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

Re: [evol-psych] Sex Differences in Brain Size and IQ

Expand Messages
  • Ralph L Holloway
    My paper in AJPA, 1980, on the Pakkenberg and Voigt Danish data showed that the difference between male and female brain weights could not be explained by
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      My paper in AJPA, 1980, on the Pakkenberg and Voigt Danish data showed
      that the difference between male and female brain weights could not be
      explained by allometry. Your scholarship is at times, er, interesting.

      Ralph L. Holloway
      Dept. Anthropology
      Columbia University
      NY, NY 10027
      212-854-4570
      Fax= 212-854-7347
      Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2
    • rushton@uwo.ca
      ... Gee Ralph I hope we (Rushton and Ankney) didn t miscite your priority when we wrote our 1996 Psychonomic Bulletin and Review paper and said, It is often
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment

        ----- Original Message ----- From: Ralph L Holloway

        > My paper in AJPA, 1980, on the Pakkenberg and Voigt Danish data showed that the difference between male and female brain weights could not be explained by allometry. Your scholarship is at times, er, interesting.

        Gee Ralph I hope we (Rushton and Ankney) didn't miscite your priority when we wrote our 1996 Psychonomic Bulletin and Review paper and said, "It is often claimed, however, that the sex difference [in brain size] disappears when corrections are made for body size or age of people sampled (Gould, 1981; Lewontin et al., 1984). Nevertheless, a recent sudy by Ankney (1992) demonstrated that the sex difference in brain size remains after correction for body size in a sample of similarly aged men and women (following tentative results by Dekaban & Sadowsky, 1978; Gur et al., 1991; Hofman & Swaab, 1991; Holloway, 1980; Swaab & Hofman, 1984; Willerman et al., 1991).

        If in fact you did state unambiguously that a clear (100 gram?) difference exists between men and women even after controls for body size then Lynn should definitely be calling it the Holloway-Ankney anomaly. I'll try and dig your paper back up from the sediments and see what you actually wrote. I do know that in the first such MRI study of the relationship Lee Willerman et al in 1991 were unaware that it had been demonstrated and were themselves exceedingly tentative and in one analysis even got the sex difference to almost disappear (in their small sample study).

        I'm not sure your concern over which exponent is most suitable for calculating EQ (and the surrounding debate over their implications for theory) are relevant for the issue of brain size-IQ relations because only about three studies have used EQs. When corrections are made they are typically made to whole brain size using partial correlations and analysis of covariance for stature, weight, etc. 

      • roger.d.masters@dartmouth.edu
        Much as I respect Phil s work in this area, I must object -- especially after a careful reading of Murray s recent article in COMMENTARY (on sex and racial
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Much as I respect Phil's work in this area, I must object -- especially after a careful reading of Murray's recent article in COMMENTARY (on sex and racial difference in IQ): human phenotypic traits (and most especially cognitive traits) are too complex to be analyzed primarily in terms of measures of central tendency of wholistic categories (females, blacks) without reference to other factors that we KNOW have empirical effects on the human brain and its function. To put it simply, cognitive neuroscience and neurotoxicology require a change of methods.

          After over a decade of work on lead, I'll just reiterate my points on that. Blacks in the U.S. are more vulnerable to uptake of environmental lead than Whites for two reasons: first, tribes that were enslaved tended to be those that had NOT domesticated cattle and hence had lactose intolerance (so that those Blacks who have poor diets today are especially likely to be low in vitamin C). Second, individuals low in vitamin C are especially likely to absorb lead in blood cells and bodily organs (since both are divalent cations that are similar affinity to bond to many proteins or other organic molecules).

          This data matters because our data shows that younger children (e.g., 3 to <5 in NHANES III) are more vulnerable than older children in all racial groups, but MORE SO among blacks -- AND that such factors as age, poverty, and exposure to silicofluorides (a mere 150 million Americans) all have significant interactive effects with lead in the environment as predictors of high blood lead or high levels of lead in head hair.

          All these points are more important when we realize that fetal exposure to lead in the first trimester of pregnancy also has life-long effects on brain development. It's some time since I've read this literature, so I don't know whether effects include global brain size: mainly, I recall primarily differences in structure (e.g., to give an example in another sphere, excessive substance abuse by alcholics can damage the size and structure of the hippocampus so they suffer losses in short term memory -- and I can assure you from a personally known example that this DOES happen.)

          Hence it is methodologically no longer sufficient to use entire groups and merely a measure of central tendencies. More important are assessments of multivariate influences and careful assessments of interactive effects on vulnerable subpopulations combined with careful studies of factors associated with the frequency of extreme outliers on relevant parameters.

          Here's an example with regard to blood lead. For a long time, 10 µg/dL was the threshold for known effects on IQ (and our data show that, controlling for other socio-economic and demographic variables, the percent of student population at this level is the strongest significant predictor of scores in NINE different standardized tests in the Mass. MCAS system. Despite the robustness of findings that this 10µg/dL level is truly dangerous, I know a physician who does not chelate (seek to remove) high lead at less than 30µg/dL. THAT IS, OUTLIERS MATTER FOR ALL CONCRETE CONSIDERATIONS, YET THOSE OPPOSED TO A FINDING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR INCREASING LEAD UPTAKE CAN MAKE IT APPEAR TO DISAPPEAR BY TAKING ALL SUBJECTS, WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR AGE, AND DICHOTOMIZE BLOOD LEAD AT 5µg/dL. That just washes out highly important differences of ecological or socio-economic or other sub-group differences/similarities in the statistical measures of central tendency.

