Archive for the ‘Psychometics’ Category

www.goodreads.com/book/show/2404700.The_IQ_Controversy_the_Media_and_Public_Policy

The I. Q. Controversy The Media and Public Policy Stanley Rothman 323p_0887381510

 

I read this becus i want to do a follow-up study like this. Both analyzing media output and doing another expert survey.

 

 

I had been thinking about using PCA on political questions to see any obvious underlying structure. Basically, I want to do OKC questions style. Gather lots of questions, have lots of ppl answer them. Do PCA, see what results are.

Political perspective was assessed in two ways. First, respondents stated their agreement or disagreement with a series of six political statements. The statements dealing with U.S. economic exploitation, the fairness of the private enterprise system, affirmative action, the desirability of socialism, alienation caused by the structure of society, and the propriety of extramarital sexual relations. Responses to these statements were discovered, in a previous investigation incorporating many more such statements, to load highly on a factor representing overall political perspective.6o Agreement was assessed on a 4- point scale, where I was “Strongly agree” and 4 was “Strongly disagree.” For four of the six statements, the mean response is approximately at indifference. Respondents are somewhat more likely to disagree that “The United States would be better off if it moved toward socialism” and that “The structure of our society causes most people to feel alienated.” The second measure of political perspective asked experts to indicate their global political perspective on a 7-point scale, where I was “Very liberal” and 7 was “Very conservative.” Mean self-assessment on this scale is 3.19 (s.d.: 1.28, r.r.:95.6%), putting this expert population slightly to the left of center.

Factor analysis of responses to the six statements and the global rating reveal that all questions, with the exception of the statement about extramarital affairs, load highly on a single factor (i.e., are highly correlated). The five statements and the global rating were therefore normalized and combined to form a political perspective supervariable. It is this variable that is used as a measure of overall political perspective. Note that the liberal position on the five included statements (e.9., belief in socialism, affirmative action, economic exploitation) can all be characterized as placing a higher value on equality of outcome than on economic efficiency.

This tactic has been used before, even if only on a limited set of political opinions.

-

While few would argue that intelligence and aptitude test scores do nor affect self-esteem and motivation, the magnitude of this influence is difficult to measure. There have been many reports of significant positive correlations between test scores and self-concept, motivation, or expectancy, but causality remains ambiguous.rs rhe evidence seems to indicate, however, that the influence of test scores on these affective variables is probably not large. (Causation in the opposite direction may not be very significant either, as the correlation may reflect the influence of a third variable, students’actual level ofability and success in school.) Brim and his associates found that high school students tended to greatly overestimate their own intelligence, as measured by test scores. This was particularly true of students with low scores. Fifty percent of students thought their scores were too low relative to their actual level of ability, while 45 percent thought their scores were accurate. only 7 percent ofthe students reported lowering their self-estimates of intelligence as a result of their test scores, while 24 percent raised their estimates.16

Dunning Kruger, but much earlier.

Reference 16 is: Orville G. Brim, Jr., ‘American Attitudes Towards Intelligence Tests,” American Psychologrsl 20 (1965):125-130; Brim et al. 17. Goslin, p. 133

openpsych.net/ODP/2014/04/criminality-among-norwegian-immigrant-populations/

Abstract
A previous study found that criminality among immigrant groups in Denmark was highly predictable by their countries of origin’s prevalence of Muslims, IQ, GDP and height. This study replicates the study for Norway with similar results.

Keywords: Crime, national IQ, group differences, country of origin

Download paper.
Forum thread and supplementary material.

Abstract
Criminality rates and fertility vary wildly among Danish immigrant populations by their country of origin. Correlational and regression analyses show that these are very predictable (R’s about .85 and .5) at the group level with national IQ, Islam belief, GDP and height as predictors.

Published in our new journal for psychology.

openpsych.net/index.php/diff/article/view/7

Peer review is here: openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=2&action=lastpost

I have long had an idea that one needs to be able to generate problems for IQ batteries automatically.

Some things are very easy to generate. Digit spans just require the computer to generate random numbers one at a time and ask the user to input them again.

Others are harder to generate. So far I have figured out how to generate two of the harder ones: 1) vocabulary test, 2) number series tests.

Vocab test

First, one needs a list of words by their frequency.  Such lists can be found for most languages. They can also be generated quickly by taking a large body of text and analyzing it. E.g. download a book, like Harry Potter, and count the occurrences of every word. Then sort the list.

The difficulty of the problem is the rank on the frequency list. The more uncommon words are harder. For testing, one will choose a word at random from the interval 100-1000 most common words, 1000-1500 most common, 1500-2000 most common etc. until one gets to perhaps words in the 30k range, which are pretty rare. Or just how far the one wants to go.

Second, one needs a dictionary with meanings of words. There are lots of online ones for this purpose, e.g. Wiktionary.

To generate a problem, choose N random words in the difficulty category. Get all their definitions from the dictionary. Now u have N words and N definitions. There are multiple ways to do it. One simple way is to select one word at random, and then ask the user to select the correct meaning from the N available.

To make things harder, one can only choose words from the same grammatical category (noun, verb, adverb, adjective).

One can do this for any language where one can find a minable online dictionary and a frequency list (or just make one).

Number series test

Everybody knows these problems. E.g.: list = [1,2,3,4,?] Next number is 5, ofc. list = [1,3,6,10,?] next is 15.

I have succeeded in finding an analytic solution to one kind of these problems, the additive ones at any depth.

Take the second series above. The analysis is to find the difference between any two adjacent numbers. Repeat this all the way down.

For the above, it goes: [[1, 3, 6, 10], [2, 3, 4], [1, 1], [0]]. 3-1=2, 6-3=3, 10-6=4. Then do it for the result too. 3-2=1, 4-3=1. 1-1=0.

When one finds a line with the same number repeated, it means that one has found the depth for this type of problem. The above problem is a 3rd level problem because the repetition is at the third level. For the first problem above: [[1, 2, 3, 4], [1, 1, 1], [0, 0], [0]]. The depth is 2. For the ultra easy, the depth is 1: [[3, 3, 3, 3], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0], [0]].

