Why black men have a bigger penis

[cole grey]

Occam’s razor or plain common sense

The average IQ is 100 so I feel comfortable saying that my sense is better than common sense. Common sense though agrees with me - take a very intelligent child and put it in an environment where it will not get educated, and its IQ score will easily drop 15 points from what it would have been with a great education - This is so obvious.
You are the one with a correlation-causation problem.
If IQ scores go up with years educated, does it mean that IQ causes the person to stay in school? Could ANY of the other manay, many factors be involved?

Also, Occam's razor is a tool used to shorten the time it takes to find an answer, it doesn't say, "pick any two possible explanations for the phenomenon observed, the least complex one is most likely the correct one." That would be a piece of wood carved into a dull knife in imitation of Occam. Putting in ALL the variables is actually what would get rid of unnecessary assumptions in this case.

Also, Francois, there have been a few studies on twins, and I don't have all the details yet, but I would say that heritability is understood by every expert as greater within families than between them, so identical twins should exhibit more heritability of traits. Great.
But are you saying these people - Hume, Berkley and Bentham - wouldn't have lost at least at least 15 points of IQ, off of their iq scores if they were educated in appalachia?????????

 

[francois]

The average IQ is 100 so I feel comfortable saying that my sense is better than common sense.

Actually, the average IQ is more like 90. The average world IQ.

Common sense though agrees with me - take a very intelligent child and put it in an environment where it will not get educated, and its IQ score will easily drop 15 points from what it would have been with a great education - This is so obvious.

Obviously you want us to take your word on it.

Also, Occam's razor is a tool used to shorten the time it takes to find an answer, it doesn't say, "pick any two possible explanations for the phenomenon observed, the least complex one is most likely the correct one." That would be a piece of wood carved into a dull knife in imitation of Occam. Putting in ALL the variables is actually what would get rid of unnecessary assumptions in this case.

All Occam's Razor says is: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. That's it.

Also, Francois, there have been a few studies on twins, and I don't have all the details yet, but I would say that heritability is understood by every expert as greater within families than between them, so identical twins should exhibit more heritability of traits. Great.

The point is that IQ is nearly identical among identical twins. Identical twins = same exact genetics. IQ isn't identical among regular siblings. This suggests that genetics play a very important role in measurable intelligence.

But are you saying these people - Hume, Berkley and Bentham - wouldn't have lost at least at least 15 points of IQ, off of their iq scores if they were educated in appalachia?????????

Even if they got 15 points knocked off, they'd still be geniuses.

Are we starting like this again cocksucker first class?

We all know you are a fucking dumb piece of shit whose views are clouded by the putrid stinking worm you call your brain.

You dam well know what i am saying dildo face.

There are definitely cultural differences between ethnic groups in the USA which can easily explain the correlation between ethnic background and IQ test result.

However, since you seem to consist mainly out of biased biggotry you persist in your silly ideology. It must be race he screams with fire in his eyes.

You never even did my list. Because you can't. you can't prove anything. and now you have to result to insults.

You sir are indeed a first class piece of poo. One that smells of dead chipmunks and unwashed jockstraps.

Ah, another content void post. What's that make it, spurious? Number 14,921?

 

[cole grey]

All Occam's Razor says is: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. That's it.

No, no, no. It says that the valid answer with the least assumptions is most likely to be correct - it most assuredly does not say that the simplest theory is most likely to be correct. If, by simplifying an answer, you create assumptions, then you are NOT using Occam's razor.
The simplest answer to why birds sing, is "because they like to", but that is obviously not a complete explanation, as the data shows they probably have other reasons, mating calls, warnings, etc.
Out of all the answers, we consider scientifically correct, very few are the simplest possible.

Even if they got 15 points knocked off, they'd still be geniuses.

What about people who have an IQ of 90 , who get 15 points knocked off? Would they still be "average"?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Actually, the average IQ is more like 90. The average world IQ.

The IQ tests measures the some of the cognitive capabilities as compared to the general population. The median score is 100. Average intelligence will be within the 90 and 110 score.