          To finish this diatribe with a concrete illustration, I'll add that in COMMENTARY, Murray refers to a decline of the Black White differences in IQ in the 1980's without offering any hypothesis for the causal factors involved. I'd propose the ban on leaded gasoline since lead lowers dopamine function and had a similar effect on rates of violent crime (albeit with a time lag indicating the key role of prenatal effects.) If so, this decline indicates the importance of lead (among other toxins) as a risk cofactor for which control is absolutely necessary -- esp. because it's effects are not reducible to poverty or social class. I'll spare you all with a bibliography in the message box, including it as an enclosure for those interested (though I warn readers that the dependent variable to which most attention is given is the rate of violent crime by county (better data since for some strange reason, we count violent criminals more carefully than learning disabled kids) and the stress is on silicofluoride usage in water supplies as a long ignored independent variable of immense importance. Be that as it may, I plead for a change from the analytical paradigm that has long dominated discussions of IQ. It is time for a strong dose of the principles of epidemiology in medicine.

          roger masters
          --- rushton@... wrote:
          The research on sex differences in brain size and IQ was an unexpected
          spinoff of the research on race differences in brain size and IQ. For me it
          was initially very unwelcome as it posed a serious distraction to the focus
          I was trying to achieve for the field. I had repeatedly found, from 19th
          century data to modern US Army data, that East Asians averaged a larger
          brain volume than did Whites and Whites averaged a larger brain volume than
          did Blacks, which seemed a possible explanation for the race differences
          also then being found in IQ scores. Critics (probably including Fred
          Weizmann, I can't recall) said my explanation was unlikely to be true
          because women have a smaller brain size than do men and yet have the same IQ
          test scores. My initial response was to say that no, men and women have the
          same brain size when corrections are made for body size whereas the race
          differences sometimes become LARGER when corrections are made for body size
          (because Blacks are as large or larger than Whites whereas East Asians are
          typically smaller).

          Then it turned out that my zoology colleague here at UWO, C. Davison Ankney
          (who has become a great collaborator) discovered that in fact women have a
          much smaller brain than do men even after corrections for body size. In a
          1992 paper in Intelligence, Ankney re-analysed 1,000 brain weights at
          autopsy and discovered that males averaged 140-grams more than women before
          adjustments and 100-grams after adjustments. The received wisdom was wrong.
          Researchers had made the difference "disappear" by using an inappropriate
          adjustment based on brain- to body-size ratios, it turns out. I (Rushton,
          1992 in that Intelligence article on a stratified random sample of 6,325
          U.S. military personnel) immediately corroborated Ankney's findings using
          analysis of covariance techniques. These findings were considered
          "revolutionary" at the time (see Maddox's 1992 editorial in Nature). Much
          other data reviewed by Rushton and Ankney in the 1996 Psychonomic Bulletin
          and Review confirmed the sex difference in brain size as well as the
          relation between brain size and cognitive ability. Subsequently, Pakkenberg
          and Gundersen (1997) documented that men have 15% more neurons than women
          (22.8 versus 19.3 billion).


          Enter on stage again Richard Lynn, he of East Asian IQ score fame, who in
          1999 dubbed the findings on sex differences in brain size "the
          Ankney-Rushton anomaly." He argued that if brain size is linked to IQ, and
          males average larger brains than females, then men should have higher
          average intelligence than women and that the nearly 100 year consensus that
          they do not is simply wrong. In support, Lynn (1994, 1999) reviewed data
          from a number of published intelligence tests such as the well-standardized
          highly-g-loaded Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) from
          countries as varied as Britain, Belgium, Greece, China, Israel, the
          Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Japan, India, and Indonesia, as well as the
          United States, and found that men average 3.8 IQ points higher than women.
          Also in support, Lynn and Irwing (2004) carried out a meta-analysis of 57
          studies of sex differences in general population samples on the Standard and
          Advanced Progressive Matrices, one of the most highly-g-loaded tests of
          non-verbal reasoning, and found that, on average, adult men exceed adult
          women by 5.0 IQ points. Subsequently, Irwing and Lynn (in press in the
          British Journal of Psychology) carried out a meta-analysis of 22 studies in
          university samples and found the male advantage on the Progressive Matrices
          of between 3.3 and 5.0 IQ points, with 4.6 being their best estimate.

          A lot of this is discussed in Charles Murray's just published essay in
          Commentary
          http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html

          Here's why sex differences have been missed until Richard Lynn's attempt to
          solve the Ankney-Rushton anomaly. Girls mature faster than boys and this
          masks the underlying cognitive difference until the adolescent growth spurt
          when sex differences in brain size jump from about 50 cubic centimeters to
          150 cubic centimeters. Also, girls and women are much more "conscientious"
          than men and do homework and study for tests and often do better in school.
          With assessment techniques increasingly favoring multiple tests, females are
          favored. When "Final Exams" counted for integrating large knowledge sets and
          weighed 100% (or at least 80%) men were favored.

