My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[David Sklansky]

It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. It does bother me when people disagree because they think I am saying something I am not. Granted that might be my fault for writing imprecisely.

Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying. So I want to spell out clearly my attitude about the msl illiterate since it relates to many of my posts.

1. I believe that in the US only about two to four percent are msl literate.

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.

3. I fully recognize that those who are msl illiterate have a lot to contribute to the world. And often do contribute more than most msl literates.

4. I believe that there are many subjects where msl illiterates have opinions that should be taken seriously. Either because their illiteracy doesn't come into play, as in deciding the best color scheme for the house, or because the main component by far is pure value judgement, as in debating partial birth abortions.

5. On the other hand I believe that in order for a subject to qualify as one where msl illiterates should be largely ignored, it is not necessary that there be a highly correlated math model. It is only necessary that logical deduction, probability, algebra or whatever play a bit of a roll in the decision. It doen't matter that msl illiterates who are very familiar with the subject might get it right more than msl literates who are less familiar. Because there will be some who have both attributes. And even if they are slightly less familiar than the msl illiterates they are still the big favorite to be right. Because of the fact that one logical error in the analysis totally taints any conclusion from that point.

6. I believe that if the above conclusions were generally accepted it would not hurt a lot of feelings in the 70% who have no physical chance to become msl literate. Because I believe that the great majority already know or sense that their opinions on anything vaguely technical are very iffy. Most of these people aren't very opinionated about much of anything. Certainly not about whether tax rates should be increased, more soldiers should be sent somewhere, or classroom sizes should be changed. They pretty much realize they are unqualified.

7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. It does bother me when people disagree because they think I am saying something I am not. Granted that might be my fault for writing imprecisely.


[/ QUOTE ]

What puzzles me David is how a person as smart as you so consistently writes so imprecisely. Watching you ammend yourself over and over again reminds me of the objections people make about the various religious sects. If you are actually saying something that is correct, how come you never seem to get it right? I suspect it is not just your writing that's imprecise but your thinking as well.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I believe that in order for a subject to qualify as one where msl illiterates should be largely ignored, it is not necessary that there be a highly correlated math model. It is only necessary that logical deduction, probability, algebra or whatever play a bit of a roll in the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem David. What is a "bit of a roll" precisely? How do you determine that?

[ QUOTE ]
When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a "bit of a roll" equates to 20%? Do you think that is meaningful? What does 20% mean in this context? Do you have some examples we can look at to see if what you consider 20% is the same as what we might think is 20%? And can you give an example of an MSL mistake that might be made in the 20% area that would foul the total judgement? We need what kinds of mistakes these are and in what context. Looking at that group of people in the top 30% of intelligence but below the top 3% in MSL, you claim they will make such a mistake in such a context. How are we to judge if you are not just talking hot air unless you give us some examples?

Looking more closely at the people in the top 30% of intellegence but below the top 3% in MSL. How well can they reason? Do they normally make logical blunders? They likely have significant education in the developed world. So they certainly know some MSL. Just how illiterate are they really? Maybe you could give us the kinds of problems they are likely to blunder on. And show us the 20% MSL situations where these problems exist that can foul the total judgement.

You also have to compare the Blunders due to MSL in these situations to the possible Blunders that might come from inexperience in the 80% area of the subject that does not involve MSL. You contend the MSL blunders are of a more severely fouling nature. Are they? Can you show that to us with examples? Can you prove it in general?

[ QUOTE ]
When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus? In fact? Is this a figure of speech? Are you being precise here? Do you even know that the term "Moron" was dropped from technical use years ago? In what technical precise way do you mean to use the term here? Do you know why the term was dropped from technical use? Because it has now become nothing more than an Insult. Is that your "precise" intention for use of the word here? Or do you want to go back to your drawing board yet again?


[ QUOTE ]
Moron -
Adopted by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded with a technical definition "adult with a mental age between 8 and 12;" used as an insult since 1922 and subsequently dropped from technical use. Linnæus had introduced morisis "idiocy."


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]

1. I believe that in the US only about two to four percent are msl literate.

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really believe that there are big jumps in literacy and in capacity for literacy at 3% and 30% respectively?

[Lestat]

I think you/we need to cut David a little slack in this regard. He's not writing books here. He's simply providing informal observations on a forum. I wouldn't even label his posts here as essays. When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise.

I'm not suggesting that care shouldn't be taken to not be incorrect about things. But these forums provide most of us with a chance to offer our impromptu opinions and insights on a variety of subject matter without expending too much time. Some of us are naturally more precise and thorough than others.

Maybe I'm defending this because I often shoot from the hip on here. But if I didn't, I wouldn't have the time to post much. And if David had to check and re-check his every typed word to make sure it couldn't be picked apart, I doubt he would have the time either. So he takes some liberties and doesn't dot every i or cross every t, and hopes most will get the gist.

[andyfox]

"What puzzles me David is how a person as smart as you so consistently writes so imprecisely."

David, by his own admission, is lazy. While he decries the 27% who are capable of more, he writes poorly, one would think, solely because of his own laziness. Despite the fact that he is a famous author who claims he could write the best algebra book ever written because he could explain it better than anyone else. He writes the definitive book on mid-stakes limit hold'em and tells people to not complain about his poor writing, but rather to use the money they make from his advice to buy a book by Hemingway.

Perhaps the alternative would be to have to admit that, in some arenas very different from picking a house color, brains are not enough?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you/we need to cut David a little slack in this regard. He's not writing books here. He's simply providing informal observations on a forum. I wouldn't even label his posts here as essays. When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise.

I'm not suggesting that care shouldn't be taken to not be incorrect about things. But these forums provide most of us with a chance to offer our impromptu opinions and insights on a variety of subject matter without expending too much time. Some of us are naturally more precise and thorough than others.