If the test was done properly it would have to be re-normalized with every test (of the population). However, staticians are known to be lazy and only normalize the scores every few years. Well, in fact often more than a few years.

The average world IQ would therefore be close to the median of 100 if the test results were properly normalized.

If that would be possible of course. If you actually look at what kind of tests were done in different countries you will notice that they cannot be compared. Sample sizes were different. Age distributions were different. Language was different. Education systems were different.

When comparing IQ test between nations you are in fact comparing apples with pears, oranges, bananas and mangos.

A silly endeavour!

 

[francois]

The IQ tests measures the some of the cognitive capabilities as compared to the general population.

Interesting. So now you're finally conceding with the scientists--that IQ tests do in fact measure cognitve ability. Thank god.

me: It's [IQ tests] an intelligence indicator.
you: No, it's not. It's a test to define how well you are doing at school. a

The average world IQ would therefore be close to the median of 100 if the test results were properly normalized.

I got the figures from here:

Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ's are assumed to form a normal probability distribution ("bell curve") with the standard deviation set at 15. Here are a few examples:

When comparing IQ test between nations you are in fact comparing apples with pears, oranges, bananas and mangos.

You want me to take your word for it?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Interesting. So now you're finally conceding with the scientists--that IQ tests do in fact measure cognitve ability. Thank god.

I am under the impression you just failed one of cognitive ability tests: the comprehensive reading test.

Clearly I said the IQ measures some of the cognitive abilities. Feel free to inquire where you went wrong if you still do not understand.

That said you also failed the cognitive memory test:
I have never claimed that the test was very good. I'd rather made my objections clear earlier in this thread. Feel free to inform me if I need to reiterate all my arguments in every post.

You want me to take your word for it?

Feel free to translate the IQ test of your preference in Swahili in a meaningful manner. Feel free to test it now with people who never went to school. Feel free to use the test with people who went to school there for a few years.

Now let me know if you are comparing apples with apples.

I already told you I score lower on an english IQ test compared to a Dutch one. Did my intelligence suddenly change?

 

[cole grey]

I already told you I score lower on an english IQ test compared to a Dutch one. Did my intelligence suddenly change?

This one fact is such a great point about education and its correlation with IQ, I don't know how anyone can miss it. I am dumbfounded, my jaw drops, my head spins in a maelstrom of cognitive dissonance - I know it is impossible not to understand the incredible importance education plays, yet I see proof that it is possible to misunderstand this reality.

 

[francois]

I am under the impression you just failed one of cognitive ability tests: the comprehensive reading test.

Clearly I said the IQ measures some of the cognitive abilities. Feel free to inquire where you went wrong if you still do not understand.

You're making me reiterate myself. I said earlier in the thread that the IQ test is an intelligence indicator. You said it is not. And now you're saying they do measure cognitive ability. Are you saying there is a distinction between intelligence and cognitive ability? Let me be clear: when I say intelligence, I mean cognitive ability. So, to me, when you say IQ has nothing to do with intelligence and then turn around and say it [IQ tests] measures cognitive ability, you come off as contradicting yourself. That's all I was pointing out.

That said you also failed the cognitive memory test:
I have never claimed that the test was very good. I'd rather made my objections clear earlier in this thread. Feel free to inform me if I need to reiterate all my arguments in every post.

What's your evidence that the tests aren't good? I know you've given anecdotal evidence, but that's not good enough for our purposes. Don't tell me things like, "Blacks get worse education and socioeconomic status (SES) and thus don't have good IQs."--obviously education and SES play a factor, but it begs the question: how MUCH does it effect IQ? Give me studies that show your point. Don't ask me to take your word on these things.

I already told you I score lower on an english IQ test compared to a Dutch one. Did my intelligence suddenly change?

I already acknowledged that culture and education do play a role. This has been my stance from the beginning. The question is how much. Jensen estimates the heritability (h^2) of IQ at an average of .8. He has repeatedly shown that blacks have lower IQs than whites and other ethnicities, and that the underlying reason is primarily genetic.