          I have avoided the sex difference topic for 15 years as I reasoned that
          having just one very controversial position (like race differences) was
          quite enough. Recently, however, in collaboration with my now sadly deceased
          colleague Douglas N. Jackson here at UWO I have analyzed the 145 items on
          the SAT from 100,000 test takers, extracted the g factor, and found that men
          have an advantage of at least 3.6 IQ points at the mean -- very close to
          what Richard Lynn has been reporting based on very different samples and
          assessment techniques. The sex difference in IQ really shows up the further
          out on the right hand side of the bell curve you put the cut-off. One recent
          paper has shown a 0.70 correlation between the SAT (or GRE, I can't recall)
          required to get into (grad) school in a subject and the number of men in
          that subject: e.g., Physics>Biology> Psychology>Sociology>Education. It all
          fits together and shows that psychometrics is fast becoming closer to an
          exact science.

          Well that is surely more than enough for now.

          Have a good weekend,

          Cheers,


          Professor J. Philippe Rushton, Ph.D., D.Sc.
          Department of Psychology,
          University of Western Ontario,
          London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada
          http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_bio.htm
          Tel: 519-661-3685







          Yahoo! Groups Links






          --- end of quote ---
        • Alex Harvey
          Hello, I ve been following this thread with interest, and I d like to ask if anyone can tell me what this quantity *is* that we re reading out of such tests as
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 7, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,

            I've been following this thread with interest, and I'd like to ask if
            anyone can tell me what this quantity *is* that we're reading out of
            such tests as the WAIS-R and giving the value-loaded name of
            "intelligence" to?

            I've read the Charles Murray paper, "The Inequality Taboo," and I'm told
            there that this quantity "intelligence" is associated very closely with
            "visuospatial skill;" it appears to be synonoymous with "cognitive
            skill;" and, gosh, it carries its own directly(?)-proportional "g"-load.
            Better still, it seems to be well-associated with original philosophical
            thought, talent in the visual arts, and skill in musical composition?

            Methinks I'd like some more of whatever this stuff is.

            I'm a musician, myself--not a great one, but good enough to envy the
            intuitive understanding of rhythm & timing that black musicians
            everywhere seem naturally to possess.

            It might as well be noted ... in passing ... that there are many black
            musicians ... Miles Davis ... Jimi Hendrix ... whose names jump out at
            me ... whose genius is widely measured as highly as the greats of
            European history.

            Is musical timing not a ... "cognitive skill"? Indeed? Then why is *it*
            not associated with "intelligence," too? And why are "interpersonal
            skills" not "cognitive skills"? And why not "verbal fluency"? "Mothering
            skills"? I mean, for heaven's sake, if we're going to lump together
            under a single heading so many of the disparate "functions" (for want of
            a better word) that the WAIS-R measures--so many of the things the human
            brain can do--how are we justifying our decision to *in*clude some, and
            to *ex*clude others?

            I don't have any particular problem with the idea that men & women,
            blacks & whites, are different. But is it not possible that the WAIS-R
            (and tests like it) were designed by White Men just to measure those
            things that

            a. White Men value
            b. White Men know have figured out how to measure on a paper test
            c. White Men are apparently (& incidentally...) quite good at?

            Best,

            Alex Harvey
            B.SC(hons)[HPS]
            Sydney, Australia
          • Paul Gross
            In a message dated 9/8/2005 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alex.Harvey@thales-tts.com writes: I don t have any particular problem with the idea that men &
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 8, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/8/2005 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alex.Harvey@... writes:
              I don't have any particular problem with the idea that men & women,
              blacks & whites, are different. But is it not possible that the WAIS-R
              (and tests like it) were designed by White Men just to measure those
              things that

              a. White Men value
              b. White Men know have figured out how to measure on a paper test
              c. White Men are apparently (& incidentally...) quite good at?

              Best,

              Alex Harvey
              B.SC(hons)[HPS]
              Sydney, Australia
              Yes, it's certainly possible, indeed, probable, except for the word "incidentally," which you inserted without justification. We have no evidence that the things "white men are...quite good at" are "incidental." In fact, those things your "white" men are apparently good at happen to be things yellowish-brownish men (and women), I mean some large populations of Asians, are even better at. All your polite wondering is reducible to an experment: Controlling all possible external variables, social, cultural, and physical, what differential -- if any -- exists in the performance, on these or other tests, among groups of humans of different geographic heritage and of statistically-useful size? Now go and examine the literature.
               
              PRG
            • Herbert Gintis
              ... Moreover, there are many different types of IQ tests and they intercorrelated highly. Finally, measured IQ correlates as well as anything, and better than
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 8, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:07 AM 9/8/2005, Paul Gross wrote:
                In a message dated 9/8/2005 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alex.Harvey@... writes:
                I don't have any particular problem with the idea that men & women,
                blacks & whites, are different. But is it not possible that the WAIS-R
                (and tests like it) were designed by White Men just to measure those
                things that

                a. White Men value
                b. White Men know have figured out how to measure on a paper test
                c. White Men are apparently (& incidentally...) quite good at?