From this, I have worked out which information is necessary to generate these from the bottom. One needs: 1) the length of the series, 2) the depth of the repetition, 3) the initial numbers each level. For instance, let’s say we choose the seeds [4,5,6], the depth 3 and the length 5. Then we get.

4,x,x,x,x

5,x,x,x

6,x,x

Since we know the depth is 3, we know that the initial must be repeated:

4,x,x,x,x

5,x,x,x

6,6,6

Then we can calculate the bold x above. It’s 5+6=11:

4,x,x,x,x

5,11,x,x

6,6,6

Then we can calculate the next bold x. It’s 6+11. And so on.

4,9,20,37,50

5,11,17,23

6,6,6

The final problem is then: 4, 9, 20, 37, ? with correct answer 50.

The problems can be made at an arbitrary difficulty level:

What is the next number? [-6, -5, -13, -20, -6, ?] (length = 6, depth = 5).

If you didn’t solve it, here’s the analysis: [[-6, -5, -13, -20, -6, 59], [1, -8, -7, 14, 65], [-9, 1, 21, 51], [10, 20, 30], [10, 10]]

They can be made impossibly hard to anyone not familiar with this analysis:

What is the next number? [-6, -15, -16, -10, 12, 51, 97, 126, 82, -171]

Further, one can vary the number range of the random numbers. Negative numbers are harder to think about, and it’s even worse when they cross back and forth around 0. The above problem is really hard. I doubt many could solve it even given unlimited time if they didn’t know the analysis.

The code is here: algorithm

I would have uploaded it to Github, but apparently finding out how to upload files to GitHub was harder than figuring out how to disable the filetype security on my WordPress blog. Fail.

From reddit www.reddit.com/r/Khan/comments/1znhcx/khan_academy_gets_rare_partnership_to_close/

Me:

Test prepping does not work very well, so it’s a minor issue. SAT and ACT tests are mainly tests of g and one cannot train g.

Him:

That’s a common misconception, but they’re not general intelligence tests. SAT and ACT test very specific material that can be studied, so test prep actually makes a huge difference in scores.

Me:

No. Try these: pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373.short infoproc.blogspot.dk/2012/02/test-preparation-and-sat-scores.html

Him:

I’m a little too tired to look up studies and pick apart the methodology, so I’m just going to make a couple general points. First and foremost, why are the writers of the sat revising the test to make it less susceptible to test preparation (by their own admission) if it’s not affected by test preparation? Why change it at all if it’s an accurate test of general intelligence? Why is family income so strongly correlated to sat scores if the test score can’t be affected by other factors? Why would so many elite colleges be turning sat optional if the score actually represented human intelligence? Are native English speakers naturally smarter than not native speakers since native speakers have higher average scores?

Me:

I’m a little too tired to look up studies and pick apart the methodology, so I’m just going to make a couple general points. First and foremost, why are the writers of the sat revising the test to make it less susceptible to test preparation (by their own admission) if it’s not affected by test preparation? Why change it at all if it’s an accurate test of general intelligence?

Maybe because people like you think like this.

Why is family income so strongly correlated to sat scores if the test score can’t be affected by other factors?

Because high g parents have high g children and high g parents earn more money. Common cause.

You should drop the straw man. I did not say that it was not affected by other causes.

Why would so many elite colleges be turning sat optional if the score actually represented human intelligence?

For political reasons? To easier meet racial quotas?

Are native English speakers naturally smarter than not native speakers since native speakers have higher average scores?

If you use a verbal test on non-natives then you get biased results. That’s why one uses non-verbal tests instead.

Here’s a study for ACT. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000487

But really, that SAT/ACT are mostly measures of g has been known for decades.

There’s a replication here for the 2004 study: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000869

Him:

Maybe because people like you think like this.

Not sure what you mean. People with relevant expertise?

You should drop the straw man. I did not say that it was not affected by other causes

It’s not a straw man, I’m challenging an assumption necessary to your argument. You predicated your claim that sat scores can’t be changed by prep on the (dubious) premise that the sat is a test of general intelligence, thereby assuming that tests of g can’t be improved by prep. I’m demonstrating that the scores can be affected by other factors, and positing that a test that can be affected by myriad other factors can be influenced by targeted practice.

All of this boils down to the simple truth that I know for a fact that students’ scores improve with practice. It doesn’t matter how many tangentially related studies you cite, I’ve seen the unequivocal reality hands on. I’m working with 3 students right now. One has gone up 200 points on the sat, one has gone up 300, and the last has gone up 4 points on the act.

I really gotta ask, have you ever taken either test? What did you get? It’s hard for me to imagine that someone who knows the question types actually thinks the sat tests human intelligence. (I won’t go so far as to say that about the act, but it’s still on material that can be practiced)

Me:

It’s not a straw man, I’m challenging an assumption necessary to your argument. You predicated your claim that sat scores can’t be changed by prep on the (dubious) premise that the sat is a test of general intelligence, thereby assuming that tests of g can’t be improved by prep. I’m demonstrating that the scores can be affected by other factors, and positing that a test that can be affected by myriad other factors can be influenced by targeted practice.

It is a strawman. I did not claim that one can’t train SAT scores. I specifically said one could, but not much.

One can improve IQ scores (manifest variable) but not g (latent variable). See: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000778

All of this boils down to the simple truth that I know for a fact that students’ scores improve with practice. It doesn’t matter how many tangentially related studies you cite, I’ve seen the unequivocal reality hands on. I’m working with 3 students right now. One has gone up 200 points on the sat, one has gone up 300, and the last has gone up 4 points on the act.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Him:

You’re the only one here talking about g. This is an article about the SAT, not g.

And are you really claiming that the universal consensus of everyone exposed to test prep is simply anecdotal evidence that you, a dilettante, can see right through? Again, ETS, the writers of the SAT, have just stated that it’s too influenced by test preparation. You know more about it than they do?