Maybe I'm defending this because I often shoot from the hip on here. But if I didn't, I wouldn't have the time to post much. And if David had to check and re-check his every typed word to make sure it couldn't be picked apart, I doubt he would have the time either. So he takes some liberties and doesn't dot every i or cross every t, and hopes most will get the gist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Completely agree. We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?

[andyfox]

"When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise."

In fact he's shown just the opposite. By his own admission. It's very curious that a person who prides himself on fighting fuzzy thinkinng would not care enough to address his own fuzzy writing.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you/we need to cut David a little slack in this regard. He's not writing books here. He's simply providing informal observations on a forum. I wouldn't even label his posts here as essays. When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise.

I'm not suggesting that care shouldn't be taken to not be incorrect about things. But these forums provide most of us with a chance to offer our impromptu opinions and insights on a variety of subject matter without expending too much time. Some of us are naturally more precise and thorough than others.

Maybe I'm defending this because I often shoot from the hip on here. But if I didn't, I wouldn't have the time to post much. And if David had to check and re-check his every typed word to make sure it couldn't be picked apart, I doubt he would have the time either. So he takes some liberties and doesn't dot every i or cross every t, and hopes most will get the gist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, David recycles the same basic ideas over and over here. He has probably brought this one up a dozen times in the past couple of years. You can't tell exactly who he is talking about or what the situations are that he vaguely describes. If the idea is so correct and so clear to him why can't he come up with decent examples for it? Whoever it is he's talking about he claims to have justified saying something like this,

[ QUOTE ]
When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he's calling you a Moron. Maybe he's calling half the people on this Forum Morons. Who knows? Who can tell who he's talking about? He's done this over and over and each time he gets a lot of disagreement he claims he just wasn't being understood. He just wasn't being precise. After raising the idea a dozen times over the past couple of years he's had time to get it right. But he never does. He just insists there is some vague group of people he wants to call Morons. That's a major insult to people. I think he's been given more than enough slack.

This thing of vaguely identifying a group of people and labeling them Morons should stop. It's one step away from the kind of thing for which people get banned on 2+2.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

Isnt he referring to the group of people who could understand maths, science and logic if they tried but dont put in the effort (for a variety of reasons)? This seems like a pretty well defined group of people to me (although I have no idea what the percentages are).

[Lestat]

I will readily admit that I fall into this group. Although I prefer to think of myself as academically lazy, rather than a moron.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise."

In fact he's shown just the opposite. By his own admission. It's very curious that a person who prides himself on fighting fuzzy thinkinng would not care enough to address his own fuzzy writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so Andy? Are you saying his published books (or magazine articles), have been imprecise? I wasn't aware of this. I'm not a math person, so I've always taken for granted that any math in his books or articles can be taken to the bank. Am I being niave?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise."

In fact he's shown just the opposite. By his own admission. It's very curious that a person who prides himself on fighting fuzzy thinkinng would not care enough to address his own fuzzy writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so Andy? Are you saying his published books (or magazine articles), have been imprecise? I wasn't aware of this. I'm not a math person, so I've always taken for granted that any math in his books or articles can be taken to the bank. Am I being niave?

[/ QUOTE ]You can take it to the bank. Imprecision and ambiguity in natural language is not the same and can't really be avoided. the reader has to take responsibilty for trying to understand what is being said and a two way conversation is needed for understanding anything non-trivial.

chez

[andyfox]

I thought we were talking about his unclear writing. David has said "Neither one of us [David and Mason] claim to be professional writers . . . the language was not always grammatically perfect. This is occasionally reflected in the wording of this text. But the purpose of this book is not to get an 'A' from our English teacher. . . . So if we end a sentence with a preposition or use a few too many words or even introduce a new subject in a slightly inappropriate place, you can take solace from the fact that you can buy lots more books by Hemingway with the money we make you."

[andyfox]

"We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?"

Mason has said he holds poker authors to higher standards on these forums than others. Well he should, if they're giving poker advice.

David has said that he is a non-fuzzy, rigorous, logical thinker. He says he could write the world's best algebra book because the explains ideas more clearly than anyone else. Yet, by his own admission, he's a poor writer. If he intends to convey his ideas clearly, he should learn to write clearly.

[Lestat]

But the non-fiction bookshelves abound with technical books which are poorly written. As long as these authors aren't claiming to be english majors, why would you hold them to such high literary standards, as long as they get the technical stuff right? I guess I still don't see the problem.

[andyfox]

David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?"
David has said that he is a non-fuzzy, rigorous, logical thinker. He says he could write the world's best algebra book because the explains ideas more clearly than anyone else. Yet, by his own admission, he's a poor writer. If he intends to convey his ideas clearly, he should learn to write clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the context of an internet message board I think there is a greater expectation for the reader to make an effort to understand the poster's position. I have debated philosophy with people who insist on every word being rigorously defined and it is boring and difficult to wade through to get to the point.

I think there is a place for rigorous, defined terms - if someone really doesnt get the point, or if people suspect they are talking at cross purposes. I think it's too much to require that as the standard way of posting though.

Perhaps, like Lestat, I recognise that I am a sloppy poster and that's the motivation for my defense of DS. I dont think so though - personally, I get a lot out of reading "off the cuff" posts made by someone with a radically different perspective and I think requiring rigorous definition as a matter of course would detract from that.

I do think care should be taken when someone queries exactly how you are using a word. Also, I think DS does do this if someone really doesnt understand. However, I think semantic differences are less problematic than is often claimed and dont require pre-emptive action.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt he referring to the group of people who could understand maths, science and logic if they tried but dont put in the effort (for a variety of reasons)? This seems like a pretty well defined group of people to me (although I have no idea what the percentages are).

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He is refering to a subgroup of the people who are not in the top 3% of MSL expertise and who then involve themselves in questions he vaguely defines as involving 20% MSL and who then say they are qualified to speak because of their experience in the vaguely defined 80% non MSL area of the question. He is basically telling them they should STFU because they are Morons.

