Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: News: What are IQ tests really measuring?

Expand Messages
  • Don Zimmerman
    ... DWZ: Yes, that is good. As far as I can tell, everything you have posted there is true and is consistent with what both RKS and DWZ said in the two
    Message 1 of 90 , Apr 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote:

      > The following is an excerpt from:
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
      > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ>
      >
      > "There are a number of points to consider when interpreting
      > heritability:
      >
      > o Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait
      > that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait
      > caused by genes.
      >
      > Thus, if the environment relevant to a given trait changes in a way that
      > affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the
      > trait will change without any change in its heritability (because the
      > variation or differences among individuals in the population will stay
      > the same).
      >
      > This has evidently happened for height: the heritability of stature is
      > high, but average heights continue to increase. Thus, even in developed
      > nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that
      > average group differences are due to genes.
      >
      > Some have gone further, and used height as an example in order to argue
      > that "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the
      > environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with
      > controllability." However, others argue that IQ is highly stable during
      > life and has been largely resistant to interventions aimed to change it
      > long-term and substantially."
      >
      >
      > o "A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is
      > necessarily unchangeable. The value of heritability can change if the
      > impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially
      > altered.[
      >
      > If the environmental variation encountered by different individuals
      > increases, then the heritability figure would decrease.
      >
      > On the other hand, if everyone had the same environment, then
      > heritability would be 100%.
      >
      > The population in developing nations often have more diverse
      > environments than in developed nations. This would mean that
      > heritability figures would be lower in developing nations. Another
      > example is phenylketonuria which previously caused mental retardation
      > for everyone who had this genetic disorder and thus had a heritability
      > of 100%. Today, this can be prevented by following a modified diet which
      > has lowered heritability."

      > o "A high heritability of a trait does not mean that environmental
      > effects such as learning are not involved.
      >
      > Vocabulary size, for example, is very substantially heritable (and
      > highly correlated with general intelligence) although every word in an
      > individual's vocabulary is learned.
      >
      > In a society in which plenty of words are available in everyone's
      > environment, especially for individuals who are motivated to seek them
      > out, the number of words that individuals actually learn depends to a
      > considerable extent on their genetic predispositions and thus
      > heritability is high."


      DWZ:
      Yes, that is good. As far as I can tell, everything you have posted there is true and is consistent with what both RKS and DWZ said in the two previous posts .

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
    • Peter McCusker
      Dear Edgar,   You are right. Sincerely, Peter H. McCusker, Author of From Dweeb to Adonis - The Complete Guide to Manly Excellence www.dweebadonis.com
      Message 90 of 90 , May 17, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Edgar,
         
        You are right.

        Sincerely,
        Peter H. McCusker,

        Author of From Dweeb to Adonis -
        The Complete Guide to Manly Excellence
        www.dweebadonis.com

        Designer of Chokers for Men
        www.ToughNeck.com

        --- On Wed, 5/11/11, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:

        From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: What are IQ tests really measuring?
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 5:04 AM

         
        I've monitored this which lives to save discussion with some amusement. There is a fundamental fallacy here and that is that all human lives have equivalent worth. In actual decision making the values of each human life will be weighted separately and decisions made on that basis. In the west it will tend to be women and children weighted higher and saved first though in fact adult males actually have higher social value from an EP perspective. There will also be weightings by race, occupation, grooming etc. even if such cues are obtained from near instantaneous visual evaluations as to which individuals will be saved first and which left to perish...

        Humans are never equal in the eyes of other humans....


        Edgar




        On May 10, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Peter McCusker wrote:

         
        Dear Robert,
         
        In real situations in which a specific number of lives are certain to be at stake depending on the course of action, it is often decided to act in a way that is most likely to minimize injury or death.  Action is delayed only if the estimated harm is not certain.  If it is already certain that either one or five are going to die, action will be done based on the lowest estimated harm.  The more estimated injuries for either course of action, the more likely a decision will be made for an action. 

        Sincerely,
        Peter H. McCusker,

        Author of From Dweeb to Adonis -
        The Complete Guide to Manly Excellence
        www.dweebadonis.com

        Designer of Chokers for Men
        www.ToughNeck.com

        --- On Sat, 5/7/11, Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...> wrote:

        From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: What are IQ tests really measuring?
        To: "Evolutionary-Psychology" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 9:52 PM

         
        

        Dear Robert,
         
        I read your repeated arguments opposing the makings of numerical life saving decisions, in which one life may be sacrificed through an action instead of doing nothing that WILL cost the lives of 5 in the example given.  For the vast majority of humans who may have never undergone training in decision making regarding dangerous situations, you are probably right in recommening no decision making that would make a person responsible for the loss of ONE life. 
         
        But for those who have had training in minimising the loss of lives in certain situations, I think decision making and action by them is the right course of action.  Let's face reality.  Police and soldiers do take actions with the main purpose being that of trying to minimize harn to the innocent, while taking the lives of those who have endangered others. 
         
        Wars are also fought with the primary purpose being that of defeating an enemy who already is in the wrong.  "Good" wars are fought with the idea of minimizing injury or death to an enemy's people, but often innocent "enemy" people are put at risk of death for victory for the greater benefit of the country once mistrated. 

        Sincerely,
        Peter H. McCusker,

        Author of From Dweeb to Adonis -
        The Complete Guide to Manly Excellence
        www.dweebadonis.com

        Designer of Chokers for Men
        www.ToughNeck.com
        RKS:
        That's right.
         
        But those people are acting on the advice and instruction of their superiors and the responsibility for their actions is on the superior's shoulders, not the individual's.
         
        For such a person eg a policeman, in the train dilemma and off or on duty the same problem recurs.  Indeed, their training says that such action (eg shooting someone) should only be taken in self defence.  They know, from their own experience, how often their first impressions can be wrong.  Thus in the train scenario a well trained policeman would do nothing but call for assistance.
         
        Robert

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.