351–359 of 359 posts
Isn’t giving LLMs “IQ scores” a category error? Human IQ is norm-referenced psychometrics under embodied noise. Calling both “IQ” isn’t harmless, it invites bad policy and building decisions on a false equivalence. Don’t promote it.
IQ scores are basically scores on an IQ test. They can be interesting or misapplied with both humans and AI.
The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others - the “positive manifold.” They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. Early tests (e.g., Binet–Simon; later Stanford–Binet and Wechsler) sampled a wide range of tasks, and researchers used correlations and factor analysis to extract the common component, then norm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the controversy I have seen come from people, who think that even talking about possible differences between groups of people is racist, sexist, whathaveyou.
Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.
But really, if you can't go about doing more studies on race and IQ, we'll never really know. It's a valid and legitimate scientific question
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Human 'races' are not in fact unique, distinguished and separate from other 'races'. Genetically, two sub Sahara African men could be more genetically distinct than one of those men and a random white man even they should be both 'black'.
The problem you describe only concerns people who don't know anything about the subject, but still have no shame to have strong opinions about it. Nobody in race sciences (anthropology, etc) claim that there are only unique races that are separate from each other and don't mix. This is a clear strawman. The fact that there is mixing between races does not mean that races don't exist. You can make an emulsion out of w…
Between us, you are clearly the one with no clue about what he's talking about.
There’s more genetic variation within any so-called racial group than between groups, race mixing or not. Clearly, 'race' has no genetic justification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem you describe only concerns people who don't know anything about the subject, but still have no shame to have strong opinions about it. Nobody in race sciences (anthropology, etc) claim that there are only unique races that are separate from each other and don't mix. This is a clear strawman. The fact that there is mixing between races does not mean that races don't exist. You can make an emulsion out of w…
My example has nothing to do with race mixing lmao. Two Sub Saharan Africans today are literally descendants of people that never left the continent, there's no amount of 'race mixing' that would causing one of them to be genetically closer to another 'race' than to each other if race was a genetic reality. You're just an idiot with poor reading comprehension. Between us, you are clearly the one with no clue about wh…
You must be one of those clueless people who think that sex is fluid and is a social construct because there is in certain characteristics a bigger difference within each sex than between the medium of each sexes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the controversy I have seen come from people, who think that even talking about possible differences between groups of people is racist, sexist, whathaveyou.
Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling something "controversial" is a total non-argument. The book's science about IQ is solid. In actuality, the content of the book was simply a collection of mainstream scientific consensus ideas at that time, without specific controversial add-ons. It's only after the book was published, the book unexpectedly was attacked by proto-woke people.
Yeah Nazi aligned eugenicist science is totally mainstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.
I read the book Bell Curve years ago, but I remember the analysis being that the found statistically significant differences between race and IQ. The authors argued that individual differences in IQ within a population are strongly influenced by genetics (heritability estimates around 40–80%). They emphasized that this doesn’t mean IQ is fixed, but that genes play a large role in explaining why individuals differ. Th…
Most of the reason you don't hear about current research into behavioral genetics is that a, uh, very particular excitable subset of Internet commenters are actually interested in this research, and the research results aren't coming out the way they want them to.
(You can get an isomorphic answer substituting psychometrics for behavioral genetics; this is the "twin studies" line of research that Richard Herrnstein relied on in the book, and it too is actively studied, but not talked about because the answers don't come out the way --- let's call them "Herrnstein fans" --- want them to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My example has nothing to do with race mixing lmao. Two Sub Saharan Africans today are literally descendants of people that never left the continent, there's no amount of 'race mixing' that would causing one of them to be genetically closer to another 'race' than to each other if race was a genetic reality. You're just an idiot with poor reading comprehension. Between us, you are clearly the one with no clue about wh…
You are only further proving my exact point. You must be one of those clueless people who think that sex is fluid and is a social construct because there is in certain characteristics a bigger difference within each sex than between the medium of each sexes.