Me:

You’re the only one here talking about g. This is an article about the SAT, not g.

You’ve also been talking about it above.

And are you really claiming that the universal consensus of everyone exposed to test prep is simply anecdotal evidence that you, a dilettante, can see right through? Again, ETS, the writers of the SAT, have just stated that it’s too influenced by test preparation. You know more about it than they do?

No evidence for any universal consensus presented. One can see that this isn’t so on Wikipedia as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Preparations

I already stated one can increase SAT scores by training, but not much.

Following the systematic review mentioned indirectly on Wikipedia: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00812.x/abstract

The mean gains on V and M were 24 and 33 points. Compare this to the published standard deviations of the subtests of around 114-118, you can see that this training did not do much. About .25 SD increase. Equivalent of 3.75 IQ points (SD15).

media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf

Him:

The Wiley link above is the most recent article you’ve mentioned, and it still implies that data quality in the field is poor. And while I would dispute that the figures they give would be accurate for my work, they still called the gains from test preparation significant. From the article:

“As long as coaching remains inaccessible to some students, we urge universities to reconsider the weight given to SAT scores in the undergraduate admissions process. We challenge the designers of the SAT to redesign the examination to eliminate the possibility of score gains from coaching. Finally, we call for researchers to increase the production of high-quality data in this field to ensure accurate estimates of coaching’s effects are made available to all.”

And I gotta come back to this. Have you ever even seen an SAT?

At this point it seems like he had given up trying to argue, and merely wanted to talk about other stuff.

One can recap it in terms of references given:

Me – 9

Him – 0

From reddit www.reddit.com/r/genetics/comments/1z1tli/design_your_own_baby_a_genetic_ethics_dilemma/cfqrlol

Zorander22 writes:

1) I would wager a guess that most people are capable of far more than they’re current employment situations might indicate. The idea that machines are taking over increasingly complex tasks is an important one… which, depending on how wealth gets distributed, could ensure an easy future for many people, rather than spelling the doom of humanity. If machines and computers end up being able to do increasingly complex tasks without limit, it seems like they would soon outstrip people, even with substantial eugenics programs or genetic engineering in place.

2) People are still under selection processes. Many of these likely happen before birth (wombs and women may have built-in systems to stop supporting fetuses if there are signs there may be serious genetic problems). People are still dying in a non-random manner… and moreover, people are having children in a non-random matter, so sexual selection may play an important role. While there may be trends regarding intelligence and birth rates, it is likely that there are many other factors influencing birth rates and the success of offspring. Low intelligence may increase birth rates through poor implementation of birth control methods or planning, but there could be other hidden effects with high intelligence leading to more resources available for raising more children. As birth control gets easier to implement, you might soon see more intelligent people having more kids on average than less intelligent people.

What we are undergoing right now is an expansion in the variability within our gene pool. We have a huge number of organisms with new mutations cropping up. Far from being a bad thing, this variability is one of the key ingredients for evolution to take place – evolution doesn’t happen consistently throughout time, it often happens in response to changed environmental factors. For some organisms to have better success due to a changing environment, there needs to be a large amount of variability within the population, so that there are lots of phenotypes expressed, some of which will perform better than others. This increase in our genetic variability will serve us well if there’s ever a dramatic change in our environment.

-

Deleetdk writes:

I would wager a guess that most people are capable of far more than they’re current employment situations might indicate.

No. This is a core belief of educational romanticism which Charles Murray talks about[1] .

More yes, not “far more”. There are limits. The primary area, I think, where talent is not using used is with the gifted children. There is an extreme lack of gifted programs in many countries. Khan Academy is changing this. The future is bright in this area. :)

The idea that machines are taking over increasingly complex tasks is an important one… which, depending on how wealth gets distributed, could ensure an easy future for many people, rather than spelling the doom of humanity.

Let’s say we’re 30 years into the future and no eugenics has been used for g. Now, maybe 30% of the working age population is leeching (e.g. via a basic income policy[2] ), which raises taxes further for the working part of the population. Keep also in mind that people are having fewer children, so the non-working age population is also much larger (subreplacement fertility[3] is a huge economic problem in the near future). Let’s say that in total 30% of the population is working, while the rest is leeching. Why would the workers pay so much of their income? Keep in mind that crypto-currencies will make it more or less impossible to effectively force them if they don’t want to. Do you think this is a bright future? I don’t. One solution would be artificial wombs[4] , but that technology might not be ready yet by then. I don’t know.

If machines and computers end up being able to do increasingly complex tasks without limit, it seems like they would soon outstrip people, even with substantial eugenics programs or genetic engineering in place.

Yes, nonbiological computers will eventually outperform biological computers no matter how much we use eugenics for g. My idea is that we need to get MUCH smarter before allowing this to happen. I think we can make it work, but the world population needs to improve, say, 5 SD in g first.

People are still under selection processes. Many of these likely happen before birth (wombs and women may have built-in systems to stop supporting fetuses if there are signs there may be serious genetic problems). People are still dying in a non-random manner…

Yes, but this selection force is very weak compared to the constant influx of de novo mutations. Welfare systems without eugenics are unstable, since they lead directly to dysgenics that will sooner or later make the welfare system economically untenable.

people are having children in a non-random matter, so sexual selection may play an important role.

I agree. This selection force is likely to be stronger in the future due to increased assortative mating from online dating like OKCupid[5] (this is an interesting research question: do people who met over netdating show stronger assortative mating than those who didn’t? AFAIK, no one knows!). This might itself increase dysgenics for g though. It depends on how fertility is a function of g. If the effect is multiplicative rather than additive, then bright people will have a very low fertility indeed. I currently don’t know the answer to this question.

While there may be trends regarding intelligence and birth rates, it is likely that there are many other factors influencing birth rates and the success of offspring. Low intelligence may increase birth rates through poor implementation of birth control methods or planning, but there could be other hidden effects with high intelligence leading to more resources available for raising more children. As birth control gets easier to implement, you might soon see more intelligent people having more kids on average than less intelligent people.