Yeah, people hate him.

 

[francois]

I was just thinking. It is my contention that, generally, as brain size increases, genital size decreases. This is because the two vie for resources. Brains require tons of energy, and so do testicles, since it is their job to produce a shit ton of sperm, which proves to be a job that comes with a substantial economic cost.

This relationship, as I mentioned before, is found in bats and other mammals. It appears true for humans too, for example, East Asians have the largest brains and the smallest genitals, where Africans have the smallest brains and the largest genitals. Obviously for you guys (cole and spurious), the idea that the extra brain mass in East Asians accounts for their high IQs, is completely out of the question.

But what about other animals? Bats that have comparatively large brains. Is it completely out of the question that their extra brain mass makes them more intelligent? If the extra brain mass doesn't make them more intelligent, what does it do for them?

My point is, I don't think you, spurious as a biologist, should have a problem accepting the notion that the extra brain mass in some bats gives them a cognitive edge on the other bats (ie., it makes them smarter). But when you apply the concept to humans, suddenly it becomes impossible. What's the deal with that?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What's your evidence that the tests aren't good? I know you've given anecdotal evidence, but that's not good enough for our purposes. Don't tell me things like, "Blacks get worse education and socioeconomic status (SES) and thus don't have good IQs."--obviously education and SES play a factor, but it begs the question: how MUCH does it effect IQ? Give me studies that show your point. Don't ask me to take your word on these things.

Please indulge us: explain the methodology used in the studies you think are valid. sample size, method, etc.

 

[J.B]

It is amazing how much a IQ test counts,

when a black man is on death row.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It is amazing how much a IQ test counts,

when a black man is on death row.

It's amazing how little IQ tests count when a white man runs for US presidency.

 

[cole grey]

But what about other animals? Bats that have comparatively large brains. Is it completely out of the question that their extra brain mass makes them more intelligent? If the extra brain mass doesn't make them more intelligent, what does it do for them?

What does it do for neanderthals?
Illustration of your cognitive process. When it suits you, you use a non-human example, but examples that don't suit you, you dismiss out of hand.

What happened to your position that you only wanted to talk about humans??????

 

[francois]

What does it do for neanderthals?
Illustration of your cognitive process. When it suits you, you use a non-human example, but examples that don't suit you, you dismiss out of hand.

What happened to your position that you only wanted to talk about humans??????

Not really. You still don't understand why I was objecting to you talking about neanderthals. I'm going to try and clear this up once and for all.

First, I'll answer your question: what does more brain mass do for neanderthals? It's likely that within a population of neanderthals there were different configurations of ratios of genital and brain size. Those with larger genitals reaped the benefits that come with large genitals: higher sperm war competency. Those who had larger brains reaped the benefits that come with large brains: intelligence. WITHIN A POPULATION OF NEANDERTRHALS. Neanderthals who had comparatively larger brains were likely to be smarter than other neanderthals with smaller brains, otherwise, why have them?

Likewise, within a population of homo sapiens those with larger brains are going to have a tendency to be smarter than others. WITHIN A POPULATION OF HOMO SAPIENS.

Likewise, within a population of bats those with larger brains are going to have a tendency to be smarter than others. WITHIN A POPULATION OF BATS.

My problem with you talking about neanderthals and other animals is that you were trying to make the point that there are other animals who have larger brains than homo sapiens and yet are not as intelligent, in a vain attempt to try and disprove the brain size/intelligence correlation.

You can't compare the brain size and intelligence of different animals. Different animals have different brains. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[francois]

Maybe I can ask for your opinion on bats with comparatively large brains, cole. Why do those bats have larger brains? How could a large brain possibly benefit a bat? I doubt it's superfluous.

 

[cole grey]

You can't compare the brain size and intelligence of different animals. Different animals have different brains. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Do you understand what I am saying?

Do you understand that a bat can have a smaller brain that is equally as functional as a bat with a larger brain, due to the many other factors in brain development, e.g. functionality of particular areas of the brain?
We already know brain size is less important than structure - as shown by the neanderthal example.
HOW can you not see that?
HOW can you assume all brains within a species are structured exactly the same?
They are not.