                Best,

                Alex Harvey
                B.SC(hons)[HPS]
                Sydney, Australia

                Yes, it's certainly possible, indeed, probable, except for the word "incidentally," which you inserted without justification. We have no evidence that the things "white men are...quite good at" are "incidental." In fact, those things your "white" men are apparently good at happen to be things yellowish-brownish men (and women), I mean some large populations of Asians, are even better at. All your polite wondering is reducible to an experment: Controlling all possible external variables, social, cultural, and physical, what differential -- if any -- exists in the performance, on these or other tests, among groups of humans of different geographic heritage and of statistically-useful size? Now go and examine the literature.
                         Moreover, there are many different types of IQ tests and they intercorrelated highly. Finally, measured IQ correlates as well as anything, and better than most, with future income, educational success and the like.
                         BTW, I never use the term "intelligence" when I mean IQ. There are many forms of intelligence and IQ measures only a small subset (albeit an important subset). For instance, my mom is a very wise and capable woman, but I doubt that she is even average on a standardized IQ test.

                Best,

                HG

                 
                PRG


                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                Herbert Gintis
                Santa Fe Institute and
                Central European University                   
                15 Forbes Avenue, Northampton, MA 01060
                413-586-7756  (Home Office) 775-402-4921 (Fax)
                Recent papers are posted on my web site.
                Get Game Theory Evolving (Princeton, 2000) at Amazon.com
                Get Moral Sentiments and Material Interests (MIT Press, 2005)
                Get Unequal Chances: Family Background and
                  Economic Success (Princeton UP, 2004)
                Get Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments
                  and   Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-scale
                  Societies
                (Oxford UP, 2004).
                Quote of the week:
                         everybody's saying that hell's the hippest way to go
                         I don't think so,  but I'm gonna take a look around

                
                          
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                
                Joni Mitchell

              • Alex Harvey
                ... incidentally, ... the things white ... white men are ... women), I ... polite wondering ... variables, social, ... performance, on ... heritage and of
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 9, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Alex Harvey:

                  >>I don't have any particular problem with the idea that men & women,
                  >>blacks & whites, are different. But is it not possible that the WAIS-R
                  >>(and tests like it) were designed by White Men just to measure those
                  >>things that
                  >>
                  >>a. White Men value
                  >>b. White Men know have figured out how to measure on a paper test
                  >>c. White Men are apparently (& incidentally...) quite good at?

                  Paul Gross:

                  >Yes, it's certainly possible, indeed, probable, except for the word
                  "incidentally,"
                  >which you inserted without justification. We have no evidence that
                  the things "white
                  >men are...quite good at" are "incidental." In fact, those things your
                  "white" men are
                  >apparently good at happen to be things yellowish-brownish men (and
                  women), I
                  >mean some large populations of Asians, are even better at. All your
                  polite wondering
                  >is reducible to an experment: Controlling all possible external
                  variables, social,
                  >cultural, and physical, what differential -- if any -- exists in the
                  performance, on
                  >these or other tests, among groups of humans of different geographic
                  heritage and of
                  >statistically-useful size? Now go and examine the literature.

                  Hi Paul,

                  I apologise for not reviewing the literature, although I've read the
                  papers posted here, and I'm not doubting the results of the
                  experiments or questioning anyone's scholarship. I'm not even doubting
                  that this line of inquiry has value. My point is that these tests--the
                  WAIS-R, the Stanford-Binet test, and so on--were designed within the
                  context of (a) a capitalist world system; and (b) the scientific
                  revolution. So it's not surprising that those brain functions that
                  support the scientific & economic enterprise are valued highly. But I
                  can't see a good reason--once the ethical & intellectual pros & cons
                  are considered--for taking such disparate brain functions as a
                  person's "visual-spatial intelligence," "verbal intelligence,"
                  "memory," and "concentration," and designing a test like the WAIS-R
                  that assigns a scalar integer, now called the "intelligence quotient,"
                  to that person.

                  My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                  intelligence not measured on these tests? Or musical intelligence,
                  generally? Or emotional intelligence? Is creativity measured on the
                  WAIS-R? Completely? Partially? In any measure at all? Yes? No? Maybe?
                  So what, then, *is* the mysterious "IQ"? Where is the evidence that
                  this quantity has any existence at all independently of the tests that
                  purport to measure it? Physicists have shown that waves and particles
                  have no existence independently of the experiments that measure them;
                  how much more so with an unobservable like the "IQ"?

                  Rhythmic intelligence is quite interesting, when you think about it.
                  At the end of the day, it's all very mathematical once you analyse it,
                  and the fact of the matter appears to be that the smaller, African
                  brain is apparently better at this analysis than both its European &
                  Asian counterparts.

                  Does this not invalidate the supposition that "bigger brains are more
                  `intelligent'"? Does it not also raise the question, If Africans are
                  better with musical rhythms, are there not also other things they're
                  also better at?

