near a large data set, no way that this is anywhere near controlled enough. So as research it is not entirely useless: it provides data points for testing whatever the fashionable hypothesis du jour is/ arguments in the debate, but it doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful about IQ in general.'

You know perfectly well that statistical probabilty is always taken into the equation. It doesn't say much that is true, modern pshycholigy destuingishes 6 types of intelligence including curving a ball

[Tellos Athenaios]

You know perfectly well that statistical probabilty is always taken into the equation. It doesn't say much that is true, modern pshycholigy destuingishes 6 types of intelligence including curving a ball

Yes, yes it is. So much so we have a whopping accuracy of +/- 3 points on each test, which is only like 2-3% of the total score. On a population of millions that's nothing, riiiiiiiiiight? Let's put it this way, if you tried to sell medicine with studies that are anywhere near that level of accuracy statistical irrelevance you'd first not get past the regulations, and second you'd get sued out of business if you did from disgruntled people who weren't aware of the effects that happen with “only” 2% chance.

That's the whole point: statistics are all good fun when you have a population of millions to talk about, but I don't see that study comprising millions of test subjects, do you? With something as highly variable as IQ all you can say at the end of a small scale study is “well those subjects here have comparatively high IQ, and those there don't”. You can't extrapolate the results in a meaningful way, precisely because you don't know which of those variables is relevant. For all we know it could be the food, or the water.

For a Mathematics analogy: I have a black box function that maps 20 different stochastic variables onto a 21st one (IQ). You don't know what those 20 ones are, so you have to guess. Now try and find me a definition of the function that, given each possible input will produce the correct output.

You being the clever scientist you are, you try and keep 19 of those the same while attempting to take samples of the 20th one and observe the function result. Yet you don't actually know how it works, you don't actually know whether or not you are controlling for the *right* variables and you don't actually know whether or not your sample is representative.

To top it all off, there is on average less genetic difference between an American Africans and a WASP than there is between two WASPs or two African Americans....

[Fragony]

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg. But it's still the same test everywhere, is it important no it isn't

[Strike For The South]

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg. But it's still the same test everywhere, is it important no it isn't

Is your Dutch as cryptic as your English? Is that what gets those little Dutch tulips all hot and bothered?

[Fragony]

Is your Dutch as cryptic as your English? Is that what gets those little Dutch tulips all hot and bothered?

TA gets it, chicken and the egg: what came first.

[Strike For The South]

the muca

[Tellos Athenaios]

Everything can be reversed using the same data, cause and effect is always chicken&egg.

Well, partly. But here in the now it is clear that the current model egg precedes the current model chicken. The problem arises when you can't tell the egg from the chicken, or aren't even aware of the existence of either.

Still I submit that if ever you try your hand at recursion you should be careful with that chicken&egg philosophy, you may just lose yourself.

is it important no it isn't

And here I was, thinking you disagreed with that line of reasoning:

You see any reason to dismiss it's importance?

[Fragony]

And here I was, thinking you disagreed with that line of reasoning:

I don't, but it is of value. Back to chicken egg, are these area's poor because of low IQ or are IQ's low because these area's are poor. Either way there is a correlation.

[The Stranger]

there is a different option. there is a cause not yet specified by you that causes both the poverty as well as the low IQ. there is still correlation between the low IQ and poverty but neither caused the other.

[Fragony]

there is a different option. there is a cause not yet specified by you that causes both the poverty as well as the low IQ. there is still correlation between the low IQ and poverty but neither caused the other.

If you mean it's genetic, I don't go into that. Not that I have anything against racial theorists but I'm not playing