 

[francois]

Yes. Structure is probably more important than brain size. Obviously. But animals of the same species have the same brains. Same structure. So when talking about animals of the same species, brain structure GENERALLY isn't much of a factor. Brain size, on the hand, is an important factor.

Think about what you're saying for a bit. "A bat can have a smaller brain that is equally functional as a bat with a larger brain." If that were true, wouldn't all of their brains be the same size? Why have a large brain, when you can have a smaller brain that uses up less resources, is more compact, lighter weight and does the same job?

Obviously size matters. Why can't you agree with the scientists?

 

[cole grey]

Why have a large brain, when you can have a smaller brain that uses up less resources, is more compact, lighter weight and does the same job?

Obviously size matters. Why can't you agree with the scientists?

Why can't you agree with the scientists?

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261

Do you really think every man and woman's brain is wired and constructed exactly the same? Don't you think there is some variety involved or do you assume there is one pattern that all people fit into?

I see the brain as a highly adaptable machine, which can re-arrange its own function and structure over long periods of time, according to the tasks set before it.
Just one example - Look at the brain of a heavy user of drugs - it has been shown that brain damage occurs - yet after time the brain adapts itself and can return proper cognitive function.

So, the average sized brain of a bat which is exposed to trials necessitating learning would become more intelligent than a bat with a large brain which had no stimulation - this is obvious.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Neurosci. 2006 Oct 4;26(40):10235-42.

Genetic contributions to human brain morphology and intelligence.

Hulshoff Pol HE, Schnack HG, Posthuma D, Mandl RC, Baare WF, van Oel C, van Haren NE, Collins DL, Evans AC, Amunts K, Burgel U, Zilles K, de Geus E, Boomsma DI, Kahn RS.

To explore the common genetic origin of focal GM and WM areas with intelligence, we obtained cross-trait/cross-twin correlations in which the focal GM and WM densities of each twin are correlated with the psychometric intelligence quotient of his/her cotwin. Genes influenced individual differences in left and right superior occipitofrontal fascicle (heritability up to 0.79 and 0.77), corpus callosum (0.82, 0.80), optic radiation (0.69, 0.79), corticospinal tract (0.78, 0.79), medial frontal cortex (0.78, 0.83), superior frontal cortex (0.76, 0.80), superior temporal cortex (0.80, 0.77), left occipital cortex (0.85), left postcentral cortex (0.83), left posterior cingulate cortex (0.83), right parahippocampal cortex (0.69), and amygdala (0.80, 0.55). Intelligence shared a common genetic origin with superior occipitofrontal, callosal, and left optical radiation WM and frontal, occipital, and parahippocampal GM (phenotypic correlations up to 0.35). These findings point to a neural network that shares a common genetic origin with human intelligence.

 

[francois]

Why can't you agree with the scientists?

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261

Do you really think every man and woman's brain is wired and constructed exactly the same? Don't you think there is some variety involved or do you assume there is one pattern that all people fit into?

What I meant before when I said that animals of the species have the same brain structures, is that the differences in structure among animals of the same species are insignificant, compared to the structure differences between, say a neanderthal and a homo sapien. Of course there are differences between male and female brains.

I see the brain as a highly adaptable machine, which can re-arrange its own function and structure over long periods of time, according to the tasks set before it.
Just one example - Look at the brain of a heavy user of drugs - it has been shown that brain damage occurs - yet after time the brain adapts itself and can return proper cognitive function.

Yes. The brain is very adaptive.

So, the average sized brain of a bat which is exposed to trials necessitating learning would become more intelligent than a bat with a large brain which had no stimulation - this is obvious.

If Ray Kurzweil mated with Marilyn vos Savant and had a child, and they left the child to languish in a dark closet, it would develop, or rather, not develop, and become retarded. So?

Yes, it is obvious, but it doesn't do anything for your argument.

Do I need to remind you what you have to prove? Prove that brain size does not matter.