No. The trend has been going for 100 years or more. This is no change in the future for this trend. See: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (Richard Lynn)[6] . PDF[7] .

What we are undergoing right now is an expansion in the variability within our gene pool. We have a huge number of organisms with new mutations cropping up. Far from being a bad thing, this variability is one of the key ingredients for evolution to take place – evolution doesn’t happen consistently throughout time, it often happens in response to changed environmental factors. For some organisms to have better success due to a changing environment, there needs to be a large amount of variability within the population, so that there are lots of phenotypes expressed, some of which will perform better than others. This increase in our genetic variability will serve us well if there’s ever a dramatic change in our environment.

Agreed about the variation (due to increased assortative mating which increases variation). Some evolution is more or less constant, selection for polygenic traits (height, g, weight, personality, etc.) is probably more or less constant and not ‘punctuated’ (in Gouldian sense).

There is plenty of variation currently in the human gene pools for evolution of more g. See also Steve Hsu on genetics of g[8] .

www.goodreads.com/book/show/786753.Educability_And_Group_Differences

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=501f355b6e474bdc0b7f3130dc3bf9c0&open=0

 

Why read a book from 1973? 41 years old? Well, it was a good read indeed! It is interesting how much of the evidence for racial differences were in place already in 1973, and it has more or less only become stronger since then. Basically, the book is a shorter and less technical (but not that much!) version of his major book The g Factor.

 

 

This distinction between the individual and the particular gene

pool from which the unique combination forming his genotype

was derived extends beyond his family to the racial group with

which he is identified and to the social status into which he is

born. You are not your race; you are not your group. You are you.

That is, if you are talking genetics. If you are talking sociology or

politics, that may be another matter. You may be psychologically

tied to and influenced by whatever groups you happen to identify

with. If you are either elated or depressed about yourself because

of such identification, don’t attribute this to genetics. It in fact

contradicts this kind of typology which compels so many persons

to identify with various groups as if the statistical attributes of

the group determined their own characteristics. Racism and social

elitism fundamentally arise from identification of individuals with

their genetic ancestry; they ignore individuality in favor of group

characteristics; they emphasize pride in group characteristics, not

individual accomplishment; they are more concerned with who

belongs to what, and with head-counting and percentages and

quotas than with respecting the characteristics of individuals in

their own right. This kind of thinking is contradicted by genetics;

it is anti-Mendelian. And even if you profess to abhor racism and

social elitism and are joined in battle against them, you can only

remain in a miserable quandary if at the same time you continue

to think, explicitly or implicitly, in terms of non-genetic or anti-

genetic theories of human differences. Wrong theories exact their

own penalties from those who believe them. Unfortunately, among

many of my critics and among many students I repeatedly en­

counter lines of argument which reveal disturbing thought-blocks

to distinguishing individuals from statistical characteristics (usually

the mean) of the groups with which they are historically or socially

identified. I know professors, for example, who cannot bring

themselves to discuss racial group differences when any persons

from different racial groups are present, and the fact that I am

able to do so perhaps makes me appear insensitive in their eyes.

I was once bothered by this too. I got over it as I studied more

genetics and came more and more to appreciate its real implications.

 

Well written! I had the same idea, namely that what unites racists and ‘antiracists’ is their collectivism, their focus on the properties of groups instead of individuals.

 

-

 

The important distinction between the individual and the

populationmust always be kept clearly in mind in any discussion

of racial differences in mental abilities or any behavioral charac­

teristics. Whenever we select a person for some special educa­

tional purpose, whether for special instruction in a grade-school

class for children with learning problems, or for a ‘gifted’ class

with an advanced curriculum, or for college attendance, or for

admission to graduate training or a professional school, we are

selecting an individual, and we are selecting him and dealing

with him as an individual for reasons of his individuality.

Similarly, when we employ someone, or promote someone in

his occupation, or give some special award or honor to someone

for his accomplishments, we are doing this to an individual.

The variables of social class, race, and national origin are

correlated so imperfectly with any of the valid criteria on which

the above decisions should depend, or, for that matter, with any

behavioral characteristic, that these background factors are irre­

levant as a basis for dealing with individuals – as students, as

employees, as neighbors. Furthermore, since, as far as we know,

the full range of human talents is represented in all the major

races of man and in all socioeconomic levels, it is unjust to allow

the mere fact of an individual’s racial or social background to

affect the treatment accorded to him. All persons rightfully must

be regarded on the basis of their individual qualities and merits,

and all social, educational, and economic institutions must have

built into them the mechanisms for insuring and maximizing

the treatment of persons according to their individual behavior.

 

As written by a true racist, or something…

 

-

 

A common misconception often arises in connection with standards

such as the following from an article by Dreeben (1969): ‘First,

genetic forces and environmental forces operate on two distinct

dimensions of time. Genetic effects are established when an ovum

is fertilized – at one moment in time; environmental effects extend

over time.’ This is often erroneously believed to mean that although

individuals may be endowed with different genotypes at the moment

of conception, all change and differentiation that take place

thereafter are the result of environmental forces. But this interpreta­

tion overlooks the fact that the genes exert a continuing influence

on developmental processes. Many genetic effects are manifested

phenotypically only in later stages of development. As an obvious

example, patterns of baldness are genetically determined but do

not show up until middle age. Behavioral characteristics associated

with maturational processes, like mental development, variously

manifest genetic effects increasingly as the individual grows from

infant to adult. This is clearly seen in the gradually increasing

degree of correlation between the mental abilities of parents and

their biological children from infancy to late adolescence, which

occurs even when the children have never had contact with their

biological parents after infancy and have been reared by adoptive

or foster parents (e.g., Honzik, 1957). Under a normal range of

environmental conditions, an individual’s phenotypic IQ, from

infancy to maturity, converges toward its genotypic value.