[ QUOTE ]
7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 27% he is refering to are the most intelligent people who are NOT in the Top 3% of MSL expertise.

There's probably not a lot of people around here who qualify for the Top 3% of MSL expertise. David hasn't given us examples of subjects that involve 20% MSL. But I suspect he would consider a lot of the subjects discussed here to fall in that category. Not the ones which obviously involve MSL. But any philosophical question where people talk about what's "likely" sounds like it fits David's description.

I don't see a whole lot of Blatent logical errors made by people in these discussions here. When they are they are quickly pointed out. And posters who are just inept with logic are soon mostly ignored. Also, I think most people here understand conditional probability. But few people here qualify for the top 3% in MSL. I'm not sure David even qualifies for that. I may just make the grade, but I've studied much more math than David has. The funny thing is that I see him sometimes doing exactly the thing he claims people should be called morons for. The reason is exactly because he hasn't studied enough math to realize how he might be misapplying it.



David has made this claim under one formulation or another repeteadly on this Forum. If it's so clear and correct in his mind, where are the examples?

PairTheBoard

[rsk111]

Interestingly, I find that many (if not most) of the "two to four percent" that DS describes are actually very good writers as well. I'm not talking about Hemingway-type fiction here, but rather the type of writing that is required to make a logical, coherent argument.

I think that thinking clearly and logically almost forces one to write clearly, because a clear and logical mind should almost reflexively reject anything that isn't clear and logical. To someone who thinks clearly, writing something that isn't should feel like hearing nails scratching a chalkboard. It's so unpleasant to a clear-thinking mind, that the mind almost never allows it to happen.

[bunny]

Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree with you. Confusion is one of the most effective methods of teaching esoteric concepts. His writing forces you think in ways that you wouldn't otherwise, just to grasp and evaluate his points. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea.

I imagine the 30% comes from simple IQ bells curves. 110+ are mostly capable of insightful and recursive MSL thinking. 110- don't really get over the bar, and can only learn what's taught and apply it narrowly to novel situations.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, I find that many (if not most) of the "two to four percent" that DS describes are actually very good writers as well. I'm not talking about Hemingway-type fiction here, but rather the type of writing that is required to make a logical, coherent argument.

I think that thinking clearly and logically almost forces one to write clearly, because a clear and logical mind should almost reflexively reject anything that isn't clear and logical. To someone who thinks clearly, writing something that isn't should feel like hearing nails scratching a chalkboard. It's so unpleasant to a clear-thinking mind, that the mind almost never allows it to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I think David's excuse of poor writing is just a copout for unclear fuzzy ideas that have not been thought through. He expects us to think them out for him. When we do and conclude they are flawed he just waits a couple of months and recycles the same pulp. Or if he can't wait he just starts a new thread claiming he was misunderstood.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percents he provides are useful for clarifying his idea. If that clarification shows his idea is flawed then so be it. They are the ones he himself thinks best illustrate the situation he is trying to describe.

His idea is not the one everybody would agree with. That is, that smart people with SML expertise have an adavantage in areas involving even a little SML. That's pretty obvious. His idea is that those with what he calls SML literacy have a quantum advantage over those without it in areas that involve some SML. How great is this Quantum advantage? It's enough to call the others Morons. Who has this SML literacy? Not just anybody who has taken the general requirements to graduate from college. Only an elite group who really understand SML. The 3% group.

That's his idea. We don't misunderstand it. He's been promoting it here repeatedly for years. We just don't all agree with it.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you have a problem with his claim if he didnt ascribe probabilities? Dont the classes he's referring to make sense to you? They do to me. Although I doubt all the % he assigns them are correct, that doesnt seem important.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percents he provides are useful for clarifying his idea. If that clarification shows his idea is flawed then so be it. They are the ones he himself thinks best illustrate the situation he is trying to describe.

His idea is not the one everybody would agree with. That is, that smart people with SML expertise have an adavantage in areas involving even a little SML. That's pretty obvious. His idea is that those with what he calls SML literacy have a quantum advantage over those without it in areas that involve some SML. How great is this Quantum advantage? It's enough to call the others Morons. Who has this SML literacy? Not just anybody who has taken the general requirements to graduate from college. Only an elite group who really understand SML. The 3% group.

That's his idea. We don't misunderstand it. He's been promoting it here repeatedly for years. We just don't all agree with it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case let me bow out of this thread. I was confused as I thought your objection was that he doesnt make his ideas understandable - which I dispute (although I rarely agree with him, I think I usually understand what he means).

[TomCowley]

Moron: n.

1. One who cannot understand an argument without everything spelled out in excruciating detail and often not even then.

2. One who cannot use, construct, or analyze a mathematical model that doesn't specify perfectly precise knowledge of all potential variables.

3. One who reads thousands of sentences a day without picking up on proper capitalization patterns.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David is simply not a good writer. He's admitted so. If he really wants to make an impact on the world, or even on just his readers, he could spend a little time and become a better writer. Or not; it's his choice.

But when he says, for example, he could write the world's best algebra book because he can explain things in a way that more people would understand, it would certainly behoove someone who makes such a claim to be an effective writer.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wrote that book I would be effective enough. Or I would enlist professional help. But I hope you realize that I make that claim because I believe I can offer a sequence of problems that force the student to think about the right things and to learn what needs to be learned in just the right order. Not the fact that my writing is extremely clear. I base my claim on my math aptitude and my ability to put myself into the heads of people without that aptitude. In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do a bit of tutoring and you're onto something there. Many students can't get the main points from a verbal description, yet pick it up amazingly quickly from a well-sequenced set of problems. Not just in algebra or math.

I hope you take the time to write it. g'luck.

luckyme

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do a bit of tutoring and you're onto something there. Many students can't get the main points from a verbal description, yet pick it up amazingly quickly from a well-sequenced set of problems. Not just in algebra or math.

