Answers to emode.com IQ test ( "the original IQ test" )

I can't singularly show that every single instance of this is true, but perhaps if you believe it isn't the case, you could point to a few cases where it isn't. I've just seen enough of these to make me significantly skeptical.

Show me a case of genetic influence where environment was not a hidden variable. I've argued this many places, and no one's ever come up with a significant study that wasn't flawed or uninformative in some way.

I will again more precisely qualify my statement to name the very 'expert' I was speaking of.

Lewis Terman

As he coined the term that we are discussing I believe he has great relevance.

You assert that IQ was intended to measure innate endowment and was supposed to be fixed.

At the time of the inception of "IQ" those were notions already being discarded by the likes of Wilhelm Stern who I referenced earlier.



I believe this is a red herring. See, my consideration of the opinion of the experts relates to your claim that IQ was intended to measure innate endowment.

At the time IQ was coined, said experts who created this were already starting to realize that (and I will again quote them) "No series of tests, however skillfully selected it may be, does reach the innate intellectual endowment, stripped of all complications, but rather this endowment in conjunction with all influences to which the examinee has been subjected up to the moment of testing."

I am illustrating that the creation of "IQ" and "IQ" Testing was quite differently purposed than you allege, and since the laymen were not involved in its inception the validity you speak of (which is a more abstract "facts on the ground" vs. "truth" concept) is a tangent, though an interesting one.

Right. I'm getting ahead of myself with my disgust for the laymen. I appologize.

I am afraid I am going to have to defer to burden of proof.



The burden of proof is on you to substantiate this and I will not be convinced into trying to proove a negative.



I have never argued that genetic influence was the exclusive factor. I even made this a bold point to you and drew your attention to it a second time when you had failed to note it.

I believe that experiential factors are also a very important factor.

In short, I have never once said that genetics has exclusive effect.

You have argued that "every significant variation in intelligence" is "culturally caused".

Please defend your assertion and note that the ones you ask me to defend are assertions I never made.

Edited to correct "Tou" = "You"

It has nothing to do with disgust for laymen. You alleged something that did not relate in any way to laymen.

Again, laymen are a red herring.

Well, I have said that I can't speak for every case. If you think I'm wrong in what I am convinced of, it's to you to show a case that doesn't work. I could list all the instances I've seen but that would take all weekend. I'm sure you'd lose interest after a while.

I realize your position on genetic inheritance not being the exclusive reason for difference. But if any difference at all is to be attributed to genetics, than there must be some difference that is not environmental. The burden of proof is on you.

"It has nothing to do with disgust for laymen. You alleged something that did not relate in any way to laymen."

Whatever, craven. I admitted that it didn't really have anything to do with what I originally said. What else do you want?

All I want for you to do at the moment is substantiate your absolutism rufio:



Please substantiate or withdraw this, after which I will make every effort to entertain your request.

" I can't singularly show that every single instance of this is true, but perhaps if you believe it isn't the case, you could point to a few cases where it isn't. I've just seen enough of these to make me significantly skeptical."

" Well, I have said that I can't speak for every case. If you think I'm wrong in what I am convinced of, it's to you to show a case that doesn't work. I could list all the instances I've seen but that would take all weekend. I'm sure you'd lose interest after a while."

How many more times would you like me to?

I am very much interested in your list. If you'd prefer to skip the providing part I will provide the substantiation I am able. I only ask that in return you read and consider what I write.

It's fair given than I'd be allowing you to shift all the burden of proof onto me.

If I've failed to adequately consider something you've written, I appologize. I haven't been trying to purposefully overlook what you write, and I will continue to try and give it the attention it deserves in the future.

It's not a reflection on the past, it's a request in exchange only for accepting all the burden of proof.

Gimme a bit and I'll write it up, should take me at least 10 minutes so that I can get the names right.

First of all, definitive answers can't yet be given by either side. To answer this definitely one would have to answer "nature vs. nurture" definitively and the paradoxical nature of this question difficults that and if the answer is, as many suspect, "both" renders it impossible.