 

So, it was known that heritability increases already in 1957 (or 1973). I thought it entered common knowledge in 1994 with McGue M, Bouchard TJ, Jr, Iacono WG, Lykken DT. 1993. Behavior genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective.

 

-

 

Probably the best evidence for the threshold hypothesis would

be the finding of significantly higher heritability in groups that

are above average in SES and environmental advantages than in

groups of low SES.13 No one has ever done this systematically.

The gifted children in Terman’s study came mostly from the

higher SES levels and unquestionably had considerably better

than average environmental advantages for intellectual develop­

ment. The mean IQ of their siblings was 123 and the correlation

between the IQs of the gifted and their siblings, estimated from

the sibling regression, is 0-44, which, when corrected for attenu­

ation, is close to the genetically predicted sibling correlations of

0*5 (with random mating) or 0-6 (with an assortative mating

coefficient of 0-5), and does not differ much from sibling correla­

tions reported in the general literature. The gifted group as adults

were, on the average, of higher SES than their own parents. Thus

the offspring of the gifted probably enjoyed even greater environ­

mental advantages. The narrow heritability of IQ in this group,

estimated from the midparent-midchild regression, is 0-85. This

is significantly higher than the best estimate of narrow’ heritability

(0*71) given by Jinks and Fulker (1970, p. 342) on the basis of

Burt’s data, which includes a wride range of SES in the English

population. It is also higher than the midparent-midchild correla­

tion (0-69 + 0-03) found in a largely rural population sample in

Vermont in 1920, with environmental advantages presumably

much below those provided by the Terman gifted and their

spouses (Jones, 1928, p. 69). These heritability findings, then, are

consistent with the threshold hypothesis. But the total evidence

for the hypothesis must still be regarded as quite ambiguous. A

clear finding of an appreciable difference between h2 in the Negro

and white populations, however, would be consistent with the

hypothesis depicted in Figures 7*5 and 7*6. It could mean, in

effect, that the scale of environmental effects differs for the bulk

of the two populations and not simply that the two populations are

distributed about different means on the same additive (i.e., equal

interval) scale of environments. So now we must examine what

meager evidence exists on the estimation of h2 in Negro populations.

 

With all the talk about h2 x SES interactions, Jensen was there 40 years ago too. :p

 

-

 

A statistical test could be applied to determine if the lesser

variance of the Negro IQ distribution is an artifact of the scale or

a ‘fact of nature’. One would determine, for both Negro and white

population samples, separately and together, whether there is any

significant correlation (both linear and non-linear relationships

should be sought) between family means (based on fraternal twins

or siblings7) and within-family variances. Since the total variance

( V T) of a subpopulation is comprised of the between-families

variance ( VB) plus within-families variance ( V w), we should

determine if two subpopulations which differ in VT differ in VB

or Vw or in both. If they differ only in VB, this suggests a ‘fact of

nature’ rather than an artifact of scale, and this interpretation is

strengthened if it is found that there is no significant correlation

between family means and within-family variances. A correlation

between within-family variances and family means suggests a

scale artifact which might be eliminated by a transformation of

the scale. These tests, however, would not be worthwhile unless

performed on quite large and representative samples of the sub­

populations in question. If it is found that the most adequate scale

from all these standpoints shows marked differences in IQ variance

for Negroes and whites, and if the heritabilities of IQ were either

closely comparable in both populations, or smaller in the Negro

population, the genetic uniformity hypothesis would be very

untenable. It would indicate less genetic variance in the Negro

population. (The results could, of course, go in the opposite

direction, but the evidence based on the existing scales of mental

ability indicates less variance in the Negro samples.) Smaller

variance, with the consequence of a lesser proportion of the

subpopulation having higher values on the intellectual ability

scale, even if the mean were the same as in the general population,

would have important social consequences for the subpopulation

with the lower variance in terms of the proportion of its members

who are able to compete successfully in those endeavors in which

proficiency is most highly correlated with intellectual ability.

J. B. S. Haldane (1965, pp. xcii-xciii) noted that ‘For cultural

achievements high variability may be more important than a high

average. . . . When we say the ancient Greeks were great mathe­

maticians we are in fact thinking of about 20 men. We know

nothing about the average Greeks in this respect.’

 

Why should two populations have different genetic variances?

Differences in gene frequencies and in the degree of assortative

mating are the chief causes.8 A difference in gene frequencies for

a given characteristic will cause different means and variances,

although if the number of gene loci is large, the difference in

variances will be relatively less than the difference in means. If

the genetic means in both populations are equal, the most likely

explanation of unequal genetic variances is differences in degree

of assortative mating. That is, the tendency for like to mate with

like with respect to a particular trait. It is known that there is a

high degree of assortative mating for intelligence in the white

population. (There are no published studies of assortative mating

for intelligence in non-white populations.) Assortative mating

increases the total genetic variance in the population; it also

increases the between-families variance relative to within-families

variance. Some 15 to 20 percent of the total variance in the white

population is attributable to assortative mating for intelligence.

Assortative mating per se has no effect on the mean, so if both the

genetic means andvariances differ between two populations, we

can suspect differences in gene frequencies as well as differences

in assortative mating.

 

This is interesting. Especially if the assortative mating might be increased due to internet dating. This could have big social implications. With IQ 100, SD 15, 2.3% are >130. But if we increased variance 10% cuz of stronger assortative mating, it wud be 3.45% above. The effects are huge when we get farther out. Ofc, on the other hand, it will also give me imbeciles. Im willing to take the trade. :p

 

As for the unequal variances between races with africans having less. This seems implausible in the light of the fact that africans have higher variance in all genes. So, it wud be odd if they had lower variance in the g-genes.

 

-

 

Since variation in skin pigmentation, because of its social-

environmental consequences, is controlled in this research design,

any direct biochemical connection between degree of skin pig­

mentation and intelligence must be either ruled out or, if such a

relationship is established, its consequences for the present design

must be assessed. The possibility of a biochemical connection

between skin pigmentation and intelligence is not totally unlikely

in view of the biochemical relation between melanins, which are

responsible for pigmentation, and some of the neural transmitter

substances in the brain. The skin and the cerebral cortex both arise

from the ectoderm in the development of the embryo and share

some of the same biochemical processes.