I hope you take the time to write it. g'luck.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, if you want to make an impact on the world of msl, do it for the future generations by writing math books. I've helped my little brother out with math in the past, and his books have been HORRIBLE. I think people learn best by sample problems. Per sub-chapter, the books I've seen provide like 2 or 3 problems, and the steps to solving the problems are barely discussed. The books instead waste paper by using stupid analogies to try to show the meaning behind the concept. While I believe this has its place, it should be done after the problem and solution have been fully practiced and grasped by the students. It should not be the first thing presented on any certain subject to the student. Teaching by giving good examples and thorough analysis of the solution is clearly the best way.

[Divad Yksnal]

"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.

[andyfox]

I have no doubt in your ability to write a book that would be "effective enough" and "close" to the best book with just the problems themselves. I also have no doubt that if you could write extremely clearly you would't have to use the words "enough" or "close."

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are overestimating the problem. Let's rphrase my statement. When I write a post that one thousand people read, and Andy Fox and Pair The Board disagree with it, it is because they misunderstood my point in half those cases.

I never remember YOU misunderstanding.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
When I write a post that one thousand people read, and Andy Fox and Pair The Board disagree with it, it is because they misunderstood my point in half those cases.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be one of your posts where the thousand other people who read it all understand your point and agree with it? I guess this is another one of those things where you ask us to imagine.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

fwiw I think most people missed the point of my post about the jury being 50-50 before a "last second" witness coming forward to say they saw "a black man", and that being enough under your model to convict, you know assuming the defendant was black.

[Taraz]

David,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Quote:

Quote:

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.




I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think about the very limited studies on nutrition and education, basically they all say that elementary schoolers learn much better and behave much better just from something as simple as eating a semi-nutritious breakfast regularly. (which isn't much when you think about it)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

what do you think about the very limited studies on nutrition and education, basically they all say that elementary schoolers learn much better and behave much better just from something as simple as eating a semi-nutritious breakfast regularly. (which isn't much when you think about it)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it sounds very interesting and I would like to read the study /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But I think that supports my claim that it isn't just natural brain structure.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it sounds very interesting and I would like to read the study . But I think that supports my claim that it isn't just natural brain structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that during the brain's developemental period, poor nutrition can stunt its potential, and once the period is over, nothing can be done to reverse the lowered potential.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that over half of adults are one SD below their IQ because of poor childhood nutrition.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that during the brain's developemental period, poor nutrition can stunt its potential, and once the period is over, nothing can be done to reverse the lowered potential.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that over half of adults are one SD below their IQ because of poor childhood nutrition.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the way you phrased it, it didn't seem like the studies were claiming this at all. Do they talk about long term effects and plasticity at all?

Even if that were true, I still want to know where the 30% figure comes from.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if that were true, I still want to know where the 30% figure comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

an enrico fermi amalgamated type guess, I would imagine.

[andyfox]

I don't think I've disagreed with a post you've written in a while. And, on many of our prior disagreements, you did indeed convince me I was wrong. With superior logic to mine, and with what must have been at least acceptable writing.

If your point here is that if only two of us don't understand your point out of a thousand readers, it is more likely that we're not good readers than you've not written it well, I agree.

[Greeksquared]

I think many of you on here or overly critical of DS. Perhaps the criticism is deserved because of the nature of the posts, but I believe many are going too far. David seems to challenge this board more than anyone else. He also is constantly posting new innovative thought processes that almost no one here has the capacity to come up with originally, at least repeatedly over time.

Many of you are going a little over the edge when David admitted to "writing imprecisely". Almost all of his posts are of high quality and at the very least force us to think in a manner we might not have before. Imprecise as his posts are, which is far less than any average poster, I think his precision is something you should not focus too much attention on.

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
If your point here is that if only two of us don't understand your point out of a thousand readers, it is more likely that we're not good readers than you've not written it well, I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this certainly is not the case. Pair the Board is doing all the hard work responding to asinine posts like the OP. I completely agree with PTB in this and the other recent posts and I strongly suspect there are many, many others. The modus operandi of many of the more active posters is just to disagree for arguments sake. I see quite a few in this thread already.

If the Cavs game wasn't so boring, I would have stopped reading after this excellent post:

PTB: [ QUOTE ]
What puzzles me David is how a person as smart as you so consistently writes so imprecisely ... If you are actually saying something that is correct, how come you never seem to get it right? I suspect it is not just your writing that's imprecise but your thinking as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really all that needed to be said, in my opinion.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that during the brain's developemental period, poor nutrition can stunt its potential, and once the period is over, nothing can be done to reverse the lowered potential.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that over half of adults are one SD below their IQ because of poor childhood nutrition.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the way you phrased it, it didn't seem like the studies were claiming this at all. Do they talk about long term effects and plasticity at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of these studies talk about poor nutrition during critical periods resulting in long-term, even permanent, deficits. In fact, malnutrition is thought by some to influence the epigenome and affect offspring.

I think the study the other poster was talking about was short-term stuff though that has to do with blood sugar, mood, etc.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that during the brain's developemental period, poor nutrition can stunt its potential, and once the period is over, nothing can be done to reverse the lowered potential.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that over half of adults are one SD below their IQ because of poor childhood nutrition.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the way you phrased it, it didn't seem like the studies were claiming this at all. Do they talk about long term effects and plasticity at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of these studies talk about poor nutrition during critical periods resulting in long-term, even permanent, deficits. In fact, malnutrition is thought by some to influence the epigenome and affect offspring.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of scary. Not terribly surprising now that I think about it, but it still freaks me out somehow.