                  Herbert Gintis:

                  >Moreover, there are many different types of IQ tests and they
                  intercorrelated highly.
                  >Finally, measured IQ correlates as well as anything, and better than
                  most, with
                  >future income, educational success and the like.
                  > BTW, I never use the term "intelligence" when I mean IQ. There
                  are many forms
                  >of intelligence and IQ measures only a small subset (albeit an
                  important subset). For
                  >instance, my mom is a very wise and capable woman, but I doubt that
                  she is even
                  >average on a standardized IQ test.

                  Fair enough, but unfortunately, "IQ" is as value-loaded as
                  "intelligence"; it's an acronym for "Intelligence Quotient," and
                  thought of as synonymous by most people. And, yes, there are many IQ
                  tests, but they're built upon like assumptions with similar agendas.
                  You say, "albeit an important subset." I say, "IQ" is only "important"
                  because we've chosen so to say it is--because we value "income" and
                  "educational success" and IQ is a demonstrated predictor of these
                  things. To go further, and say that "IQ" also predicts literary,
                  musical, artistic success strikes me as outrageous, and serves to show
                  just how far we've associated this "IQ" with a person's intrinsic value.

                  Regarding the "central tendency..." What is that? I mean, if disparate
                  abilities undergo multiplication that produces a scalar "IQ," then how
                  can we *not* expect a "central tendency" to emerge? Multiply in
                  "emotional intelligence," "musical intelligence," and will there not
                  *still* be a "central tendency" emerging? Won't it just have a
                  different integer value?

                  Consider the computer--I know the analogy's not as fashionable as it
                  once was--but it's great device that functions as good as its parts.
                  Is the the speed of our "Central Processing Unit (CPU)" the "central
                  tendency"? My background's in computer science, so I know well that
                  the speed of a CPU is no necessary measure of a particular computer's
                  usefulness. We must consider also the speed & size of its memory. And
                  its buses. And its disks. There is definitely no "central tendency."
                  Well, is not the also brain a device with parts? I'm sorry to argue in
                  this a priori manner, but how can this not be valid? How *can* there,
                  *really,* be a "central tendency," when we consider that the brain is
                  a biological machine with many parts?

                  Best,
                  Alex
                • memills@aol.com
                  In a message dated 9/10/2005 4:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Alex.Harvey@thales-tts.com writes: My question doesn t appear to have been answered: Why is
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 10, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 9/10/2005 4:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Alex.Harvey@... writes:
                    My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                    intelligence not measured on these tests? Or musical intelligence,
                    generally? Or emotional intelligence?
                    It depends on what you want to predict.
                     
                    From a purely psychometric perspective, the purpose of testing
                    is to predict future behavior.    If a test does so, it can be potentially
                    useful because predicting future behavior is very hard to do.  
                    Practically, it doesn't matter if you know why it helps predict -- the fact that
                    it does (statistically speaking) is useful in itself.
                     
                    IQ tests predict GPA, as well as job performance in some occupations.
                     
                    I'm not sure adding a test of musical intelligence would predict much
                    more of the variance on these outcome variables.  But, if you find
                    some outcome variable that you are interested in predicting, and it
                    is better predicted by adding a test of musical
                    intelligence, go for it...
                     
                    Cheers,
                     -- Mike
                     
                     
                     
                    Michael E. Mills, Ph.D.
                    Associate Professor
                    Psychology Department
                    Loyola Marymount University
                    One LMU Drive
                    Los Angeles, CA 90045

                    310-338-3017  
                    memills@...   / mmills@...
                    http://www.DrMillsLMU.com

                    =========================================
                    Donate your computer's idle time to help with scientific research:

                    Grid.org:
                    http://www.grid.org

                    ==============================================

                    A "heads up" -- we are entering a post "peak oil" age. See:

                    http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/PeakOil.htm
                  • Nils K. Oeijord
                    Hi Michael E. Mills! Hi all! ... predict future behavior... Yes and NO. Religion and language are behavior, but Catholicism and Norwegian are actions.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 11, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Michael E. Mills! Hi all!

                      "... predict future behavior..." Yes and NO. Religion and language
                      are behavior, but Catholicism and Norwegian are actions. Behavior is
                      genetic, but actions are not genetic. We all have the same human
                      instincts in the future as we have today, but our actions may change
                      in the future. So: "... predict future actions ..." is the correct
                      expression here. You are here actually confusing "behavior"
                      and "action" as do "all" other members of this EP Yahoo! group. I've
                      a couple of times tried to explain the behavior/actions distinction
                      to this group, but totally in vain. ... Only one more example: To
                      solve a mathematics problem is action, not behavior. A mathematics
                      professor is good at solving mathematics excercises. A young boy is
                      not that good. But the boy's mathematical BEHAVIOR may be absolutely
                      extraordinary. He may be much more talented in mathematics than the
                      mathematics professor.

                      If you know about literature references about the behavior/action
                      distinction, please let me know.