 

And it now makes sense that Jensen later wrote his comment in: Jensen, Arthur R. “Comments on correlations of IQ with skin color and geographic–demographic variables.” Intelligence 34.2 (2006): 128-131.

 

Templer and Arikawa emphasize that they regard skin color only as a climatic variable, a multigenerational reflection of climatic history. And this may well be theoretically adequate for their present purpose. But we should not let it mislead us to dismiss completely other possible, and presently causal, connections between skin color and IQ—an idea the authors, perhaps too cautiously, called “absurd.” This stance overlooks the probability of the genetic phenomenon of pleiotropy acting as at least a partial cause of the IQ × skin color correlation in present day populations. (Pleiotropy is the condition of a single gene having two or more phenotypically quite different effects. For example a single gene could affect both IQ and skin color.)

 

-

 

But the whole notion of equating for SES, in the first place,

involves what has been called the ‘sociologist’s fallacy’. This fallacy

is seen in full bloom in one sociologist’s criticism of studies of

Negro-white IQ differences which equated the groups for SES

or other environmental factors: ‘Actually in most of the studies he

[Jensen, 1969a] reports on, the most important environmental

variable, the IQ of the parent, has not been equated at all’

(Stinchcombe, 1969, p. 516). Apart from the strictly environmental

effect of parental IQ ,1 it is obvious that, since IQ variance contains

a large genetic component, equating groups for parental IQ means

equating them for genetic factors more than for environmental

factors. The same is true, though to a lesser degree, when we

equate for SES. When typical Negro children are equated with

white children on some index of SES, one is comparing a majority

of the Negro population with some lower fraction of the white

population.2 The white comparison group, therefore, is not

genetically representative of the entire white population but is

genotypically (as well as environmentally) lower by some sub­

stantial degree. Thus, if one supposes one is equating only for

environmental influences, equating on SES equates too much.The

method would be a proper control of environmental factors if all

children had been placed in their SES categories completely at

random, in the nature of a true experiment. But as it is, SES

classification is more a result than a cause of IQ variance.

 

quite possibly the first formulation of the sociologists fallacy.

 

-

 

Data on two white populations show that fetal loss (Fx genera­

tion) in matings of the parental generation ( P J increases

cumulatively by approximately 2-5 percent to 3 percent with

each additional country of birth in the great-grandparental

generation (Px). A dependent relation shows that increased fetal

loss is also related to greater distances between birthplaces of

mates within the Px generation. Conversely, low fetal loss is

encountered with a small number of countries in the background

and shorter distance between birthplaces. It is suggested that a

large number of countries of birth represents a larger number

of Mendelian gene pools and that with increased mixture of

these gene pools, fetal loss increases proportionately. An animal

model is cited in support of this contention, (p. 24)

 

Never heard of this effect! It somewhat offsets hybrid vigor.

 

 

Seeing that countries vary wildly in how much they contribute to the EU, and vary somewhat in g in Europe, it seems worth checking if it there was a correlation.

The EU reports every year how much every EU member contributed (positive or negative). The latest numbers are from 2012, which can be found here (danish): www.eu-oplysningen.dk/spsv/off/alle/117_90/

Input data: docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoYWmgpqFzdsdHFLRnZza0JJQ01QVzQ3YVdiVlpzc2c&usp=drive_web#gid=0

Countries EU net benefit LV2012 IQs Former communist
Austria -0.35 99 0
Belgium -0.39 99.3 0
Bulgaria 3.43 93.3 1
Cyprus -0.15 91.8 0
Czech Republic 2.14 98.9 1
Denmark -0.45 97.2 0
Estonia 4.84 99.7 1
Finland -0.34 100.9 0
France -0.4 98.1 0
Germany -0.44 98.8 0
Great Britain -0.39 99.1 0
Greece 2.33 93.2 0
Hungary 3.59 98.1 1
Ireland 0.5 94.9 0
Italy -0.33 96.1 0
Latvia 4.29 95.9 1
Lithuania 4.82 94.3 1
Malta 1.14 95.3 0
Netherlands -0.39 100.4 0
Poland 3.3 96.1 1
Portugal 3.12 94.4 0
Romania 1.56 91 1
Slovakia 2.28 98 1
Slovenia 1.64 97.6 1
Spain 0.39 96.6 0
Sweden -0.46 98.6 0

SPSS:

There is a correlation of -.3, but its not significant in MR. The effect of east block is, however, very large.

The correlation of -.3 is reduced due to restriction of range. However, it seems that no one has actually calculated the entire global deviation for IQ, so I cant use formulas to correct for restriction. (see here: www.uk.sagepub.com/salkind2study/articles/10Article01.pdf)

Basically, what correcting for restriction wud give us, is the correlation between LV’s national IQ’s and EU net contribution IF every country in the world was in the EU.

This book is a quick read and covers the area decently well. The major drawback is that it doesnt discuss deliberative democracy or liquid democracy. IMO this book is not as good as Caplans recent book on the same topic which i also read. Maybe cuz i read his first.

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=af2d8de3a8bc8a8e693a1be68a4bd3f3&open=0

 

many people conflate political ignorance with sheer “ stupidity.” 2

But often, ignorance is actually smart. Even highly intelligent voters

can rationally choose to devote little or no effort to acquiring political

knowledge. Indeed, political knowledge levels have stagnated over the

past several decades, despite the fact that IQ scores have risen enormously

during the same period.3

 

This error with the FLR effect is one that Somin continously makes thruout the book, so I will just address it once here.

 

The FLR effect is not g-loaded. It is like training effects. Training increases the IQ, but not g. Training does not make u smarter. It is a form of error introduced to the measurement.