Now this works against my ability to definitively rule out either of the two extremities but my position is strengthened by it.

This question is also a difficult one because of the political ramifications. Namely the racial ones. By supporting genetics or even innate intelligence the case of certain racists is strengthened. But this is simply guilt by association and I do not support the racially motivated interest in genetics, frankly I can provide as much evidence against a the racist use of genetics as it relates to this topic as I can evidence to support the contention that genetics play a part. But the politically motivated studies have given innate intelligence a bad reputation and it is doubtless some of these very studies that you reference.

Since you did not substantiate that side of the question I will do so.

First the dilemma.

Is the result innate or environmental? But to further complicate the situation: Is the environment the result of genetics?



Cyril Burt is a man whose study on this subject was either shoddy or outright fraudulence depending on your point of view (I lean toward fraudulent). He was a very interesting psychologist with some interesting ideas and some absurd ones. He believed intelligence was largely inherited and though he did not believe that environmental factors were irrelevant he believed this enough to falsify some of his data.

But at least he had the right idea of where to look.

To answer this subset of "nature vs. nurture" a good area to research is twins (as it is for almost all "nature vs. nurture" dilemmas). Now when comparing twins there will be, on average, significant correlation in comparison to the control group.

Now the environment argument can claim that it is due to similar environment. This is a good point and must be addressed by the innate camp.

The innate angle will then most logically be explored by studying twins that were separated at birth or at a young age. This would suggest an innate and genetic factor.

Cyril Burt claimed to have studied identical twins reared apart (I believe he also studies fraternal twins) and he claimed striking coefficients. Too striking in fact and it was one indication that his data was manufactured. After his death he was pretty much debunked savagely.

So that's an example of the shoddy work done that might have had political motivation.

Now he may well have invented the data he used to support his theories but he had the right idea with the twins and this has been repeated and the correlation established without fraudulent data.

The most famous case is probably the "Minnesota Twins" study. Twins reared apart have been shown in countless studies to have a far greater likelihood of similarities ranging from mannerisms (lots of these studies also seek to answer whether genetics play a part in personality, in addition to environment) to IQ.

Now the camp arguing for environmental exclusivity still have a hail mary. They have a grasping chance here. They could claim, that sharing the womb was the correlation and that the subsequent similarities have to do with an identical environment in an important developmental period.

But then there's the kicker, the difference between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins. Monozygotic twins are more likely to show similarities in IQ than dizygotic twins. This strongly suggests that genetics play a part (without resolving how much of a part).

There is plenty of other evidence to discredit the notion that all differences are enviromental. This is just the simplest to present.

Thomas J. Bouchard is the leading expert studying this today. If you are inclined to be dismissive of all of this please email him at bouch001 AT umn.edu and you can try to get it from the leading expert. You can also try his phone number.

I saw the MN twins study, and I looked at the data and so forth but there's a lot of questions unanswered there - what criteria they used to determine similarity, for example, how they came up with their numbers. Also, in order to be a truly useful experiment, I think they should have included non-twins to show just how much in common ordinary random people have whether they're twins or not. Simply comparing two different types of twins doesn't really go far enough. And for an experiment that claims to be so scientific, "personality" doesn't really sound like a category that's scientifically measurable.

Also, from personal experience I tend to doubt that people with poor parents are "dumb" because their parents were "dumb" and that's why they're poor. I grew up with two distinct groups of people, with different priorities and different ideas of what they should be doing with their lives - and as a result, one group appeared "smart" and one appeared "dumb". It wasn't that some of these kids just didn't get school - their parents encouraged them that it was a waste of time. It wasn't that the other kids were necessarily good at school, either - their parents threatened that if they ever got bad grades they would be disowned. Every kid I grew up with had about the same capacity to understand everything - just some tried harder than others and spent longer on the things they didn't understand as easily. I just find it kind of disgusting that someone will take all the pressure that these kids go through and use it to "prove" that they really do belong in the separate little cubby-holes that were already dished out for them before they were born.