All that said, I still think that claiming that 70% of the population doesn't have the "brain structure" for learning something is more than a little misleading if not completely false.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

If I wrote that book I would be effective enough. Or I would enlist professional help. But I hope you realize that I make that claim because I believe I can offer a sequence of problems that force the student to think about the right things and to learn what needs to be learned in just the right order. Not the fact that my writing is extremely clear. I base my claim on my math aptitude and my ability to put myself into the heads of people without that aptitude. In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you ever write this book? Or is it just a useless hypothetical? If you really think you could write the best algebra textbook ever, I can't see why you wouldn't do it.

Think of the children, David. Think of the children.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I wrote that book I would be effective enough. Or I would enlist professional help. But I hope you realize that I make that claim because I believe I can offer a sequence of problems that force the student to think about the right things and to learn what needs to be learned in just the right order. Not the fact that my writing is extremely clear. I base my claim on my math aptitude and my ability to put myself into the heads of people without that aptitude. In fact I could come close to writing the best book without ever using words outside of the prtoblems themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you ever write this book? Or is it just a useless hypothetical? If you really think you could write the best algebra textbook ever, I can't see why you wouldn't do it.

Think of the children, David. Think of the children.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't even an option until a couple of years ago. Plus remember that it would be pointed toward that bottom 70% who won't benefit that much from it.

[mjkidd]

I would think that it would be pointed towards the 27% who could become mathematically literate but don't.

[David Sklansky]

They don't need my book. They need a spanking.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't need my book. They need a spanking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then, I guess your next project should be: Mathematics of Child-Rearing: Applications of Game Theory For Advanced Parents

[Taraz]

What qualifies one as Math/Science/Logic literate? I'm curious if I need to start studying or not.

[born2ramble]

[ QUOTE ]
The specific stuff that needs to be learned is logic, (syllogisms, fallacies, truth tables) probability, including permutations and combinations and basic statistics, and some algebra, especially turning word problems into equations. Calculus, physics, and similar things are very good things to learn as well but for most people only because it helps train the brain.


[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10484755&page=2&vc=1 )

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I still think that claiming that 70% of the population doesn't have the "brain structure" for learning something is more than a little misleading if not completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't buy that either.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I still think that claiming that 70% of the population doesn't have the "brain structure" for learning something is more than a little misleading if not completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't buy that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of things that people with <110 IQs cannot grasp or do. It's actually quite shocking. You don't see it much in everyday life because people have had a lifetime of adjustment and experience. And average social interaction hovers around 90.

Poker is a perfect example of how important intelligence is in dealing with novel MSL related problems. Most people are completely and sadly lost when it comes to the simple task of analyzing a poker hand, even though the concepts are rather simple. However, a reasonable proportion can learn correct plays, because highly intelligent chimp-trainers-for-hire like Dr. Sklansky can ratchet down the concepts into low IQ, bite sized pieces. But put those people onto novel tasks (like poker before books), and they're lost.

And I do think it is raw brain power and architecture. For example, IQ doesn't change a great deal during life except to go down. I don't know of anyone who was 100 at 20 and 120 at 30.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

That's the problem David. What is a "bit of a roll" precisely? How do you determine that? [/quote[

I'd assume the question isn't whether he has the true answer. Rather, i'd question whether your answer is more right than his?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of things that people with <110 IQs cannot grasp or do. It's actually quite shocking. You don't see it much in everyday life because people have had a lifetime of adjustment and experience. And average social interaction hovers around 90.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[ QUOTE ]

Poker is a perfect example of how important intelligence is in dealing with novel MSL related problems. Most people are completely and sadly lost when it comes to the simple task of analyzing a poker hand, even though the concepts are rather simple. However, a reasonable proportion can learn correct plays, because highly intelligent chimp-trainers-for-hire like Dr. Sklansky can ratchet down the concepts into low IQ, bite sized pieces. But put those people onto novel tasks (like poker before books), and they're lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[ QUOTE ]

And I do think it is raw brain power and architecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there are no facts to back up this claim. It's pretty much a statement of opinion with no evidence other than, "some people seem smarter than others".

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's well known that IQ is substantially inherited.
It's well known that IQ doesn't change much in adulthood.

What kind of proof do you want? Twin studies? Google them. Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does. With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's well known that IQ is substantially inherited.
It's well known that IQ doesn't change much in adulthood.

What kind of proof do you want? Twin studies? Google them. Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does. With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to have the debate about whether IQ is an accurate measure of anything right now. I'm pretty sure we've had that debate before. Let's just say it's unclear what IQ is really measuring.

[Taraz]

And even if I grant you that everything is heritable and that it is all brain structure that still doesn't prove that only 30% of the population has sufficient brain power to be MSL literate.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
And even if I grant you that everything is heritable and that it is all brain structure that still doesn't prove that only 30% of the population has sufficient brain power to be MSL literate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the 3% and 30% figures are important, since it's obvious David pulled them out of the ether.

His main point is that a large percetnage of the population, probably a majority, seems to be unable to consitently construct/follow mildly complex logical arguments even with a decent education. Of the remainder, a relatively small fraction cultivates the talent they have for "MSL literacy".

Personally, I think the 3% and 30% figures are too low (especially the 3%). Furthermore, even David's 3% can be extremely dangerous if they think they're actually the top 0.01% (as is distressingly common).

[PairTheBoard]

Most people are really discussing side issues here. On the side issue of what people are capable of learning, I think the current state of the Science and Technology of Education is so primitive we are just guessing. My guess is that when the Science and Technology of Education is far far more advanced, as it will be in the future, we would be amazed at what kinds of mental skills most everbody will be able to master. Post-Phd level skills of today in SML will become basic education for everybody.

However most everybody here is missing Sklansky's main point about the Quantum Leap. How ever the MSL literate are defined and who ever is defined as Intellegent but not MSL literate, Sklansky's point is that for Problems that only require "a bit" of MSL, all other things being equal, the MSL literate person has a Quantum Advantage over the MSL non literate. The Quantum is SO large that the non literate deserves to be called a Moron in comparison to the MSL literate for purposes of work on this Problem - all other things being equal.