 

See: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=4029

 

-

 

However, it turns out that the decision to vote is rational so long as the

voter perceives a significant difference between candidates and cares even

slightly about the welfare of fellow citizens, as well as his or her own.15

A simple calculation suggests why this is true.16

Assume that Uv equals the expected utility of voting, Cv equals

the cost of voting, and D equals the expected difference in welfare per

person if the voter’s preferred candidate defeats her opponent. Let us

further assume that this is a presidential election in a nation with three

hundred million people, that the voter’s ballot has only a one in one

hundred million chance of being decisive, and that the voter values the

welfare of his fellow citizens an average of a thousand times less than

his ow n.17

The figure of one in one hundred million is used for ease of exposition.

Adopting the slightly more accurate figure of one in sixty million— the

average odds of decisiveness in the 2008 presidential election— would

not significantly alter the result.18

Thus, we get the following equation:

EQUATION 3.1:

The Utility o f Voting

D*(300 million/1000) / (100 million) – Cv = Uv

 

Ive seen this argument before. It is surely wrong. The difference between the various political options is very small. Especially in the US. A decisive vote will change very, very little in these countries. Might change nothing.

 

This is one of those, works in theory under perfect conditions but not in real politics-arguments.

 

-

 

M ore realistically, the average citizen probably lacks the time and

expertise to study either the Gelman model or the alternatives. Unless

he or she finds the reading interesting or has an extensive background in

statistics, the costs o f doing the reading and analyzing the models would

be far greater than the expected benefits.2 Thus the rational citizen could

reasonably base his or her decisions on voting and acquiring political

information on a rough intuitive sense that the chance of decisiveness is

extremely low, but still higher than zero. And that is exactly what most

people actually seem to do.

 

No. If one actually asks a lot of people why they vote, and i did this, they dont give answers like that. Their answers come in two categories basically:

 

1) The Kantian Voting argument

2) The lost right to complain arguments

 

The first one goes simply: if everybody thought like that (about not voting), something very bad wud happen (i.e. democracy wud crash, or somesuch).

 

A moment’s reflection will show that this is not good reasoning. Just swap ”voting” with ”become a firefighter”. In reality this is a matter of game theory. To the rational person, the fewer other ppl who vote, the more reason to vote, cuz his power is higher then. Ofc, if everybody was perfectly rational, they wud never admit to not voting if they wanted to vote. Why? The more people ppl believe that u vote, the less their own vote is worth, and hence it will make them less likely to vote, which increases the worth of ur vote. And so on.

 

2) I will let Carlin handle this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

 

Also, ppl sometimes claim that one has a duty to vote. I think duty ethics is garbage, but some countries do have compulsory laws: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

 

-

 

Belief in many other political conspiracy theories is common as well,

including claims that the government is hiding evidence of visitation by

alien civilizations, claims that the AID S virus was deliberately manu­

factured to target African Americans, and assertions that government

agencies planned the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and

other prominent political leaders.84

 

This reminds me of Gordon’s very interesting paper: Gordon, Robert A. “Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context.” Intelligence 24.1 (1997): 203-320.

 

 

He shows clearly that belief in conspirary theories correlates perfectly with group mean IQ.

 

-

 

Rational irrationality also deserves some of the blame. It is prob­

ably no accident that Republicans are disproportionately susceptible to

birtherism, while Democrats are far more likely to endorse 9 /11 conspir­

acy theories. It is no secret that partisan Republicans tend to be hostile

to Obama, while most partisan Democrats felt similarly about Bush.

These predispositions make partisans more willing to believe any claim

that reflects poorly on their political enemies— often without carefully

considering whether the claim is true or even plausible.

 

Such bias seems irrational if the partisans’ only goal is to get at the

truth, to determine whether the allegations against Bush or Obama are

accurate. But it is perfectly rational if their objective is at least partly to

enjoy the emotional satisfaction of being confirmed in their preexisting

views. After all, the partisan voter who mistakenly embraces birtherism

or 9 /11 conspiracy theories suffers no personal harm as a result, while

deriving at least some psychological benefit.

 

This kind of rational irrationality does not work. It implies the false thesis of voluntarism, namely that one can choose to believe things without evidence. This is not how beliefs work. One cannot just will oneself into believing something absurd. Rational irrationalism can work in that one can rationally decide that analyzing certain things properly and thoroly is not worth the time and hence relying on shortcuts instead, which are more error prone.

 

See: infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/sobel.html

 

-

 

The ability of voters to punish large and obvious policy failures by

incumbents is one of the major advantages of democracy over dictator­

ship. It probably helps explain the remarkable fact that no mass famine

has ever occurred in a modern democracy, no matter how poor.72 By

contrast, famines deliberately engineered by the government have often

occurred in dictatorships.73

Even generally ignorant and irrational voters can recognize a mass

famine when they see one, and are likely to hold political incumbents

responsible for it. Similar factors may explain the fact that democratic

governments rarely if ever engage in mass murder against their own

citizens, while many authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships do so

routinely.74

 

Somin has made these claims before. As for the famine one, it checks out. See Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

 

The sources for 73-74 are:

 

73. Joseph S talin ’s com m unist governm ent deliberately engineered a fam ine th at

killed millions in the early 1930s U.S.S.R. See R ob ert Conquest, The H a rvest o f S o rro w

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). An even larger governm ent-created fam ine

occurred in M aoist China, tak in g an estim ated th irty m illion lives. See Jasper Becker,

H u n g ry G hosts: M a o ’s Secret F am ine (New York: H o lt, 1996).

 

74. Rudolph Rum m el, P o w er K ills : D em o cra cy as a M eth o d o f N o n v io le n ce (New

Brunswick: Transaction, 1997); Rudolph Rummel, Death by Governm ent(New Brunswick:

T ran sactio n, 1994)-

 

-

 

If the connection between two or more matters of public policy is

not obvious or is ignored by politicians and the media for their own rea­

sons, voters may fail to pick it up. Social Security reform, for instance,

is almost never defined as a racial issue, yet the lower life expectancy

of blacks combined with the fact that they pay Social Security payroll

taxes at the same rate as whites turned Social Security into a major hid­

den redistribution from black workers to white retirees.89 The subtlety

of the connection leads the relevant black issue public to ignore it. Such

problems might often prevent an issue public from ever forming to begin

with. Thanks in part to political ignorance, some potential issue publics

are likely to be numbered among Mancur Olson’s “ forgotten groups who

suffer in silence.” 90

 

This wud be true if africans and europeans contributed equally. They dont. Europeans earn much more money and thus pay much higher taxes.

