I always look for new videos of Richard Haier because I'm very interested in intelligence and in ways to at least prevent cognitive decline. I really admire his work on the topic.
Do you mean that the exception to the bell curve (the geniuses with IQs of at least 150) are more important than the general data? While we can acknowledge and study exceptions, generalizations in data still exist.
@@proudatheist2042 My comment was 3 years ago, so I don't remember for sure what I might have been referring to exactly. But I'm pretty sure I was just speaking in broader terms, and I don't think I was trying to single out the bell curve. If something is true on average, of course generalizations exist. But when we find exceptions, then that can be a great new area to investigate next.
@@surrealistidealistI do agree with you that exceptions must be studied as empirically as possible as well. However, an intelligence researcher that I follow on Quora who is also a colleague of Dr. Haier stated that, essentially, such exceptions of people with profoundly high IQs scores are so rare that it's tedious (if not impossible) to gather a statistically significant group of such individuals to study. So, it's my understanding that such individuals will be essentially case studies. I do think that case studies are valuable to learn from, but case studies don't hold the same scientific value as studies with large groups.
Unfortunately, he'll run the risk of blowing up if he 'blows up' ... just because as more people in general are aware of his unwillingness to honor their shibboleths, so too will the grifters arrive and point out his heretical willingness to violate their sacred taboos.
That’s what exactly happened to me... I received an offer for PhD position from The University of Melbourne, but I didn’t receive the scholarship, cause one of the “objective” criteria to select a candidate is the origin university, if it’s ranked or not. Obviously my university is not ranked, and they based all the curriculum only on this factor, without considering if I am able to lead a research project or not. Ofc when we deal with a lot amount of people, you need to rely on universal criteria, but not considering the single human potentiality it’s a pity... so pay attention!!
Perhaps someone whose SAT it'd be "wrong" to look at got your place ... dropped out after a couple of years, and everyone called the university racist as if it were their fault. Bc of course, there's only one kind of discrimination & diversity we care about ... and racism against other disfavored groups? Oh that's perfectly fine -- along with the discrimination baked into the system (as Thomas astutely notices; but he's one of the GENIUSES (like Thomas Sowell) whom we have to pretend are NOT geniuses, and whom we're supposed to actively be racist against). Are we not living in the twilight zone??
I hope you are doing well. If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing now? Why university did you attend? Sadly, too many colleges and universities have dropped their standards and their "curriculums" don't prepare students with what they need to know.
What if (and I know it isn't) but for the sake of a thought experiment, what IF all 16% of those with sub 83 or 85 IQ were all in the same group. Would we want to acknowledge which group? Or would we want to conceal it and apologize for noticing? Okay, whatever that answer is it is ... and ... WHAT IF ... we know that 50% of those who have an IQ below 85 were a specific group ... and no more than 10% of any other group did. Would THAT be worth acknowledging ?? Or would it be important we pretended not to know? And WHAT IF that group say, had a tendency towards violence, in general. Would that also be of import? Or only important to not notice? And what exactly is the value, that's to say, the DIVIDEND that is paid for going out of your way to tiptoe, and deny, and ignore, and coddle, and placate, the group ... and those who use the group as their pet-special interest..? What is that dividend? Because I think a lot of us have an idea what the COST is.
I listened to Richard Heier on Lex Fridman the other day, apparently there are Universities and professors in the states that teach students that all 7 billion of us all have the same cognitive and reasoning abilities, and if you say otherwise or point to data that says otherwise you will get burned on the stake. Just as the church did with the astronomers during the dark ages in Europe. I can't wait for the year 2025, you will be publicsööy executed for saying that your dad is taller than your mom. A few days ago a Norwegian FEMINIST was charged with the unthinkable "heinous hate crime" of saying that men can't be lesbians. She's risking 3 years imprisonment for that statement.
More and more people, at least on social media, are speaking up about this. Many people are no longer willing to pretend that the realities that you stated don't exist.
While we cannot boost intelligence through any neuro-biological interventions (although give Elon some more time ....), we can certainly boost population level intelligence by removing dangers to that neurobiology. This was shown when they took lead out of gas. I think testing revealed a benefit of several IQ points on average from that intervention. The intervention I would like to see would be comparing matched controls with those who have taken the full complement of vaccines on the schedule (nowadays probably approaching 100) with those who have not been subjected to the schedule or have only some portion (maybe 20 shots or less of the schedule). While it wouldn't be a randomized design, it could still provide a very good way of ascertaining if the current vaccine schedule has an impact on intelligence, and if so, how much. There are plenty of people in America such as the Amish or many parents who have decided to not follow the schedule and home school. Thus such research would not involve telling people to either have or not have vaccines, but would instead match similar people based on vaccine status. Before research purists (if it's not randomized control I dismiss it) object, remember that cigarette smoking was determined to cause lung cancer largely in a similar research manner. (input/feedback/disagreement welcome).
Lead is the only politically correct heavy metal to openly discuss. It's well known that lead can cause decreased IQ at a clinical or sub clinical toxicity. However, mercury a d aluminum also cause decreased IQ scores. However, one gets called names and not taken seriously to mention that mercury and aluminum burdens are widespread in people can decrease IQ scores. One especially gets called names and blacklisted if they get brutally honest about where the mercury and aluminum comes from and how it gets in to people.
I believe there is a direct correlation between exposure to black mold and lead paint and a person's inability to think, reason and recall information. Science needs to study this. Urban municipalities do not hold landlords accountable because they don't want to board up homes and lose property tax income. Where there is rust there is mold. The rust belt is the mold belt. Innocent people are placed in arms way of these deadly dangers.
You must discriminate on some basis when you select among applicants (for anything) unless you intend to select from among applicants via drawing of lots or rolling dice. Is the latter really more effective than discrimination on a probablistic basis?
Race differences are only uncomfortable to people with closed and narrow minds. Race differences are especially interesting BECAUSE they are so little explored. Individual differences have been more thoroughly explored.
race science was and is being used by racists to denigrate (funny word, that) minorities. academics if they want to keep their jobs, will never fully explore such issues. on one hand i understand them, but i think it also does a disservice to people if we admit that we're all "equal" in our abilities. intelligence is an adaptation and it shouldn't be a sin to admit that those who built cities are somehow more adapted to live in them than those who stayed in the savanna.
@@visionofdisorderunfortunately, stating facts without any malicious intent is known as "racism." Racism is a term that has been overused and incorrectly used and has lost all of its meaning.
Why do black students from rich families at elite private schools score lower on SAT scores on average than working class white students from low income families going to public schools? If the issue is environmental shouldn’t black students from rich families on average at least be on par with their rich white counterparts at the same school? Why do adopted East Asian students score higher on average than their white adopted siblings?
I'm firmly on the hereditarian side of the race differences issue, but the answer to this is to bring up environmental variables that have nothing to do with social class.
@@werkatfischer3183 I don't think there are any environmental variables that have nothing to do with social class--unless they are "variables" that do not vary!
Except that rich black families on average would have above average I.Q.'s, as children from rich families would on average have above average I.Q.'s due to environmental and genetic factors of their family who have become wealthy due to their higher I.Q.'s although not always, therefore they would outperform the average of lower class families. Now, that statistic was drawn from my presumption that you would infer from what the current literature says about the upper class. I believe that your statistic was made up and do not have data to show that rich black kids that go to private schools obtain worse SAT scores than working class white students from low income families. However, as to why adopted East Asians perform better on SAT scores than white adopted siblings than yes it is probabilistic that those differences can be explained by genetic factors.
Many people want to study intelligence because of the controversies, not despite of them. They just don't want to study everything about it. Many avoid everything that has to do with race and IQ for example.
we shouldn't tho, I read Charles Murray's book "The bell Curve" and found it very interesting, I wish people on both sides of the ideological spectrum would just stay out of the research and we could find and understand the objective reality
Intelligence grows as you keep learning along the way. Intelligence is about the choices you make. A person with low intelligence can be more intelligent when he learns something new. Contrary to that an intelligent person can lose his intelligence if he reacts emotionally to a situation that demands you to respond intelligently. It is not the inherent intelligence that a person has but his attitudes of mind that will determine whether individual intelligence will grow remain the same or degenerate. A person who decides to change his ways by being more intelligent than his previous self, the very fact of his being amenable to change makes him more amenable for learning. You're right, Prof. Scott, you cannot determine a person who has low intelligence that he will remain that way for the rest of his life. It could be because his environment and heredity that could be responsible for his early condition but however if the man is shifted to completely another environment among different people he will display different traits. You're right, Prof. Haier life is complex Stupidity can be cured by a whip I strongly believe that the environment strongly contributes to intelligence (or lack of it)
you misunderstood what intelligence means. You can train a person with low intelligence to do simple tasks, but you cannot train them to do incresingly complex tasks that require on the spot creativity or higher cognitive capacity. Intelligence doesn't measure how easily a person can learn a task, but rather how well the person adapts and solves a new problem they have never seen before.
The sepelio flagellation and virtue signaling when discussing this subject is nauseating. Soviet 1930s - American version. As a foreigner from a 3rd world country, I am always flabbergasted to learn that America “has a long way to go” on fighting racism 🤦♂️. Come on, Mr Phd from Yale! But then, 1930s in USSR was a scary time….
RH is a very high intelligent (and thus most probably high IQ) scientist to be sure, but why he does not mention that wisdom can be as, if not more, important than IQ in monetary success of individuals and groups in practical life? Is his tunnel vision on IQ research blinded his judgement? Wisdoms can be learned, while IQ cannot be learned, according to IQ researchers (Although while that may be true that IQ itself cannot be increased by the process of learning how to increase IQ, learning and practicing of IQ test-taking skills may prevent goofing up the taking of IQ tests, which can result in the lowering ones IQ rating.) Wisdoms were probably created by the higher intelligent members of society, and once created, wisdoms are passed down to the general society for use by the members of the society of all levels of IQ. For example, one of the simplest and one of the most potent wisdom that can be learned by people of all levels of intelligence high to low is "save for a rainy day." This simple but potent wisdom can be taught and learned. Long ago, when I was in the US public elementary school in fifth or sixth grade, this wisdom was actually taught, although not in a deep way, but in a very effective hands-on way. Once a week in class, half an hour was set aside when a representative from a local savings bank was invited into class to open savings accounts for students, and giving out savings account passbooks. For those students already had savings-account passbooks given during the previous weeks, we would put into savings account deposit-envelops quarter coins to make weekly deposits. This was a great start in teaching this wisdom, as it was a hands-on type of education. However, the teaching of this wisdom ends once the students advance to junior-high school, and to high-school. Establishing savings accounts, and establishing weekly habit of depositing of savings for every student were a great start, but how to apply the accumulated savings to increase wealth were no longer taught. Saving for a rainy day is one of the key foundation of capitalism. Not only savings can bridge financial emergencies, but the rainy day can be some major economic downturn, when having savings can enable the savers who have some extra cash to purchase valuables on fire-sales pennies on the dollar like solid stocks that had dropped 90 percent during major stock market panics, or houses on fire-sales, or some businesses on-fire sales. People with small saving accounts can pool their extra savings with others with small saving accounts to buy and to invest in bigger projects like real estate, businesses, and corporations. There is a lot to teach about this wisdom that is one of the major foundations of capitalism, before spending too much time on screwing around with IQ, IMO. At least give equal time to wisdom besides IQ.
Read the second edition of his book The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Test scores have a much stronger correlation between a person and their earnings than the link between their earnings and their parents earnings. Here's the thing: I don't think there is any objective measurement for "wisdom." However, there are multiple IQ tests and PET scans to measure how well a person does or doesn't do and how efficiently their brain works, or doesn't. He is a researcher, so it's about objective, repeated findings, not about offended feelings.
@@proudatheist2042 "Learned wisdom" can be measured via testing of "IQ liked" tests. These wisdom tests can have fill in the blanks tests like "Success is ___ percent sweat, and only ____ percent inspiration." "Go _____ young man." "Saving for a ______ day." "Let sleeping ______ lie." "A bird ______ is worth ____ in the bush." "______ get slaughtered." "Back up your ______" "E=_______." and so forth. One curiosity about IQ is that people with high IQ's can periodically make the stupidest actions. For example, the Japanese people have one of the highest IQ score averages, but during WW2, it decided in an utmost stupid fashion to perpetrate a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor! Looks like it did not learn, or it ignored the wisdom of "Let sleeping eagle lie."
Famous, and very successful inventor Thomas Edison is attributed of providing the wisdom of "success is 99 percent perspiration, and it is only 1 percent inspiration." This wisdom does not imply that "success is 99 percent perspiration, and success is only 1 percent due to high IQ." If Edison is alive today, he probably would not ascribe to "success is due 100 percent to IQ score." Another wisdom used to be popular is to "go west young man" which implies that a young person should take more risks, as they are at an age less tied down by responsibilities, and they have more energy specially the energy of risk taking, and thus they should go where the action is, which was often in the western parts of the US in the past. It seemed that RH followed that wisdom in going west to where there was a PET scanning machine in a intelligence research university facility in the west. The power of wisdom should not be ignored.
@@michaels4255 In Dr Todd Grande more recent RUclips video, he said that IQ is as low as only 4 percent attributable to success, while one of his earlier video said that IQ is 15 percent attributable to earnings level. Thus, Grande's version of Edison's quote may loosely and jokingly be "Success is 96 percent perspiration (and other factors) and only 4 percent IQ." He said that a 4 percent relationship may be such a low significance to be not worthwhile to take an IQ test, while in some cases it may be still significant enough to take the IQ test. Wisdom (ie. useful knowledge, tips, and info,) which can be easily learned and applied to create success, should be a lot more significant than IQ, that is inborn, and cannot be learned to increase IQ level according to the scientists (other than the skill of IQ test-taking can be learned by practicing and training, so as to not needlessly screw up during IQ test taking) so that one is "stuck" at a given IQ level without anyway to improve the IQ, so that is that. While, improving by learning wisdom, for example from mentors and other experiences, and improving with more perspiration and time are actionable means to achieving more success.
@@golfscienceguru It certainly does make sense to focus on things you can improve (such as practical skills), and anecdotally wisdom tends to increase with age and experience. However, just how modifiable it is through deliberate practice remains to be determined: "Can wisdom be increased? This is an important question that deserves to be investigated empirically. There are several reasons for supporting the concept that wisdom is modifiable. Other traits such as resilience and optimism have been found to be moderately heritable (with estimates of 33% to 52%) suggesting that they can be influenced by environmental factors to a significant extent. While heritability of wisdom is unstudied, it may be similar to that of other personality traits." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6519134/ But does intelligence as measured with IQ tests really account for only 4% of "success" as that word is commonly understood? I hope you realize that Edison and Grande may not be the final word and that there are other, carefully considered conclusions out there. Here is one, supported with data so it is more than just an opinion: www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html
@@michaels4255 Murray used earnings level as the yardstick, which Grande in his earlier (of the two) videos three years ago quoted 15 percent as the relational figure, as compared to Murray's near 100 percent relational figure as he seemed to imply in his article, according to my interpretation. Grande's 15 percent figure was the dominant factor, as I recall. Grande's more recent video of two years ago, used the 4 percent relational figure for his example of whether a young person will be successful in choosing a career of being a student career advisor, so that it is less important to have an extra high IQ to be successful as a student career advisor, in that people skills are more important like patiently listening abilities, and liking to help student are keys. Too much IQ may even be harmful by over qualifying, and creating less patient with people. One would assume that Grande has twenty more recent years of data than Murray to cite the lower 15 percent figure. Murray's data was based in UK England, which traditionally has less mobility than the US, so that earnings were more related to college degrees than in the United States, at least in the older days. Since IQ is fixed, overly depending on IQ is fatalistic, as people with lower IQ just giving up, or they are being given up by others are promoting fatalism. It used to be that adults are encouraged to go to night school and the like to enhance their careers. In ancient times, Aesop Fable, and the Bibles were used to impart wisdom to the population. In recent times, simple wisdoms like "Go West Young Men" to the US West Coast have contributed to people like Bezos, and Musk to achieve fabulous success. This is in line with another wisdom of "being at the right place at the right time" and "with the right stuff" I might add.
@@golfscienceguru "One would assume that Grande has twenty more recent years of data than Murray to cite the lower 15 percent figure." -- No, I would not at all assume this! I also do not think there is a large difference between mobility in the US and UK in recent times. "as people with lower IQ just giving up" - Not at all. People would just seek out careers appropriate for their abilities, which they tend to do anyway. I think the biggest practical use for IQ tests is helping employers allocate human capital to best advantage, which is how the armed forces use the IQ tests that they administer to applicants. They would also be useful for schools using ability grouping, which US schools resist because of racial politics but which is known to be beneficial for all students. IQ data would also be useful for dating sites, since divorce risk rises when the IQ gap exceeds 20 points between spouses. And of course the original use of IQ tests would still be a very good idea: to identify talented but overlooked students among the poorer classes and help them to realize their full potential.
Gotta be honest, I would be really surprised to see him post that publicly. It would be considered in poor form by most of his peers and it might be seen as confrontational or haughty if his number is high (I think upwards of 130 is a good guess for a fair number), but I think once you get up past there, it kinda loses quite a bit of meaning, and someone at 110 might get 110 really reliably test after test, plus or minus maybe 5 points, but I've gotten everywhere from 125 to 185 on different tests at different times. It kinda breaks the test after you're past the second deviation. The tests aren't really for deciding who is the best ever smartest brain, it's just a rough sorting tool. Probably the one I got 185 on turns out to be a lousy test if we looked into it today under a microscope, plus I was young when I took it, so expectations were really low. Probably best to not focus on it, good habits, a healthy schedule, lots of sleep and a positive attitude matter a lot more than IQ one you're solidly in the realm of "that guy is smart," Haier is an incredibly diligent and responsible academic, that's why he is in the position he's in today, not just because he's smart. Maybe he took an unflattering test and only had a 105-110 on his chart, pretty unremarkable if it's a fair representation of one's potential, but I think Haier is clearly a bit above average in his academic abilities, so who knows?
@@markallen6433IQ scores going in to 150 matter. 150 is a genius. Many of the greatest inventors and innovators in the world has/have genius level IQs. Yes, conscientiousness matters in regards to success. However, conscientiousness will only take a person so far if they have a below average IQ in regards to what they can learn, apply, and retain. One of the most conscientiousness students I ever taught had an IQ of 83. She grew up in a 2 parent home. She was a sweet girl who was actually sent to a private school for a time. She came to me in 4th grade reading at a mid kindergarten level.
I always look for new videos of Richard Haier because I'm very interested in intelligence and in ways to at least prevent cognitive decline. I really admire his work on the topic.
In science, the exceptions can often be even more important than the general principles.
Do you mean that the exception to the bell curve (the geniuses with IQs of at least 150) are more important than the general data? While we can acknowledge and study exceptions, generalizations in data still exist.
@@proudatheist2042 My comment was 3 years ago, so I don't remember for sure what I might have been referring to exactly. But I'm pretty sure I was just speaking in broader terms, and I don't think I was trying to single out the bell curve.
If something is true on average, of course generalizations exist. But when we find exceptions, then that can be a great new area to investigate next.
@@surrealistidealistI do agree with you that exceptions must be studied as empirically as possible as well. However, an intelligence researcher that I follow on Quora who is also a colleague of Dr. Haier stated that, essentially, such exceptions of people with profoundly high IQs scores are so rare that it's tedious (if not impossible) to gather a statistically significant group of such individuals to study. So, it's my understanding that such individuals will be essentially case studies. I do think that case studies are valuable to learn from, but case studies don't hold the same scientific value as studies with large groups.
Thank you for doing this, I love these!
Insanely underrated channel Scott- no doubt you will be blowing up soon.
Thanks for amazing conversations.
Unfortunately, he'll run the risk of blowing up if he 'blows up' ... just because as more people in general are aware of his unwillingness to honor their shibboleths, so too will the grifters arrive and point out his heretical willingness to violate their sacred taboos.
That’s what exactly happened to me... I received an offer for PhD position from The University of Melbourne, but I didn’t receive the scholarship, cause one of the “objective” criteria to select a candidate is the origin university, if it’s ranked or not. Obviously my university is not ranked, and they based all the curriculum only on this factor, without considering if I am able to lead a research project or not. Ofc when we deal with a lot amount of people, you need to rely on universal criteria, but not considering the single human potentiality it’s a pity... so pay attention!!
Perhaps someone whose SAT it'd be "wrong" to look at got your place ... dropped out after a couple of years, and everyone called the university racist as if it were their fault. Bc of course, there's only one kind of discrimination & diversity we care about ... and racism against other disfavored groups? Oh that's perfectly fine -- along with the discrimination baked into the system (as Thomas astutely notices; but he's one of the GENIUSES (like Thomas Sowell) whom we have to pretend are NOT geniuses, and whom we're supposed to actively be racist against).
Are we not living in the twilight zone??
I hope you are doing well. If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing now? Why university did you attend? Sadly, too many colleges and universities have dropped their standards and their "curriculums" don't prepare students with what they need to know.
Thanks Dr. Scott :)
What if (and I know it isn't) but for the sake of a thought experiment, what IF all 16% of those with sub 83 or 85 IQ were all in the same group. Would we want to acknowledge which group? Or would we want to conceal it and apologize for noticing? Okay, whatever that answer is it is ... and ... WHAT IF ... we know that 50% of those who have an IQ below 85 were a specific group ... and no more than 10% of any other group did. Would THAT be worth acknowledging ?? Or would it be important we pretended not to know? And WHAT IF that group say, had a tendency towards violence, in general. Would that also be of import? Or only important to not notice? And what exactly is the value, that's to say, the DIVIDEND that is paid for going out of your way to tiptoe, and deny, and ignore, and coddle, and placate, the group ... and those who use the group as their pet-special interest..?
What is that dividend? Because I think a lot of us have an idea what the COST is.
I listened to Richard Heier on Lex Fridman the other day, apparently there are Universities and professors in the states that teach students that all 7 billion of us all have the same cognitive and reasoning abilities, and if you say otherwise or point to data that says otherwise you will get burned on the stake. Just as the church did with the astronomers during the dark ages in Europe.
I can't wait for the year 2025, you will be publicsööy executed for saying that your dad is taller than your mom. A few days ago a Norwegian FEMINIST was charged with the unthinkable "heinous hate crime" of saying that men can't be lesbians. She's risking 3 years imprisonment for that statement.
More and more people, at least on social media, are speaking up about this. Many people are no longer willing to pretend that the realities that you stated don't exist.
While we cannot boost intelligence through any neuro-biological interventions (although give Elon some more time ....), we can certainly boost population level intelligence by removing dangers to that neurobiology. This was shown when they took lead out of gas. I think testing revealed a benefit of several IQ points on average from that intervention. The intervention I would like to see would be comparing matched controls with those who have taken the full complement of vaccines on the schedule (nowadays probably approaching 100) with those who have not been subjected to the schedule or have only some portion (maybe 20 shots or less of the schedule). While it wouldn't be a randomized design, it could still provide a very good way of ascertaining if the current vaccine schedule has an impact on intelligence, and if so, how much. There are plenty of people in America such as the Amish or many parents who have decided to not follow the schedule and home school. Thus such research would not involve telling people to either have or not have vaccines, but would instead match similar people based on vaccine status. Before research purists (if it's not randomized control I dismiss it) object, remember that cigarette smoking was determined to cause lung cancer largely in a similar research manner. (input/feedback/disagreement welcome).
Lead is the only politically correct heavy metal to openly discuss. It's well known that lead can cause decreased IQ at a clinical or sub clinical toxicity. However, mercury a d aluminum also cause decreased IQ scores. However, one gets called names and not taken seriously to mention that mercury and aluminum burdens are widespread in people can decrease IQ scores. One especially gets called names and blacklisted if they get brutally honest about where the mercury and aluminum comes from and how it gets in to people.
I believe there is a direct correlation between exposure to black mold and lead paint and a person's inability to think, reason and recall information. Science needs to study this. Urban municipalities do not hold landlords accountable because they don't want to board up homes and lose property tax income. Where there is rust there is mold. The rust belt is the mold belt. Innocent people are placed in arms way of these deadly dangers.
@@thatsmallrockshopwait, what do you mean that lead requires moisture to form?
Who do you think they’re talking about at 18:10?
Charles Murray? or maybe Phillipe Rushton
I have 80% credence its rushton
You must discriminate on some basis when you select among applicants (for anything) unless you intend to select from among applicants via drawing of lots or rolling dice. Is the latter really more effective than discrimination on a probablistic basis?
Race differences are only uncomfortable to people with closed and narrow minds. Race differences are especially interesting BECAUSE they are so little explored. Individual differences have been more thoroughly explored.
race science was and is being used by racists to denigrate (funny word, that) minorities. academics if they want to keep their jobs, will never fully explore such issues. on one hand i understand them, but i think it also does a disservice to people if we admit that we're all "equal" in our abilities. intelligence is an adaptation and it shouldn't be a sin to admit that those who built cities are somehow more adapted to live in them than those who stayed in the savanna.
@@visionofdisorderunfortunately, stating facts without any malicious intent is known as "racism." Racism is a term that has been overused and incorrectly used and has lost all of its meaning.
Why do black students from rich families at elite private schools score lower on SAT scores on average than working class white students from low income families going to public schools? If the issue is environmental shouldn’t black students from rich families on average at least be on par with their rich white counterparts at the same school? Why do adopted East Asian students score higher on average than their white adopted siblings?
I'm firmly on the hereditarian side of the race differences issue, but the answer to this is to bring up environmental variables that have nothing to do with social class.
Wehr Katzer Interesting. Like what and do you have any evidence to support those claims?
@@werkatfischer3183 I don't think there are any environmental variables that have nothing to do with social class--unless they are "variables" that do not vary!
Except that rich black families on average would have above average I.Q.'s, as children from rich families would on average have above average I.Q.'s due to environmental and genetic factors of their family who have become wealthy due to their higher I.Q.'s although not always, therefore they would outperform the average of lower class families. Now, that statistic was drawn from my presumption that you would infer from what the current literature says about the upper class. I believe that your statistic was made up and do not have data to show that rich black kids that go to private schools obtain worse SAT scores than working class white students from low income families. However, as to why adopted East Asians perform better on SAT scores than white adopted siblings than yes it is probabilistic that those differences can be explained by genetic factors.
Some people are speed readers but I am a speed hearer. Can you explain that please?
Many people want to study intelligence because of the controversies, not despite of them. They just don't want to study everything about it. Many avoid everything that has to do with race and IQ for example.
And social class and IQ.
we shouldn't tho, I read Charles Murray's book "The bell Curve" and found it very interesting, I wish people on both sides of the ideological spectrum would just stay out of the research and we could find and understand the objective reality
Intelligence grows as you keep learning along the way. Intelligence is about the choices you make. A person with low intelligence can be more intelligent when he learns something new. Contrary to that an intelligent person can lose his intelligence if he reacts emotionally to a situation that demands you to respond intelligently. It is not the inherent intelligence that a person has but his attitudes of mind that will determine whether individual intelligence will grow remain the same or degenerate.
A person who decides to change his ways by being more intelligent than his previous self, the very fact of his being amenable to change makes him more amenable for learning.
You're right, Prof. Scott, you cannot determine a person who has low intelligence that he will remain that way for the rest of his life. It could be because his environment and heredity that could be responsible for his early condition but however if the man is shifted to completely another environment among different people he will display different traits. You're right, Prof. Haier life is complex
Stupidity can be cured by a whip
I strongly believe that the environment strongly contributes to intelligence (or lack of it)
you misunderstood what intelligence means. You can train a person with low intelligence to do simple tasks, but you cannot train them to do incresingly complex tasks that require on the spot creativity or higher cognitive capacity. Intelligence doesn't measure how easily a person can learn a task, but rather how well the person adapts and solves a new problem they have never seen before.
@@AR-tb9hq Thank you for responding
So interesting….
The sepelio flagellation and virtue signaling when discussing this subject is nauseating. Soviet 1930s - American version. As a foreigner from a 3rd world country, I am always flabbergasted to learn that America “has a long way to go” on fighting racism 🤦♂️. Come on, Mr Phd from Yale! But then, 1930s in USSR was a scary time….
Let's hope that they'll get spanked in Western Pacific in the next few years. That empire is kaput.
RH is a very high intelligent (and thus most probably high IQ) scientist to be sure, but why he does not mention that wisdom can be as, if not more, important than IQ in monetary success of individuals and groups in practical life? Is his tunnel vision on IQ research blinded his judgement? Wisdoms can be learned, while IQ cannot be learned, according to IQ researchers (Although while that may be true that IQ itself cannot be increased by the process of learning how to increase IQ, learning and practicing of IQ test-taking skills may prevent goofing up the taking of IQ tests, which can result in the lowering ones IQ rating.) Wisdoms were probably created by the higher intelligent members of society, and once created, wisdoms are passed down to the general society for use by the members of the society of all levels of IQ. For example, one of the simplest and one of the most potent wisdom that can be learned by people of all levels of intelligence high to low is "save for a rainy day." This simple but potent wisdom can be taught and learned. Long ago, when I was in the US public elementary school in fifth or sixth grade, this wisdom was actually taught, although not in a deep way, but in a very effective hands-on way. Once a week in class, half an hour was set aside when a representative from a local savings bank was invited into class to open savings accounts for students, and giving out savings account passbooks. For those students already had savings-account passbooks given during the previous weeks, we would put into savings account deposit-envelops quarter coins to make weekly deposits. This was a great start in teaching this wisdom, as it was a hands-on type of education. However, the teaching of this wisdom ends once the students advance to junior-high school, and to high-school. Establishing savings accounts, and establishing weekly habit of depositing of savings for every student were a great start, but how to apply the accumulated savings to increase wealth were no longer taught. Saving for a rainy day is one of the key foundation of capitalism. Not only savings can bridge financial emergencies, but the rainy day can be some major economic downturn, when having savings can enable the savers who have some extra cash to purchase valuables on fire-sales pennies on the dollar like solid stocks that had dropped 90 percent during major stock market panics, or houses on fire-sales, or some businesses on-fire sales. People with small saving accounts can pool their extra savings with others with small saving accounts to buy and to invest in bigger projects like real estate, businesses, and corporations. There is a lot to teach about this wisdom that is one of the major foundations of capitalism, before spending too much time on screwing around with IQ, IMO. At least give equal time to wisdom besides IQ.
Read the second edition of his book The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Test scores have a much stronger correlation between a person and their earnings than the link between their earnings and their parents earnings.
Here's the thing: I don't think there is any objective measurement for "wisdom." However, there are multiple IQ tests and PET scans to measure how well a person does or doesn't do and how efficiently their brain works, or doesn't. He is a researcher, so it's about objective, repeated findings, not about offended feelings.
@@proudatheist2042 "Learned wisdom" can be measured via testing of "IQ liked" tests. These wisdom tests can have fill in the blanks tests like "Success is ___ percent sweat, and only ____ percent inspiration." "Go _____ young man." "Saving for a ______ day." "Let sleeping ______ lie." "A bird ______ is worth ____ in the bush." "______ get slaughtered." "Back up your ______" "E=_______." and so forth. One curiosity about IQ is that people with high IQ's can periodically make the stupidest actions. For example, the Japanese people have one of the highest IQ score averages, but during WW2, it decided in an utmost stupid fashion to perpetrate a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor! Looks like it did not learn, or it ignored the wisdom of "Let sleeping eagle lie."
Famous, and very successful inventor Thomas Edison is attributed of providing the wisdom of "success is 99 percent perspiration, and it is only 1 percent inspiration." This wisdom does not imply that "success is 99 percent perspiration, and success is only 1 percent due to high IQ." If Edison is alive today, he probably would not ascribe to "success is due 100 percent to IQ score." Another wisdom used to be popular is to "go west young man" which implies that a young person should take more risks, as they are at an age less tied down by responsibilities, and they have more energy specially the energy of risk taking, and thus they should go where the action is, which was often in the western parts of the US in the past. It seemed that RH followed that wisdom in going west to where there was a PET scanning machine in a intelligence research university facility in the west. The power of wisdom should not be ignored.
NO ONE says "100 percent." Please stop erecting straw men to tear down. It is a dishonest debating tactic.
@@michaels4255 In Dr Todd Grande more recent RUclips video, he said that IQ is as low as only 4 percent attributable to success, while one of his earlier video said that IQ is 15 percent attributable to earnings level. Thus, Grande's version of Edison's quote may loosely and jokingly be "Success is 96 percent perspiration (and other factors) and only 4 percent IQ." He said that a 4 percent relationship may be such a low significance to be not worthwhile to take an IQ test, while in some cases it may be still significant enough to take the IQ test. Wisdom (ie. useful knowledge, tips, and info,) which can be easily learned and applied to create success, should be a lot more significant than IQ, that is inborn, and cannot be learned to increase IQ level according to the scientists (other than the skill of IQ test-taking can be learned by practicing and training, so as to not needlessly screw up during IQ test taking) so that one is "stuck" at a given IQ level without anyway to improve the IQ, so that is that. While, improving by learning wisdom, for example from mentors and other experiences, and improving with more perspiration and time are actionable means to achieving more success.
@@golfscienceguru It certainly does make sense to focus on things you can improve (such as practical skills), and anecdotally wisdom tends to increase with age and experience. However, just how modifiable it is through deliberate practice remains to be determined:
"Can wisdom be increased? This is an important question that deserves to be investigated empirically. There are several reasons for supporting the concept that wisdom is modifiable. Other traits such as resilience and optimism have been found to be moderately heritable (with estimates of 33% to 52%) suggesting that they can be influenced by environmental factors to a significant extent. While heritability of wisdom is unstudied, it may be similar to that of other personality traits."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6519134/
But does intelligence as measured with IQ tests really account for only 4% of "success" as that word is commonly understood? I hope you realize that Edison and Grande may not be the final word and that there are other, carefully considered conclusions out there. Here is one, supported with data so it is more than just an opinion:
www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html
@@michaels4255 Murray used earnings level as the yardstick, which Grande in his earlier (of the two) videos three years ago quoted 15 percent as the relational figure, as compared to Murray's near 100 percent relational figure as he seemed to imply in his article, according to my interpretation. Grande's 15 percent figure was the dominant factor, as I recall. Grande's more recent video of two years ago, used the 4 percent relational figure for his example of whether a young person will be successful in choosing a career of being a student career advisor, so that it is less important to have an extra high IQ to be successful as a student career advisor, in that people skills are more important like patiently listening abilities, and liking to help student are keys. Too much IQ may even be harmful by over qualifying, and creating less patient with people. One would assume that Grande has twenty more recent years of data than Murray to cite the lower 15 percent figure. Murray's data was based in UK England, which traditionally has less mobility than the US, so that earnings were more related to college degrees than in the United States, at least in the older days. Since IQ is fixed, overly depending on IQ is fatalistic, as people with lower IQ just giving up, or they are being given up by others are promoting fatalism. It used to be that adults are encouraged to go to night school and the like to enhance their careers. In ancient times, Aesop Fable, and the Bibles were used to impart wisdom to the population. In recent times, simple wisdoms like "Go West Young Men" to the US West Coast have contributed to people like Bezos, and Musk to achieve fabulous success. This is in line with another wisdom of "being at the right place at the right time" and "with the right stuff" I might add.
@@golfscienceguru "One would assume that Grande has twenty more recent years of data than Murray to cite the lower 15 percent figure." -- No, I would not at all assume this! I also do not think there is a large difference between mobility in the US and UK in recent times.
"as people with lower IQ just giving up" - Not at all. People would just seek out careers appropriate for their abilities, which they tend to do anyway. I think the biggest practical use for IQ tests is helping employers allocate human capital to best advantage, which is how the armed forces use the IQ tests that they administer to applicants. They would also be useful for schools using ability grouping, which US schools resist because of racial politics but which is known to be beneficial for all students. IQ data would also be useful for dating sites, since divorce risk rises when the IQ gap exceeds 20 points between spouses. And of course the original use of IQ tests would still be a very good idea: to identify talented but overlooked students among the poorer classes and help them to realize their full potential.
Out of curiosity; what is Richard's iq?
Gotta be honest, I would be really surprised to see him post that publicly. It would be considered in poor form by most of his peers and it might be seen as confrontational or haughty if his number is high (I think upwards of 130 is a good guess for a fair number), but I think once you get up past there, it kinda loses quite a bit of meaning, and someone at 110 might get 110 really reliably test after test, plus or minus maybe 5 points, but I've gotten everywhere from 125 to 185 on different tests at different times. It kinda breaks the test after you're past the second deviation. The tests aren't really for deciding who is the best ever smartest brain, it's just a rough sorting tool. Probably the one I got 185 on turns out to be a lousy test if we looked into it today under a microscope, plus I was young when I took it, so expectations were really low. Probably best to not focus on it, good habits, a healthy schedule, lots of sleep and a positive attitude matter a lot more than IQ one you're solidly in the realm of "that guy is smart," Haier is an incredibly diligent and responsible academic, that's why he is in the position he's in today, not just because he's smart. Maybe he took an unflattering test and only had a 105-110 on his chart, pretty unremarkable if it's a fair representation of one's potential, but I think Haier is clearly a bit above average in his academic abilities, so who knows?
@@markallen6433IQ scores going in to 150 matter. 150 is a genius. Many of the greatest inventors and innovators in the world has/have genius level IQs. Yes, conscientiousness matters in regards to success. However, conscientiousness will only take a person so far if they have a below average IQ in regards to what they can learn, apply, and retain. One of the most conscientiousness students I ever taught had an IQ of 83. She grew up in a 2 parent home. She was a sweet girl who was actually sent to a private school for a time. She came to me in 4th grade reading at a mid kindergarten level.