I tend to like the environment argument better than the innate one just because I've seen the envirnoment at work and I understand why it happens. I have yet to see anything similar on the genetic side. So far as I know, no one has isolated an "IQ gene" or a "math gene" or anything of the like. I used to think I was good at math because my parents and their cousins and so forth were - because that's what they told me. Around third year of high school I decided arbitrarily that I wanted to do English and not math. My math grades dropped dramatically. I stopped understanding. My test scores fell. I doscovered I could switch "genetic" groups simply by changing my focus. When I decided to do anthro, the writing skills that I'd had so much pride in dropped again, and I think my math skills are coming back with stats. People who try to tell me that they're just naturally good or bad at something and that they can't change that fact make me ill.

But I digress. Do you have any evidence or explanation for the active role of genes in intelligence that you claim exists?

If you had indeed seen the study you would know what criteria was used etc.



What on earth makes you think they did not? Are you making this up as you go along? Did you really see the study?



Again, where do you get the notion that simply comparing twins was all that was done?



Personality was just one small thing being studied.

As to the long part about poverty etc you should note that you are arguing with a quote from the "quack" i provided to support your assertion of poor quality of data in some studies.





It is becoming increasingly clear that what you are aware of is less and less a significant argument for anything not related to a direct discussion of what you are aware of.

Genetic work is not finallized but don't use your ignorance of a subject as evidence. Your ignorance of data is only evidence of your ignorance of data and does not mean said data does not exist.




You switched no genetic groups.




I have provided some and you ahve dismissed it out of hand, oddly enough basing the dismissal soley on your ignorance of the subject Ï don;t know this so that's why I don't believe it."

Yes, I have more and more evidence, but like I asked please consider things before dismissing them as it's a waste of my time otherwise.

Before I make another effort can you at least make a show of good faith by addressing the following:

What do you think causes the increased likelihood of monozygotic intellectual similarity over that of dizygotic twins?

And then please substantiate your criticisms of the Minnesota Twins study as I strongly suspect you are speaking off the cuff with not a shred of substantiating evidence.

In short, I have provided evidence, you have dismissed it without substantiating your dismissal. Any meaningful discussion will require an effort on both parts, I ask that you employ the modicum of intellectual honesty and cooperation.

It's pointless for me to bring more evidence if you will dismiss it without any justification. So please address the two items above.

If you have another link to the MN that explains these things, I'd like to see it. When I looked at it last, that's the information that was and was not there. I am speaking off of something that I very definitely saw because someone linked it in another discussion. I guess I can go hunt around for it again if you want. To answer your question, I don't know unless I can see a more detailed report of what they did than I saw the last time that study was referenced.

The "long thing about poverty" was not an argument. I do not argue that way. I was explaining why I have more faith in the environment than biology and I asked for you to give a similar reasoning of how such a gene would work. The cover of a magazine isn't very interesting to me, btw. What was the article about?

What do you know, I found it again on google. Is this the twin study? If so, where does it talk about non-twins and compare their results to those of the twins'? Where does it specify the meaning of "personality"?

http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/default.htm

rufio,

I believe enviroment has a huge influence, in that I need no convincing. You are preaching to the converted.

But I believe innate endowment is also real and you have excluded that possibility saying it's all "cultural" (you probably meant enviromental).

Now you obviously haven't read the study, just a summary on it. But now that your dismissal's justification is clear, I ask that you address the other question:

What do you think causes the increased likelihood of monozygotic intellectual similarity over that of dizygotic twins?

rufio,

Personality was an interesting aside, it's immaterial to the purpose of my argument (whose point you ahve yet to address).

I haven't excluded the possibility, I simply doubt that it's the case. I would love for someone to give me something that would indicate that I shouldn't. But no one has. This is getting rather stupid.

I have no context to judge your question, as I said before, so it could be any number of things.

Actually, you had excluded the possibility.



But if you do not, indeed, exclude the possibility then the discussion about your earlier exclusion is no longer needed.