                      With best wishes from
                      Nils K. Oeijord,
                      Tromso,
                      Norway





                      > From: memills@...
                      > Sent: 2005-09-10 21:59:48 CEST
                      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Sex Differences in Brain Size and IQ
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 9/10/2005 4:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                      > Alex.Harvey@... writes:
                      >
                      > My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                      > intelligence not measured on these tests? Or musical intelligence,
                      > generally? Or emotional intelligence?
                      >
                      >
                      > It depends on what you want to predict.
                      >
                      > From a purely psychometric perspective, the purpose of testing
                      > is to predict future behavior. If a test does so, it can be
                      potentially
                      > useful because predicting future behavior is very hard to do.
                      > Practically, it doesn't matter if you know why it helps predict --
                      the fact
                      > that
                      > it does (statistically speaking) is useful in itself.
                      >
                      > IQ tests predict GPA, as well as job performance in some
                      occupations.
                      >
                      > I'm not sure adding a test of musical intelligence would predict
                      much
                      > more of the variance on these outcome variables. But, if you find
                      > some outcome variable that you are interested in predicting, and it
                      > is better predicted by adding a test of musical
                      > intelligence, go for it...
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      > -- Mike
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Michael E. Mills, Ph.D.
                      > Associate Professor
                      > Psychology Department
                      > Loyola Marymount University
                      > One LMU Drive
                      > Los Angeles, CA 90045
                      >
                      > 310-338-3017
                      > memills@... / mmills@...
                      > _http://www.DrMillsLMU.com_ (http://www.drmillslmu.com/)
                      >
                      > =========================================
                      > Donate your computer's idle time to help with scientific research:
                      >
                      > Grid.org:
                      > _http://www.grid.org_ (http://www.grid.org/)
                      >
                      > ==============================================
                      >
                      > A "heads up" -- we are entering a post "peak oil" age. See:
                      >
                      > http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/PeakOil.htm



                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, memills@a... wrote:
                      >
                      > In a message dated 9/10/2005 4:31:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                      > Alex.Harvey@t... writes:
                      >
                      > My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                      > intelligence not measured on these tests? Or musical intelligence,
                      > generally? Or emotional intelligence?
                      >
                      >
                      > It depends on what you want to predict.
                      >
                      > From a purely psychometric perspective, the purpose of testing
                      > is to predict future behavior. If a test does so, it can be
                      potentially
                      > useful because predicting future behavior is very hard to do.
                      > Practically, it doesn't matter if you know why it helps predict --
                      the fact
                      > that
                      > it does (statistically speaking) is useful in itself.
                      >
                      > IQ tests predict GPA, as well as job performance in some
                      occupations.
                      >
                      > I'm not sure adding a test of musical intelligence would predict
                      much
                      > more of the variance on these outcome variables. But, if you find
                      > some outcome variable that you are interested in predicting, and it
                      > is better predicted by adding a test of musical
                      > intelligence, go for it...
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      > -- Mike
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Michael E. Mills, Ph.D.
                      > Associate Professor
                      > Psychology Department
                      > Loyola Marymount University
                      > One LMU Drive
                      > Los Angeles, CA 90045
                      >
                      > 310-338-3017
                      > memills@g... / mmills@l...
                      > _http://www.DrMillsLMU.com_ (http://www.drmillslmu.com/)
                      >
                      > =========================================
                      > Donate your computer's idle time to help with scientific research:
                      >
                      > Grid.org:
                      > _http://www.grid.org_ (http://www.grid.org/)
                      >
                      > ==============================================
                      >
                      > A "heads up" -- we are entering a post "peak oil" age. See:
                      >
                      > http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/PeakOil.htm
                    • commons@tiac.net
                      We need tests that are not based on norms buy are order difficulty in another way. Stages based on hierarchical complexity do just that. See the website
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 11, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        We need tests that are not based on norms buy are order difficulty in
                        another way. Stages based on hierarchical complexity do just that. See the
                        website below

                        My best,

                        Michael Lamport Commons, Ph.D.
                        Assistant Clinical Professor

                        Program in Psychiatry and the Law
                        Department of Psychiatry
                        Harvard Medical School
                        The Massachusetts Mental Health Center Academic Division of Public
                        Psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
                        Center
                        234 Huron Avenue
                        Cambridge, MA 02138-1328

                        Telephone (617) 497-5270
                        Facsimile (617) 491-5270

                        Commons@...
                        http://dareassociation.org/
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Alex Harvey" <Alex.Harvey@...>
                        To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:55 PM
                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Sex Differences in Brain Size and IQ