The thing is, Sklansky's Point is trivially valid if you define "a bit" large enough. Measuring on a scale of 1 to 100, if "a bit" means 100, ie. the problem is a MSL technical one where all the work on it is going to be applications of MSL, then you can't argue that the Literate doesn't have a huge advantage over the nonliterate. And clearly the measure of that advantage is a function of the measure of MSL involved in the Problem.

So you have a function,

A(m)

where m measures the amount of MSL involved in the Problem, and A(m) measures the advantage for the MSL literate over nonliterate - all other things being equal - in working on that Problem. Sklansky's 30%-3% figures are just a rough gauge of how many nonliterate people are available to make "all other things equal".

So, Sklansky's Point is about the SHAPE of the GRAPH of A(m). He is saying it's not linear. In fact, according to him, it is highly NonLinear and stays relatively high as m declines from 100 to 0. He is indicating there is a Sharp Dropoff somewhere in the graph and in his opinion, the Sharp Drop off is a lot closer to 0 than a lot of people think.

If he wasn't so lazy or lacking in some kind of literacy of his own, he would have done this himself. Now you have something to discuss.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the 3% and 30% figures are important, since it's obvious David pulled them out of the ether.

His main point is that a large percetnage of the population, probably a majority, seems to be unable to consitently construct/follow mildly complex logical arguments even with a decent education. Of the remainder, a relatively small fraction cultivates the talent they have for "MSL literacy".

Personally, I think the 3% and 30% figures are too low (especially the 3%). Furthermore, even David's 3% can be extremely dangerous if they think they're actually the top 0.01% (as is distressingly common).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's well known that IQ is substantially inherited.
It's well known that IQ doesn't change much in adulthood.

What kind of proof do you want? Twin studies? Google them. Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does. With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to have the debate about whether IQ is an accurate measure of anything right now. I'm pretty sure we've had that debate before. Let's just say it's unclear what IQ is really measuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this has been done a lot here too. A lot of the time I read a post of Phil's and I think "He gets it." but for some reason when the subjects of intelligence, heredity, race, etc. comes up it's like the rational, educated poster gets possessed or something.

[born2ramble]

PTB,

Thanks for the analysis. I agree with everything you said (and believe that's DS's precise arguement) except for this:

[ QUOTE ]
The Quantum is SO large that the non literate deserves to be called a Moron in comparison to the MSL literate for purposes of work on this Problem - all other things being equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, just to clarify, he's only calling the 27% morons. The minds Capable of becoming MSL literate, but who CHOOSE not to. If you fall into this 27%, then go on to pretend the MSL components of some problems don't exist: you're a moron.

And the whole point of the post is to motivate the smart-lazy type to learn some basic MSL.

[born2ramble]

[ QUOTE ]


I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I tend to agree. For the sake of this argument, though, you can simply consider where everyone is at right now in life and discuss potential from there.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you pick height as an example, since that's a common trait scientists use to show how something could have both a hereditary component and a large environmental one (most famous is probably Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man").

[ QUOTE ]
With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you omit mentioning the massive influence of environmental factors on the brain?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you pick height as an example, since that's a common trait scientists use to show how something could have both a hereditary component and a large environmental one (most famous is probably Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man").

[ QUOTE ]
With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you omit mentioning the massive, huge, ginormous influence of environmental factors on the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[born2ramble]

[ QUOTE ]
He is indicating there is a Sharp Dropoff somewhere in the graph and in his opinion, the Sharp Drop off is a lot closer to 0 than a lot of people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think David pointed out, though, that the sharp drop off can be accounted for largely by one reason: in logical thinking, if you make one small error early on, the rest of the thought-process will be founded on unstable grounds and inherently fouled up.

The advantage comes up in the long-run, because the MSL literates, although he/she might make slightly fewer mistakes, will benefit from the extrapolated effects (i.e. messing up whole modes of thought and strings of ideas.) And it seems logical thought is important in constructing knowledge in a whole bunch of areas, and that's probably why David advocates learning a whole buncha math. Even if he never uses advanced math in practical every-day situations, the mathematician's mind (or "MSL literate") will be trained and better-suited to pick up these small errors.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are really discussing side issues here. On the side issue of what people are capable of learning, I think the current state of the Science and Technology of Education is so primitive we are just guessing. My guess is that when the Science and Technology of Education is far far more advanced, as it will be in the future, we would be amazed at what kinds of mental skills most everbody will be able to master. Post-Phd level skills of today in SML will become basic education for everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This seems excessively optimistic to me. I don't think anything in history even remotely suggests that this could ever be possible unless you're thinking of completely new forms of education (not just science and technology education). For example, moving away from the teacher/student model towards directly altering the brains of individual "students".

[PairTheBoard]

==============
So you have a function,

A(m)

where m measures the amount of MSL involved in the Problem, and A(m) measures the advantage for the MSL literate over nonliterate - all other things being equal - in working on that Problem. Sklansky's 30%-3% figures are just a rough gauge of how many nonliterate people are available to make "all other things equal".

So, Sklansky's Point is about the SHAPE of the GRAPH of A(m). He is saying it's not linear. In fact, according to him, it is highly NonLinear and stays relatively high as m declines from 100 to 0. He is indicating there is a Sharp Dropoff somewhere in the graph and in his opinion, the Sharp Drop off is a lot closer to 0 than a lot of people think.
=======================


Sklansky is making a significant statement beyond this. But you need to understand the A(m) graph idea first. A(m) is defined according to "all other things being equal". The only difference is a quantum between MSL literate and nonliterate. In his additional statement he wants to bring in a second variable, let's call it k. This is a non MSL element which would give a person an advantage in the non MSL area of the Problem - if there were no difference in MSL expertise. It's the measure of difference in things like knowledge or experience for Problems of this type. It could even be the advantage due to more natural intelligence or talent for working on the non MSL aspects of the problem. The variable k measures any such advantage the Non MSL literate person might have.

