Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Stefan Molyneux on Controversies (Pt. 2)" video.

  1. https://youtu.be/PY4sShDt9to http://www.richardhaier.com/ Check the above out, PhD National Institute of Mental Health, settled science.
    1
  2. http://www.richardhaier.com/
    1
  3. This link provides evidence from the National Institute of Health that there is a physical analogue, it's called DNA http://www.richardhaier.com/ https://youtu.be/PY4sShDt9to
    1
  4. Jim Bo, intelligence as defined by science cannot be different in every culture, that would be racial and cultural discrimination.
    1
  5. Nathan, I think you may want to take another look at current IQ and G-Factor testing and what they measure, which has to be consistent to have integrity.
    1
  6. Epigenentics are factor, but a small one, and does not explain how IQ follows populations as they move around the globe. The "wandering" Ashkenazi Jew is a good example. Eastern European Jews got taller in America, but the general IQ factors stayed the same. It is primarily DNA, which means it is both racial and gender based. Time to allow for this research to be funded and explored.
    1
  7. Found in the DNA at NIMH.
    1
  8. A study at an Ivy League school on IQ and success showed that at the graduate level, no matter how hard someone with an IQ of 130 worked, they never caught up with those with an IQ of 160, in fact, they lost ground, and fast. We, as a culture and society, are going to at some point face the fact that all people do not experience reality in the same. I don't know what the answer is, what social structures we need to accommodate this fact, but it we must face it, not hide it.
    1
  9. We know stress does have an affect.
    1
  10. I agree, do know harm.
    1
  11. Nathan, yes, the United States Armed Services requires an IQ of 85 plus. 16.7% of the US has an IQ of 85 or less, that's about 50 million people, and 13 million of those are children, this is a MAJOR issue.
    1
  12. Jim Bo, not even close to what the science of IQ does.
    1
  13. LOL, that's why Microsoft went to China, a higher probability of finding high IQs, and that's a FACT.
    1
  14. Nathan, yes, I agree, Jim Bo is stuck with something akin to a theology, a denier of Science.
    1
  15. Jim Bo, Eistein's brain was studied by the famous lady from Berkeley with the HAT BOX, Marion Diamond, and she found it was not about size or neurons: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/07/28/marian-diamond-known-for-studies-of-einsteins-brain-dies-at-90 I've been studying this stuff for 35 years, you are just not up to date, and based on this thread, you take an almost theological, anti-Science view of IQ.
    1
  16. Jim Bo, settled science, they've moved on to DNA for the fix.
    1
  17. it, that's true, and while there is myth that Harvard and Princeton had quotas against Jews in the 1920's and 1930's, it was considered, because of the disproportionate numbers qualifying for entrance. And remember, these were 1st generation immigrants who came from Eastern Europe where most of their parents and grand-parents had been illiterate. Look up the life story of Famous Nathan of the hot dog fame.
    1
  18. Charles JD Blagdon, this argument does take environment into account, as he recounts the widely published studies on the Head Start program, which had almost no affect on IQ, but some affect on cultural behavior only.
    1
  19. Chris Goldthorpe: Yes, I agree... the science is in, the issue is a PR one, not science. I wonder if anyone will ever apologize to the family of William Shockley, he was correct, just ahead of his time, and oh so politically uncorrect. The FACTS are dangerous, no doubt, and at the recent Munk debates with Jordan Peterson and Michael Eric Dyson, the issue of IQ came up, but was not discussed. Dyson tried to pull JBP in, but he wouldn't go there.
    1
  20. Nathan, agreed modern testing is based on a number of categories, and the G-Factor is highly inheritable, FACT.
    1
  21. SwankFiber 52: Agreed, stats are not enough, you must start and end with Scientific method which is rigorously tested and peer reviewed. This has been done, it is FACT.
    1
  22. cueballB: Absolutely! John's Crazy Socks https://youtu.be/FDYVVDbUQ_s Testimony in front of Congress https://youtu.be/jTbe-u-n0T4 The facts of IQ need to be discussed, openly, because technology is always ahead of our ability to deal with it.
    1
  23. CueballB: What does a modern, technologically based society due when 17% of its population have an IQ of 85 or less. The US Armed Services have a policy that rejects them from service. In the US, that works out to more than 50 million people who are only marginally employable, and will require social services all their life. IQ is a damn important issue, and with science reaching the point of identifying IQ in DNA, we are going to be faced with some very difficult moral and ethical decisions, so it must be discussed. The issue is not about individual value, or slight differences between individuals who may have had a bad day when testing, but the larger set of social values IQ represent, and we face as a society. In the 1950's academia did research, and that research was stopped because of "political correctness", and went underground, to some degree. It is making a comeback, because experiments like Head Start did not work. IQ is going to push back in as a public issue, and it's not like it has not been in the past. Time to revisit: Flowers For Algernon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charly
    1
  24. Einstein's Brain: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/feb/21/neuroscience.highereducation
    1