                        > Alex Harvey:
                        >
                        >>>I don't have any particular problem with the idea that men & women,
                        >>>blacks & whites, are different. But is it not possible that the WAIS-R
                        >>>(and tests like it) were designed by White Men just to measure those
                        >>>things that
                        >>>
                        >>>a. White Men value
                        >>>b. White Men know have figured out how to measure on a paper test
                        >>>c. White Men are apparently (& incidentally...) quite good at?
                        >
                        > Paul Gross:
                        >
                        >>Yes, it's certainly possible, indeed, probable, except for the word
                        > "incidentally,"
                        >>which you inserted without justification. We have no evidence that
                        > the things "white
                        >>men are...quite good at" are "incidental." In fact, those things your
                        > "white" men are
                        >>apparently good at happen to be things yellowish-brownish men (and
                        > women), I
                        >>mean some large populations of Asians, are even better at. All your
                        > polite wondering
                        >>is reducible to an experment: Controlling all possible external
                        > variables, social,
                        >>cultural, and physical, what differential -- if any -- exists in the
                        > performance, on
                        >>these or other tests, among groups of humans of different geographic
                        > heritage and of
                        >>statistically-useful size? Now go and examine the literature.
                        >
                        > Hi Paul,
                        >
                        > I apologise for not reviewing the literature, although I've read the
                        > papers posted here, and I'm not doubting the results of the
                        > experiments or questioning anyone's scholarship. I'm not even doubting
                        > that this line of inquiry has value. My point is that these tests--the
                        > WAIS-R, the Stanford-Binet test, and so on--were designed within the
                        > context of (a) a capitalist world system; and (b) the scientific
                        > revolution. So it's not surprising that those brain functions that
                        > support the scientific & economic enterprise are valued highly. But I
                        > can't see a good reason--once the ethical & intellectual pros & cons
                        > are considered--for taking such disparate brain functions as a
                        > person's "visual-spatial intelligence," "verbal intelligence,"
                        > "memory," and "concentration," and designing a test like the WAIS-R
                        > that assigns a scalar integer, now called the "intelligence quotient,"
                        > to that person.
                        >
                        > My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                        > intelligence not measured on these tests? Or musical intelligence,
                        > generally? Or emotional intelligence? Is creativity measured on the
                        > WAIS-R? Completely? Partially? In any measure at all? Yes? No? Maybe?
                        > So what, then, *is* the mysterious "IQ"? Where is the evidence that
                        > this quantity has any existence at all independently of the tests that
                        > purport to measure it? Physicists have shown that waves and particles
                        > have no existence independently of the experiments that measure them;
                        > how much more so with an unobservable like the "IQ"?
                        >
                        > Rhythmic intelligence is quite interesting, when you think about it.
                        > At the end of the day, it's all very mathematical once you analyse it,
                        > and the fact of the matter appears to be that the smaller, African
                        > brain is apparently better at this analysis than both its European &
                        > Asian counterparts.
                        >
                        > Does this not invalidate the supposition that "bigger brains are more
                        > `intelligent'"? Does it not also raise the question, If Africans are
                        > better with musical rhythms, are there not also other things they're
                        > also better at?
                        >
                        > Herbert Gintis:
                        >
                        >>Moreover, there are many different types of IQ tests and they
                        > intercorrelated highly.
                        >>Finally, measured IQ correlates as well as anything, and better than
                        > most, with
                        >>future income, educational success and the like.
                        >> BTW, I never use the term "intelligence" when I mean IQ. There
                        > are many forms
                        >>of intelligence and IQ measures only a small subset (albeit an
                        > important subset). For
                        >>instance, my mom is a very wise and capable woman, but I doubt that
                        > she is even
                        >>average on a standardized IQ test.
                        >
                        > Fair enough, but unfortunately, "IQ" is as value-loaded as
                        > "intelligence"; it's an acronym for "Intelligence Quotient," and
                        > thought of as synonymous by most people. And, yes, there are many IQ
                        > tests, but they're built upon like assumptions with similar agendas.
                        > You say, "albeit an important subset." I say, "IQ" is only "important"
                        > because we've chosen so to say it is--because we value "income" and
                        > "educational success" and IQ is a demonstrated predictor of these
                        > things. To go further, and say that "IQ" also predicts literary,
                        > musical, artistic success strikes me as outrageous, and serves to show
                        > just how far we've associated this "IQ" with a person's intrinsic value.
                        >
                        > Regarding the "central tendency..." What is that? I mean, if disparate
                        > abilities undergo multiplication that produces a scalar "IQ," then how
                        > can we *not* expect a "central tendency" to emerge? Multiply in
                        > "emotional intelligence," "musical intelligence," and will there not
                        > *still* be a "central tendency" emerging? Won't it just have a
                        > different integer value?
                        >
                        > Consider the computer--I know the analogy's not as fashionable as it
                        > once was--but it's great device that functions as good as its parts.
                        > Is the the speed of our "Central Processing Unit (CPU)" the "central
                        > tendency"? My background's in computer science, so I know well that
                        > the speed of a CPU is no necessary measure of a particular computer's
                        > usefulness. We must consider also the speed & size of its memory. And
                        > its buses. And its disks. There is definitely no "central tendency."
                        > Well, is not the also brain a device with parts? I'm sorry to argue in
                        > this a priori manner, but how can this not be valid? How *can* there,
                        > *really,* be a "central tendency," when we consider that the brain is
                        > a biological machine with many parts?
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > Alex
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • H.M. Hubey
                        ... Maybe this is the answer: for the same reason that elephant intelligence is not measured e.g. pulling down trees. We have bulldozers for it. for the same
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 11, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Alex Harvey wrote:

                          >
                          >My question doesn't appear to have been answered: Why is rhythmic
                          >intelligence not measured on these tests?
                          >
                          Maybe this is the answer:
                          for the same reason that elephant intelligence is not measured e.g. pulling
                          down trees. We have bulldozers for it.