So Sklansky also wants to talk about the function,

A(m,k)

where k is defined as above.

When k=0, A(m,k) is just the function A(k). Recall its Graph which Sklansky asserts starts at 0 for m=0 and in some region for m relativly close to 0 jumps rapidly to a very high level. A high enough level to give the MSL literate the same advatage over the nonliterate as an average person would have over a Moron.

That's for k=0. Now, what happens as we look at that same graph for other fixed values of k? For large values of k we would expect it to take on negative values. ie. the Advantage goes to the MSL NonLiterate with the huge advantage in the non MSL aspects of the problem. This is where Sklansky suprises us with his Second Assertion. He claims that for suprisingly large fixed values of k, say k_0, the Graph of A(m,k_0) continues to look much like A(m), ie. A(m,0). He claims that the MSL Nonliterate can have a suprisingly large advantage in the Non MSL aspect of the problem and still get badly beat by the MSL literate for relatively small values of m in the Problem.

Of course this is all highly theoretical and speculative. He gives us no examples on which we can test his theory, much less any statistical evidence. It's probably a good idea for some kind of Research for somebody. Meanwhile, we can add our speculations on top of his.

It would be a big help if someone with graphics ability could post the graphs I describe above.

PairTheBoard

[born2ramble]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people are really discussing side issues here. On the side issue of what people are capable of learning, I think the current state of the Science and Technology of Education is so primitive we are just guessing. My guess is that when the Science and Technology of Education is far far more advanced, as it will be in the future, we would be amazed at what kinds of mental skills most everbody will be able to master. Post-Phd level skills of today in SML will become basic education for everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This seems excessively optimistic to me. I don't think anything in history even remotely suggests that this could ever be possible unless you're thinking of completely new forms of education (not just science and technology education). For example, moving away from the teacher/student model towards directly altering the brains of individual "students".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the word in bold.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

Thanks for the analysis. I agree with everything you said (and believe that's DS's precise arguement) except for this:

[ QUOTE ]
The Quantum is SO large that the non literate deserves to be called a Moron in comparison to the MSL literate for purposes of work on this Problem - all other things being equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, just to clarify, he's only calling the 27% morons. The minds Capable of becoming MSL literate, but who CHOOSE not to. If you fall into this 27%, then go on to pretend the MSL components of some problems don't exist: you're a moron.

And the whole point of the post is to motivate the smart-lazy type to learn some basic MSL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he calls them Morons if they refuse to accept that they are at such a HUGE disadvantage when it is so apparent to him that they are. So I think he uses the term Moron a couple of different ways. One, to decrible the HUGE disadvantage, and secondly to admonish those who refuse to accept that they are at such a HUGE, Normal-Moron, type of disadvatange. So I think your point elaborates further on mine but doesn't affect what I proposed.

PairTheBoard

[born2ramble]

Rduke,

Quick question for your on this side-issue. I agree that Phil is probably underestimating environmental factors, but do you agree that it's not necessarily vital for DS's argument?

You can simply look at the population as "where they are now" and view an individual's potential from this point. And I'm not saying that DS is correct in the 30% number, either - I reckon that it is higher. But I doubt he's talking about "God-given ability" strictly. I think "brain structure" was a carefully chosen phrase to encompass all components of the individual's current mental situation.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you omit mentioning the massive, huge, ginormous influence of environmental factors on the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

However, from what I understand, most of these environmental factors are heavily biased towards the early stages of fetal, infant, and child development.

So if we're talking about the current adult population then it doesn't really matter much if the current state is due to inhereted or environmental factors. Either way, a large fraction of the population either isn't capable of becoming MSL literate via current educational methods or simply chooses not to put in the work required.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the word in bold.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but it still sounds excessively optimistic unless he's in full blown science fiction/fantasy mode.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
==============
So you have a function,

A(m)
=======================

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted David's post to mean that most meaningful problems always have enough MSL in them (especially "L" - logic) to give an MSL literate a significant edge.

I think it's fair to say that any issue that doesn't involve a lot of logic probably isn't an interesting or important problem to begin with.

I know that's not how David worded it, however.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you omit mentioning the massive, huge, ginormous influence of environmental factors on the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

However, from what I understand, most of these environmental factors are heavily biased towards the early stages of fetal, infant, and child development.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true.

[ QUOTE ]

So if we're talking about the current adult population then it doesn't really matter much if the current state is due to inhereted or environmental factors. Either way, a large fraction of the population either isn't capable of becoming MSL literate via current educational methods or simply chooses not to put in the work required.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody can claim to know that a large fraction is incapable of becoming MSL literate. It's almost an entirely made up claim.

And I also think there are more reasons why someone might not become MSL literate. You mention educational methods might not be adequate or that the person doesn't work hard enough, but there are other factors involved. Maybe the person doesn't know that he needs to be MSL literate. That's the biggest factor in my opinion. If a person doesn't understand why it's so important he won't put in the work to learn.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is indicating there is a Sharp Dropoff somewhere in the graph and in his opinion, the Sharp Drop off is a lot closer to 0 than a lot of people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think David pointed out, though, that the sharp drop off can be accounted for largely by one reason: in logical thinking, if you make one small error early on, the rest of the thought-process will be founded on unstable grounds and inherently fouled up.

The advantage comes up in the long-run, because the MSL literates, although he/she might make slightly fewer mistakes, will benefit from the extrapolated effects (i.e. messing up whole modes of thought and strings of ideas.) And it seems logical thought is important in constructing knowledge in a whole bunch of areas, and that's probably why David advocates learning a whole buncha math. Even if he never uses advanced math in practical every-day situations, the mathematician's mind (or "MSL literate") will be trained and better-suited to pick up these small errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea. That sounds good theoretically and makes sense as a principle, but without examples it's hard to take a look at how it might apply. Do MSL NonLiterates really make terrible blunders in problems that only involve some MSL? Consider a mechanic working on a car. He's probably MSL NonLiterate according to Sklansky. And the Problem of working on a car involves some MSL. In order to diagnose the car's problems the mechanic needs to read diagnostic measures, and make logical deductions. He also needs some basic physics. And he is far from MSL literate if Sklansky's rough gauge of 3% is any indication.

