Started By
Message

re: Some thoughts on IQ

Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:25 pm to
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
6276 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:25 pm to
quote:

In the interview that you linked, Loury makes many of the same points I've tried to make here, particularly about the lasting impact of centuries of systemic oppression.

I encourage you to read other parts of his work.

If you start agreeing with a world class conservative scholar you might be on the right track out of the progressive echo chamber.

McWhorter used to be a liberal and still is a classical liberal.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:27 pm to
It seems like you're saying anyone who engages in any creative pursuit is creative. Like coloring in a coloring book is creative. There are degrees to everything.

Would you consider Stephen King to be a creative genius?
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:28 pm
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:29 pm to
quote:

If you start agreeing with a world class conservative scholar you might be on the right track out of the progressive echo chamber.



Where can I find this progressive echo chamber?

I post here for crying out loud.

I wouldn't even call myself progressive.
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
6276 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:31 pm to
quote:

Would you consider Stephen King to be a creative genius?

I've read a couple of his works, I don't especially enjoy them.

I do believe he is very creative, but he is genre bending, not genre creating.

Genius is inductive not deductive.

The difference between King and Shakespeare is in my humble opinion the difference between Tao and Gauss, one is a master in his field, one is a field creator.
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
6276 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:34 pm to
quote:

Where can I find this progressive echo chamber?

Many of your ideas came from critical theory, I assume your echo chamber is at your university.

quote:

I wouldn't even call myself progressive.




I do think you should spend time with both of them, they offer a far more realistic solution to much of what you have identified as problems.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135779 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

It is believed that creative output requires a minimum IQ of 120.
Only by fictionists (double entendre).
E.g., Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:39 pm to
quote:

I've read a couple of his works, I don't especially enjoy them.



It's the sheer number of books he's written that really impresses me.

quote:

one is a master in his field, one is a field creator.


well said
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
10780 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:39 pm to
quote:

I set this within a historical context in which African Americans—beginning from exclusion, slavery, Jim Crow segregation, widespread discrimination—are actually diminished in terms of the development of our competitive and productive capacities. Education was not equal in 1930 for blacks and whites, nor in 1950, nor in 1970 for that matter. There are all kinds of negative consequences of discrimination in employment, residential location, segregation, and so on that impede development within the African American population of the latent potential capacities to perform. Given such a history, one can’t expect at day one that there’s going to be equality of, say, test scores because the background condition is one of unequal opportunity to develop human skills. So that’s the status quo ante. That’s the baseline from which we are attempting to move towards something that’s more equal.


I was just reading something the other day about the IQ gap between blacks and other races and the article I read claimed that the research shows that the average lower IQ is not the result of inequalities of education or poverty, as is always assumed.

Their premise is that we now have enough multi-generational successful black people to study to find that the IQ gap persists even among successful blacks—which means it's not a poverty issue—and that it's not an education problem because it can be found before the age of five when kids go to school.

The only factors left are heredity and culture.

They rejected heredity as a possibility (I honestly don't remember why).

They claimed culture was the most likely factor. Specifically that black parents in America do not read to (or even talk to) their children the way other races do when they are very young. They said this cut across income levels and education levels.

FWIW.
Posted by dukkbill
Member since Aug 2012
1041 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:41 pm to
quote:

Yes, this is the main part of my belief, using IQ is an easy shorthand to flatten a number of complex brain functions and how well they are performed).


Absolutely, its a projection, and a projection of a really large multidimensional space. There would be better tensors to use if we were really wanted to get "the measure of the man" that many seem to want IQ to be. Indeed, even many educational decisions are based on 2 dimensional projects, e.g. SAT and high school GPA, etc.

quote:

In the end if someone never takes an IQ test, but is able to thrive, the score doesnt matter.


Agreed, many of the examples we use in this thread to evidence manifestations of giftedness or attainment are by people that never took an IQ test.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:43 pm to
quote:

E.g., Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86.



and an impressive drug habit.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135779 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:47 pm to
quote:

I just want things to be fair for them
Define fair.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:54 pm to
quote:

They claimed culture was the most likely factor. Specifically that black parents in America do not read to (or even talk to) their children the way other races do when they are very young. They said this cut across income levels and education levels.



I would love to see the research that informed this claim.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135779 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:55 pm to
quote:

I'm surprised with your interests in education, you'd be unaware of that.
----

This is what I meant when I said you've been grumpy lately.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
10780 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:56 pm to
quote:

I would love to see the research that informed this claim.


I'll see if I can find the article.

You sound like you don't buy that conclusion. Do you think it's mostly heredity, then?

Because they debunked the other assumed factors of poverty and education.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:57 pm to
quote:

Define fair.



To copy Narax and Justice Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
107367 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:01 pm to
quote:

E.g., Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86.


Agent W just pretended to have a low IQ as part of his cover with MIB.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
10780 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:03 pm to
They didn't reference studies (in any of it, actually), but in searching for it I discovered that their conclusions are not fringe conclusions. They seem pretty mainstream from what I can tell (which may be why they didn't even bother to reference it). My conclusion is therefore that there almost certainly is some research to back it up.

(I had to cut some text to get it to post)

quote:

African Americans score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. The gap appears before children enter kindergarten and it persists into adulthood...

Closing the black-white test score gap would probably do more to promote racial equality in the United States than any other strategy now under serious discussion...

Explaining the Gap

Traditional explanations for the black-white test score gap have not stood up well to the test of time. During the 1960s, most liberals blamed the gap on some combination of black poverty, racial segregation, and inadequate funding of black schools. Since then, the number of affluent black families has grown dramatically, but their children’s test scores still lag far behind those of white children from equally affluent families. School desegregation may have played some role in reducing the black-white test score gap in the South, but school desegregation also seems to have costs for blacks, and when we compare initially similar students in today’s schools, those who attend desegregated schools learn only slightly more than those in segregated schools.

