I don't think "g" is an explanation. It's a phenomenon that suggests the likelihood of common factors that influence many abilities in the same direction. It doesn't tell us what the explanation (e.g., in terms of brain differences) is.
-
-
Replying to @HobbesianM @TheDisproof and
'g' is a myth. It's not biological or physiological. What explains test variance is not g, but a sociocognitive-affective nexus that differentially prepares individuals for test-taking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @TheDisproof and
It's a statistical fact. Some inferences drawn from that fact might be myths, but not the fact itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HobbesianM @TheDisproof and
The explanation isn't 'general intelligence' though. That's the myth
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @TheDisproof and
You think it's a myth, I think more data is needed. You seem to follow Ken Richardson in thinking class differences are just a massive coincidence. I think evolution means any class differences must eventually become genetically entrenched under assortative mating.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HobbesianM @TheDisproof and
The genetic class differences are due to genetic stratification. There are genetic differences between classes that are irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment. No evidence exists that genes cause individual differences in IQ scores.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Race__Realist @HobbesianM and
Either way, natural selection acts to lower genetic variation in traits important for survival. I'm sure you'd agree that intelligence is important to survival. Therefore genetic variation for intelligence in the human species should similarly be low as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Race__Realist @HobbesianM and
Come on. There is evidence of genetic differences causing differences in IQ scores. IQ does not just measure socioeconomics, but there is some correlation there since being dumb makes people poor. Just look at SAT scores: the richest group of blacks score = poorest whites
3 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HbdNrx @Race__Realist and
And the idea that intelligence doesn't help survival is crazy. Only in modern societies might it not be selected for, but that is an artifact of the welfare state and the last 150 years
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HbdNrx @HobbesianM and
So then if intelligence is useful in an evolutionary sense then variation in intelligence will be selected against since natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival. It
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Intelligence is also costly and has different value in different environments. Strength is obviously a good trait for survival, too, but there's plenty of variation in it.
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx @HobbesianM and
How does it have different value in different environments? The point of bringing up genetic variation is the sky-high heritability of IQ which is due to the flawed twin method. Controlled breeding studies don't show any heritability estimates that high for animals
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @HbdNrx and
Therefore it's the method we use to find the heritability that's flawed. Intelligence should have a low variation since it's a trait important for survival. See Ronald Fisher and others who have corroborated this.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.