 

-

 

In addition to alleviating knowledge problems by transferring decision­

making power to foot voters, reductions in the size and complexity of

government might also reduce information problems with respect to

issues that still remain subject to the ballot box. The debate over voter

ignorance has focused on how much voters know but rarely on the ques­

tion of how much government there is for them to know about. Yet it is

clear that the greater the size and scope of government, the more voters

have to know to control its policies through the ballot. As James Madison

put in Federalist62, “ [i]t w ill be of little avail to the people that the laws

are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that

they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” 94

 

Indeed. Also great quote.

 

-

 

Unfortunately, the lack of systematic survey evidence of political

knowledge in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries makes it very

difficult to directly compare knowledge levels then to those that prevail

today. Yet we can get some idea through analysis of the sophistication of

political rhetoric directed at voters by politicians. Candidates and politi­

cal office-holders have strong incentives to accurately gauge the level of

sophistication of their audience so as to make more effective campaign

appeals.

 

Linguistic researchers at the YourDictionary.com website used the

Flesch-Kincaid scale to gauge the grade level of the language and phras­

ing used in every presidential inaugural address from 1789 to 20 0 1.11

They found that every inaugural address prior to 1900 reached what

would today be considered a izth-grade level, except for one that scored

at 1 1 .5 .103 By contrast, inaugural addresses over the past fifty years have

been around a 7th- to 9th-grade level.104

 

Political scientist Elvin Lim documents a similar pattern in the evo­

lution of presidential speeches over the past sixty years, concluding that

they have become increasingly simplistic.10′’ The same pattern emerges

from linguist Paul J J Payack’s content analysis of political debates. In

the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, D ouglas’s speeches rated an 1 1 .9

grade level, and Lincoln’s an 1 1 . z.106 Recent presidential debates tended

to fall somewhere between the 6th- and 9th grade-levels.107 The differ­

ence is all the more striking in light of the much higher education levels

of modern voters compared to those of the nineteenth century.

 

Obviously, linguistic sophistication is not the same thing as substan­

tive sophistication. It is theoretically possible that modern politicians are

simply making complex arguments using simple words. Nonetheless, lin­

guistic complexity and substantive complexity do tend to be correlated.

To the extent that is true, it would seem that politicians are directing

much less sophisticated arguments at voters than did their predecessors

o f a century ago.

 

Very interesting!

 

The source is this one: web.archive.org/web/20111111133224/http://www.yourdictionary.com/about/news038.html

 

The obvious hypothesis seems to be true: mass media made presidents lower the level, so as to target more ppl. Starting with radio and become worse with TV. At least, it cant get worse now, but we are also at rock bottom.

 

-

 

Empirical studies almost uniformly show that education and political

knowledge are highly correlated, even when controlling for other variables.7

Not surprisingly, those people with the highest education levels also tend

to have greater political knowledge. Unfortunately, however, there is a

major fly in the education-increases-knowledge ointment: massive rises in

education over the past fifty years have not led to significant increases in

political knowledge.8 From 1972 to 1994, average educational attainment

for Americans over the age of thirty grew from eleven years of schooling to

thirteen, while measured political knowledge remained roughly constant.9

On an education-adjusted basis, political knowledge may actually have

declined, with 1990s college graduates having knowledge levels comparable

to those of high school graduates in the 1940s.10 It is also noteworthy that

rising education levels have failed to increase political knowledge despite

the fact that measured intelligence has been rising, with IQ scores increas­

ing substantially over the past century.11

 

The stagnation of political knowledge levels in the face of greatly

augmented educational attainment suggests that further raising of edu­

cation levels cannot be counted on to increase political knowledge in the

future.

 

The decline is surely due to opening up of education. High school in 1940 was more g selective than college is today in the US.

 

www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/fig2.jpg

www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/

 

HS or more was about 24% in 1940, and college is about 32% now. Add to that all the lower g immigrants, it means that the college level is quite low now compared to HS in 1940.

Back then ”high school” actually meant just that.

 

-

 

An alternative but not mutually exclusive explanation is that edu­

cation correlates with political knowledge in large part because it is a

proxy for intelligence. When IQ is controlled for, the correlation between

education and economic knowledge is sharply reduced, and intelligence

turns out to have the greater effect of the tw o .11 Political knowledge may

function similarly. Yet rising IQ scores over the last several decades have

also seemingly failed to increase political knowledge.

 

I was going to cite this study, but he did it himself. :)

its this one, by Caplan, his libertarian brother in arms.

 

Caplan, Bryan, and Stephen C. Miller. “Intelligence makes people think like economists: Evidence from the General Social Survey.” Intelligence 38.6 (2010): 636-647.

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/intelligencethinklike.pdf

 

-

 

Nonetheless, future technological breakthroughs might still signifi­

cantly increase political learning through the media. This is particularly

likely if future technologies make it possible for people to assimilate

new information with less time and effort than is possible at present.

Rationally ignorant voters may continue to limit the resources they are

willing to devote to learning about politics. But more advanced informa­

tion technology might make it possible for them to learn more without

devoting any more effort to the task than at present.74

 

Genetic engineering, gogogo! :)

 

 

It has been shown that training effects and the FLR effect are not g-loaded. Spitz in his discussion of the many types of compensatory education that has been tried, mentions that they were often suspected of teaching to the test specifically. This shud show up as non g-loaded gains. Unfortunately, the data are probably lost now. If only we had mandatory data sharing!

 

There is however one option, Head Start. Since this program is STILL running, one might be able to get some data from it.