                          for the same reason cheetah intelligence is not measured e.g. running
                          fast. we have
                          cars that can go faster.

                          for the same reason turtle intelligence is not measured e.g. swimming
                          under water for
                          many minutes. We have submarines.

                          for the same reason that bird intelligence is not measured e.g. flying.
                          we have airplanes.

                          >Or musical intelligence,
                          >generally?
                          >

                          Music uses the same serial intelligence as language and same parallel
                          processing
                          intelligence as spatial reasoning. There is not such thing as musical
                          intelligence just
                          as there is no such thing as poetry intelligence, history intelligence,
                          geography intelligence,
                          dancing intelligence or fishing intelligence.

                          >Or emotional intelligence? Is creativity measured on the
                          >WAIS-R? Completely? Partially? In any measure at all? Yes? No? Maybe?
                          >So what, then, *is* the mysterious "IQ"? Where is the evidence that
                          >this quantity has any existence at all independently of the tests that
                          >purport to measure it? Physicists have shown that waves and particles
                          >have no existence independently of the experiments that measure them;
                          >
                          >
                          Which physicist has shown this? How can anyone show that existence of a
                          wave without being
                          able to measure it to show its existence?

                          Where are the tests for musical intelligence?
                          Where are the tests for interpersonal intelligence? Where is the proof
                          that interpresonal
                          intelligence exists independently of intrapersonal intelligence?



                          >how much more so with an unobservable like the "IQ"?
                          >
                          >

                          Do you know anything about measurement?

                          >Rhythmic intelligence is quite interesting, when you think about it.
                          >
                          >
                          How abouty chaotic and arrhythmic intelligence? Is not not interesting?

                          How about random motion intelligence? Is that not interesting?

                          >At the end of the day, it's all very mathematical once you analyse it,
                          >
                          >

                          I guess you have the math for this interesting phenomena. How about
                          showing it to us.


                          > Fair enough, but unfortunately, "IQ" is as value-loaded as
                          >
                          >"intelligence"; it's an acronym for "Intelligence Quotient," and
                          >thought of as synonymous by most people. And, yes, there are many IQ
                          >tests, but they're built upon like assumptions with similar agendas.
                          >You say, "albeit an important subset." I say, "IQ" is only "important"
                          >because we've chosen so to say it is--because we value "income" and
                          >"educational success" and IQ is a demonstrated predictor of these
                          >things.
                          >
                          If we are to take the multiple-intelligences rubbish seriously, we'd
                          have to conclude that blacks have
                          a lot of janitorial intelligence. No, we do not value janitorial
                          activity very highly.




                          >To go further, and say that "IQ" also predicts literary,
                          >musical, artistic success strikes me as outrageous, and serves to show
                          >just how far we've associated this "IQ" with a person's intrinsic value.
                          >
                          >
                          A person is worth what a person is worth. What he can contribute to
                          society is what we pay humans.
                          IT's called democracy. People are willing to pay what they think
                          something is worth.


                          >Regarding the "central tendency..." What is that? I mean, if disparate
                          >abilities undergo multiplication that produces a scalar "IQ," then how
                          >can we *not* expect a "central tendency" to emerge?
                          >

                          Exactly. Any set of numbers has an average.

                          >Multiply in
                          >"emotional intelligence," "musical intelligence," and will there not
                          >*still* be a "central tendency" emerging? Won't it just have a
                          >different integer value?
                          >
                          >

                          Why would it be an integer?

                          >Consider the computer--I know the analogy's not as fashionable as it
                          >once was--but it's great device that functions as good as its parts.
                          >Is the the speed of our "Central Processing Unit (CPU)" the "central
                          >tendency"? My background's in computer science, so I know well that
                          >the speed of a CPU is no necessary measure of a particular computer's
                          >usefulness. We must consider also the speed & size of its memory. And
                          >its buses. And its disks. There is definitely no "central tendency."
                          >
                          >

                          In that case you should read my paper on intelligence. I am also a
                          computer scientist.

                          http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey/ZIP/intelligence.pdf

                          >Well, is not the also brain a device with parts? I'm sorry to argue in
                          >this a priori manner, but how can this not be valid? How *can* there,
                          >*really,* be a "central tendency," when we consider that the brain is
                          >a biological machine with many parts?
                          >
                          >Best,
                          >Alex
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Rick O'Gorman
                          Nils, I don t get your point here at all. Behavior is genetic but actions are not? Sorry, but I think behavior is a genes/environment co-production. And a set
                          Message 12 of 13 , Sep 12, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Nils,

                            I don't get your point here at all. Behavior is genetic but actions are
                            not? Sorry, but I think behavior is a genes/environment co-production.
                            And a set of actions to me constitutes behavior. Given that this is how
                            I think its used by biologists, and others, and you agree everyone on
                            this list uses it *wrong*, aren't you defining the dichotomy from a
                            minority position? Why is your definition inherently correct?

                            --
                            Rick O’Gorman, PhD
                            Research Associate
                            Department of Psychology
                            Keynes College
                            University of Kent
                            Canterbury CT2 7NP
                            UK

                            Phone: 01227 827374
                            Fax: 01227 827030
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.