Recent evidence suggests that disparities in school resources do affect achievement, but resource disparities between black and white children have shrunk steadily over time. The average black child now attends school in a district that spends as much per pupil as the average white child’s district. Black children’s schools also have about the same number of teachers per pupil as white schools. Predominantly white schools seem to attract more skilled teachers than black schools, but while black students who attend predominantly white schools probably benefit from having better teachers, this advantage seems to be offset by the social costs of being in an overwhelmingly white environment. In any event, schools cannot be the main reason for the black-white test score gap, because it appears before children enter school and persists even when black and white children attend the same schools. If schools play an important role in perpetuating the gap, either desegregated schools must be treating black and white children very differently or else black and white children must react very differently to the same treatment.

The three most common “conservative” explanations for the black-white gap-genes, the culture of poverty, and single motherhood-are also hard to reconcile with the available evidence. There is no direct genetic evidence for or against the theory that the black-white gap is innate, because we have not yet identified the genes that affect skills like reading, math, and abstract reasoning. Studies of mixed-race children and black children adopted by white parents suggest, however, that racial differences in test performance are largely if not entirely environmental in origin.

Cultural differences associated with chronic poverty may account for some of the black-white test score gap, but they cannot be the main explanation, since the gap persists among affluent children. And while children raised by single mothers score lower on most standardized tests than children raised by married couples, this difference almost disappears once we take account of the fact that women who become single mothers come from less advantaged families, have lower test scores, and complete less schooling than women with husbands.

New Directions

We suspect that successful new explanations for the test score gap will differ from their predecessors in several ways.

First, instead of emphasizing the kinds of racial differences that economists and sociologists usually study (parents’ economic resources, parents’ position in the occupational hierarchy, parents’ exposure to formal education, and parents’ living arrangements), successful theories will take more account of the factors that psychologists have traditionally emphasized (the way family members interact with one another and with the outside world, for example). A good explanation of why white five-year-olds have bigger vocabularies than black five-year-olds is likely to focus on how much the parents talk to their children, how they deal with their children’s questions, and how they react when their children either learn or fail to learn something, not on how much money the parents have.

Second, instead of looking mainly for resource differences between predominantly black and predominantly white schools, successful theories will probably have to look more carefully at the way black and white children respond to the same classroom experiences, such as being in a smaller classroom, having a more competent teacher, having a teacher of their own race, or having a teacher with high expectations for those who perform below the norm for their age group.

Successful theories will therefore have to pay more attention to psychological and cultural influences, which are much harder to measure than income, education, and living arrangements. Collecting accurate data on black and white parents’ habits, values, behavior, and ideas is not easy, and it would take time. It might well require an investment of time and effort comparable to the effort that went into developing cognitive tests during the first half of the 20th century. But without such work, we are in constant danger of seeing black-white differences as an inevitable byproduct of people’s genes or of “cultural” factors that nobody can change.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:08 pm to
quote:

You sound like you don't buy that conclusion. Do you think it's mostly heredity, then?



I don't buy the claim that black parents across all education and income levels don't read to their kids.

Yesterday was meet the teacher day at my kids school. (an IB school because I've been leveraging all the IQ increasing hacks for them since they were born). My son's teacher is black. While we were chatting, she specifically named "not reading to their kids" as one of the things many poor parents fail to do that hurts their kids. She has a son in kindergarten. I can assure you that she reads to him.

I have black mom friends that I know read to their kids. That's such a ridiculous claim to make.

Of course there are parents across all races who don't read to their kids. Even in my house, on nights that I have class, my husband puts the kids to bed and they get to watch an episode or two of Bluey before they close their eyes. On nights when I'm home, I read to them. It's a non-negotiable. My husband is white. I wouldn't extrapolate that to say no white men read to their kids.

Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
59330 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:10 pm to
it came off condescending.
Posted by dukkbill
Member since Aug 2012
1041 posts
Posted on 8/1/25 at 4:12 pm to
quote:

It seems like you're saying anyone who engages in any creative pursuit is creative. Like coloring in a coloring book is creative. There are degrees to everything.


Yes, this is the difference between "eminent attainment" and "attainment" in the literature discussed in these threads. Although not in literature or other commonly thought of as "creative arts," that's precisely what many of the pioneering researchers were seeking. As noted earlier, you have higher probability of attainment with higher IQ, but that isn't the whole of the story.

Just going back a few posts, 2 persons who took the IQ test were excluded from the Terman study because their IQ was under 135; however, they won Nobel prizes. Even the population above 170 didn't have that level of attainment.

I may have led this astray because there is a hypothesized lower bound on "eminent attainment". It was just hypothetically set at 125 because that's what Feynman scored in high school.

quote:

Would you consider Stephen King to be a creative genius?


Can't we just say he's gifted and leave it at that in terms of potential? Can't we just look at his awards, body of work, and distribution and say he has attainment and leave it at that on that measure.

If you really, really like weird fiction, you could have a very rewarding conversation comparing him to Vandermeer, Bernanos, Mieville, etc. Nevertheless, in discussing King's creativity, we are going to run into a wall on trying to take King's level of creativity and extrapolating that as an example for a creative measure. What would you value: novelty; consumer rating; level of output; awards in output; number of influenced authors, perseverience of study after the end of publishing, etc? We haven't taken all those dimensions and projected it down to a single scalar where we could make a decision on creativity. If we did, we don't really have the policy domain where that decision is meaningful.

Instinctively, you could converge to various solutions, and list making can be fun, but its a bit different than the other measures we have discussed.

Jump to page
Page First 19 20 21 22 23 ... 33
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 21 of 33Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram