What is Reddit's opinion of
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
26 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
> The first few years are vital in child development.
Turns out that's not true: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)
Arthur R. Jensen
--
Early nutrition is important, though.
> I made no comment about correlations between the different intelligence areas
You actually did:
>>>>>>> because intelligence isn't a single metric but many.
That means there can't be any correlation between "different intelligence areas", because if there were then there would also be a single general factor of human mental ability, which would be the thing which IQ tests test.
> I’m..... genuinely not following what you are saying
Read this and get back to us: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability
> Statistically, getting a college degree is still the largest indicator of success.
Formal education isn't a cause of long-term success, and never has been: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
> people who dropped out [...] are making less than they would if they graduated
False.
> do you think that someone born with 100% biological potential for intelligence who doesn't read books will have the same intelligence as someone, with half the potential, who does?
Intellectual stimulation has been found to not affect GMA: https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036
Credentialism has a long history of failure. Insurance companies in competition by definition would decide who should be able to drive more objectively and cost-effectively.
College is not a way to increase one's long-term income unless one wants to become an academic. See: https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036
I run two businesses, and there is no way I would ever hire anyone with a college degree.
I have no boredom theory at all besides reiterating that it is at least equally likely that they didn't want to hire that person for the reason they stated as it is that they are lying and want to hire dumb cops. There just isn't any context or testimony or evidence either way.
So you can interpret this incident in two ways: 1. The people in charge of the policy are bad people and want to hire dumb cops because; quoting the above comment: > "we want dumb people for cops so they can be easily manipulated and can become willing scapegoats"
- We go with Hanlon's razor - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
My position is that without any further information about this incident you cannot say which one it is. I am perfectly fine if your opinion is the first one but the really frustrating part is that every time this example is posted it's as some sort of revelatory information that explains why we have so many bad cops, which just isn't the case. We should have higher standards and better training (deferring to experts on the details here) but this idea of trying to hire dumb cops isn't a good argument, and people who care about this issue should stop using it like a gotcha. Onto the science.
So I'm not aware personally of studies that look at IQ and quitting because they get bored. What I am aware of is that in recruiting sometimes people get passed over because they are overqualified in the general corporate world. Is this overqualification? I would argue of course not but sometimes that is how recruitment is done. My point is it's not particular to law enforcement (although not many jobs make you take an IQ test - overqualification would be measured some other way). In my own personal life, at the start of my career, I had to answer questions about whether I would stay because the hiring managers felt I was overqualified and would get bored - it does happen unrelated to law enforcement in recruiting.
Nothing personal but a House hearing on police recruiting from 50 years ago....just isn't that compelling. However, I read through it anyway and I agree with the testimony of Mr. Nolan completely. However, as just a small point you say its against an "IQ average" but what he/she is really talking about is having an arbitrary cutoff (IE there is no evidence that having this IQ is good or bad for police work, they just made it up) and he goes on to say it would reduce the amount of candidates because the requirement is too high. I will just end this by saying that we have learned a lot about intelligence since then. While there are still competing theories and lots of debate, a lot of information can be found on wiki here or in the widely regarded book itself.
Higher general intelligence predicting better job performance is something I am deeply familiar with. It does have criticisms but they are far too technical to go into as if this wasn't long enough. Personally, I tend to think that higher g does seem to predict better job performance, so I don't have any issues with that assertion at all.
Seeing this article pop up on every single post (near the top with upvotes and comments, so it's getting attention) and being used to insinuate that all police departments look to hire dumb people so they can manipulate them and/or that this tactic is a "feature" of the current system is flat out misinformation. There's just no there there, it's facebook level "research". It's also just unnecessary to make bad arguments when there is no reason to. It only serves to make people who make them look dumber, and detract from the cause of actual - meaningful reform because it gives opponents something to point to and say "hey look you don't know what you're talking about".
Vocabulary is a key indicator of general mental ability. See: The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)
> Make a good game that achieves popularity and women will join just as well as men will.
This is a nice-feeling answer, but it's also kind of lazy -- the takeaway is basically "just do what you were planning on anyway, you don't have to change anything".
There's a lot of data indicating differences in personality traits between women and men on average -- the "average" is very important here, obviously there's a ton of in-group variation, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a non-typical person.
If you want to read more about the science on this, check this out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/taking-sex-differences-in-personality-seriously/
> On average, males tend to be more dominant, assertive, risk-prone, thrill-seeking, tough-minded, emotionally stable, utilitarian, and open to abstract ideas. Males also tend to score higher on self-estimates of intelligence, even though sex differences in general intelligence measured as an ability are negligible [2]. Men also tend to form larger, competitive groups in which hierarchies tend to be stable and in which individual relationships tend to require little emotional investment. In terms of communication style, males tend to use more assertive speech and are more likely to interrupt people (both men and women) more often-- especially intrusive interruptions-- which can be interpreted as a form of dominant behavior.
> ...
> In contrast, females, on average, tend to be more sociable, sensitive, warm, compassionate, polite, anxious, self-doubting, and more open to aesthetics. On average, women are more interested in intimate, cooperative dyadic relationships that are more emotion-focused and characterized by unstable hierarchies and strong egalitarian norms. Where aggression does arise, it tends to be more indirect and less openly confrontational. Females also tend to display better communication skills, displaying higher verbal ability and the ability to decode other people's nonverbal behavior. Women also tend to use more affiliative and tentative speech in their language, and tend to be more expressive in both their facial expressions and bodily language (although men tend to adopt a more expansive, open posture). On average, women also tend to smile and cry more frequently than men, although these effects are very contextual and the differences are substantially larger when males and females believe they are being observed than when they believe they are alone.
Note that as the article notes, these differences are observed across a variety of different cultures, so it's not just, say, looking at Americans and assuming that everyone else must be the same.
Anyway, given the differences there, it seems unlikely that there'd be no difference in preferred game design or style. And as I noted in another comment upthread, we do see massive differences in the gender ratio between different game genres, which means there's almost certainly something there.
> Tertiary education is the primary engine of social mobility
> if you plan to hold that job for a long time it does help your long term employment
Bullshit: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
Which is to say: general mental ability (GMA): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability
Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously At the broad level, we have traits such as extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. But when you look at the specific facets of each of these broad factors, you realize that there are some traits that males score higher on (on average), and some traits that females score higher on (on average), so the differences cancel each other out. This cancelling out gives the appearance that sex differences in personality don't exist when in reality they very much do exist - the fact which has been covered by various post-liberal egalitarians under pretence of equal rights for women and men.
On average, males tend to be more dominant, assertive, risk-prone, thrill-seeking, tough-minded, emotionally stable, utilitarian, and open to abstract ideas. Males also tend to score higher on self-estimates of intelligence, even though sex differences in general intelligence measured as an ability are negligible. Men also tend to form larger, competitive groups in which hierarchies tend to be stable and in which individual relationships tend to require little emotional investment.
In contrast, females, on average, tend to be more sociable, sensitive, warm, compassionate, polite, anxious, self-doubting, and more open to aesthetics. On average, women are more interested in intimate, cooperative dyadic relationships that are more emotion-focused and characterized by unstable hierarchies and strong egalitarian norms. Where aggression does arise, it tends to be more indirect and less openly confrontational. Females also tend to display better communication skills, displaying higher verbal ability and the ability to decode other people's nonverbal behavior.
General Mental Ability (GMA) isn't malleable upward: https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036
And therefore high GMA levels aren't "achievable" by anyone.
> quantify and qualify ability
Any study on opportunity should at least control for general mental ability.
I know what the anthropologists say but I really do not believe them in the slightest.
I can't really seem to find anything to back up "adopted children perform less well in school" theory so the study is pretty conclusive it's simple biology.
If you really think it's not biological still then you did not actually read anything I posted in an unbiased matter.
Also:
Source 1: http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
Source 2: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/why-ses-does-not-explain.pdf
Source 3: Is from this book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve) page 288
Source 4: Is from this book (https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453624876&sr=1-1&keywords=the+g+factor) page 358
>Or did you not realize the fact that there are antinatalists who believe life does has objective meanings. I happen to be in that category myself.
I'm putting my guard down if you explain it to me. And I know about Ann Sterzinger.
People who defend eugenics policies like Ann Sterzinger can't describe themselves as antinatalists because it's contradictory, since eugenism(alt-right policies = demographics) requires births and future generations of white people, the whole movement is about preserving the white race, culture, mainly the quality of life(future) and you or your people don't have a future if you advocate antinatalism.
The movement came from Jared Taylor, David Duke and Richard Spencer, that came from Richard Lynn, Phillip Rushton and Arthur Jensen, that previously started with Francis Galton.
I've read Rushton, Lynn, Charles Murray, Richard D. Fuerle and Jensen's books G-Factor; Race, evolution and behavior; Eugenics; IQ and Wealth of Nations; Human accomplishments, Homo Erectrus and the intellectual core of the alt-right movement came from their researchs.
I don't hold onto references. Why would I?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Factor-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036
> I deleted my other copy of the comment, because I didn't realize at first that I was commenting on the /racists subreddit, a place where I have no intention of trying to engage in an argument.
Fair enough (the actual objective of the sub-reddit is to have a frank, honest, un-PC and no-holds-barred discussion on race and culture).
> with predetermined conclusions about race and intelligence that they hope to justify scientifically.
I think that the predetermined conclusion has more to do with previous research showing difference in IQ between races (which is fairly widely discussed in the USA since the 70ies, e.g. Bell Curve book). The discussion is usually about the cause of this difference – and he tries to justify the known difference (i.e. “predetermined conclusions”) using genes.
> She mentions many biological correlations, but I don't think that rules out social factors as well.
That paper is only an introductory paper. A discussion of the hereditability of g is given in this book by prof. Jensen (chapter 7). To go deeper you must look at Google Scholar articles (heavy reading). If you can’t access all the journals, I have access to some and can mail the articles to you.
Another indicator is the research on the neuro-biological basis of intelligence (and research surrounding that). For some articles on this, see here.
> How's that for a completely fucked up and unsubstantiated statement?
The non-DNA proof is probably evidence of the difference between scores in intelligence tests. Even prominent scientists on the other end of the spectrum (such as James Flynn), who claim that differences are due to societal factors, acknowledge that there is a significant difference in performance.
The open question is what causes this difference – nature or nurture.
> Racial inequality? Better education (and a clear path and access to higher education) will help provide Black kids with opportunity to generate more wealth for themselves and their communities.
You tried that for 60 years. How has it been going?: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
> Do you know the LSAT of your lawyer?
People hire lawyers who have track records of success. LSAT scores are highly g-loaded, and g is a better predictor of success than any other psychological measure: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275961036/
> on average they go to better high schools
Which also doesn't affect long-term income: https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036/
> have richer and better educated parents
Which further also doesn't affect long-term income.
Popular alternatives to The g Factor: The Science o...