But does he really make these kinds of logical blunders that prevent him from fixing the car? Just because he doesn't know an antecedent from a conclusion on a written test doesn't mean he can't apply some common sense when he determines what's wrong with the car. And to think a Physics professor who tinkers with cars would automatically do a better job right away than the mechanic with years of experience working on cars is pretty iffy to me. Where's all the compounding of logical errors theory in this case.

Without examples Sklansky's theory is like Aristotle's Physics. Just because a great mind came up with it doesn't mean it will stand up to the test.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people are really discussing side issues here. On the side issue of what people are capable of learning, I think the current state of the Science and Technology of Education is so primitive we are just guessing. My guess is that when the Science and Technology of Education is far far more advanced, as it will be in the future, we would be amazed at what kinds of mental skills most everbody will be able to master. Post-Phd level skills of today in SML will become basic education for everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This seems excessively optimistic to me. I don't think anything in history even remotely suggests that this could ever be possible unless you're thinking of completely new forms of education (not just science and technology education). For example, moving away from the teacher/student model towards directly altering the brains of individual "students".

[/ QUOTE ]

I have in mind highly sophisticated virtual reality interactive experiences for the student. Ones with compelling features that motivate the student to push forward and improve his skills. And ones which instantly measure how he is learning, what he is learning, and his current skill level in applying that in creatively solving problems new to him.

It's only a matter of devoting enough resources to the development of this kind of technology.

PairTheBoard

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anybody can claim to know that a large fraction is incapable of becoming MSL literate. It's almost an entirely made up claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you mean by "large" and "incapable". I do think David tosses these fractions and words around too loosely.

David certinaly catagorizes people too easily. It should be obvious that the issue isn't capable vs. incapable as much as various degrees of obstacles an individual must overcome to attain MSL literacy. That said, there must be a significant fraction for whom the obstacles are so formidable that it's unreasonable to expect most of them to ever attain MSL literacy and there are others who could do it if only they put in the effort required.

Finally I'd add that I think that the key is to notice that the real problem here is people overestimating their abilities to understand/solve a problem. No matter how high up (or low down) the MSL tree you go, no percentile is immune from over reaching their grasp.

For example, I have no doubt that the people involved in the the decisions of the US invasion Iraq (both pre- and post-) were well above average MSL literates (well, except one /images/graemlins/laugh.gif) but they made enourmous errors because they couldn't seem to grasp the conept that they didn't understand Iraq nearly as well as they thought they did.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
==============
So you have a function,

A(m)
=======================

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted David's post to mean that most meaningful problems always have enough MSL in them (especially "L" - logic) to give an MSL literate a significant edge.

I think it's fair to say that any issue that doesn't involve a lot of logic probably isn't an interesting or important problem to begin with.

I know that's not how David worded it, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. He didn't say anything about "meaningful". What would that mean anyway? Creating a masterpiece work of art is not "meaningful"? Fixing a car is not "meaningful"? 90% of the jobs people actually do are not "meaningful"?

No. He indicates some kind of broad application of his theory. Without Examples it is theoretical speculation.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.

[/ QUOTE ]

most people would probably agree brain structure becomes "set" somewhere between 3-puberty I would guess. I think around 6 or 7 or so is the best current guess.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
==============
So you have a function,

A(m)
=======================

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted David's post to mean that most meaningful problems always have enough MSL in them (especially "L" - logic) to give an MSL literate a significant edge.

I think it's fair to say that any issue that doesn't involve a lot of logic probably isn't an interesting or important problem to begin with.

I know that's not how David worded it, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. He didn't say anything about "meaningful". What would that mean anyway? Creating a masterpiece work of art is not "meaningful"? Fixing a car is not "meaningful"? 90% of the jobs people actually do are not "meaningful"?

No. He indicates some kind of broad application of his theory. Without Examples it is theoretical speculation.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

True, what I said might not match up with what David had in mind, but I'm not overly concerned about David's particular intentions. I'm more concerned about under waht conditions the ideas he was expressing might be.

As such, I think they're relevent when it comes to issues and problems of significant importance, not things liek individual jobs.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.

[/ QUOTE ]

most people would probably agree brain structure becomes "set" somewhere between 3-puberty I would guess. I think around 6 or 7 or so is the best current guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just false.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you omit mentioning the massive influence of environmental factors on the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]
Prenatal development is pretty environmental, wouldn't you say?

Environmental factors are huge of course - just like in height. But just as short parents generally have shorter kids, regardless of nutrition or exercise, smart parents generally have smarter kids. There seem sto be natural upper bounds on an individual's IQ, just like height.

As for what IQ measures, it's an excellent measure of MSL thinking and the brain's capacity to process complex information in a meaningful way. That's exactly what it's designed to test.

It's pretty much a slam dunk that intelligence potential is largely determined by hereditary factors. And even if you don't agree with that, you'd have to agree that intelligence is pretty much set by the time a person reaches 3, which means that Taraz's comments about education and hard work have nothing to with anything.

And if you think that IQ is not a good measure of the capacity for MSL competence, then L-O-L.

[bunny]

Phil153, this (http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1997/11-06-97/7682.html) seems to (at least partly) contradict the position you are taking in this thread. Do you have any response to it? There seems to be plenty of internet "evidence" that IQ can be influenced strongly by education (the link is relating to college level education - I would intuitively expect that earlier education would have even more of an impact).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil153, this (http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1997/11-06-97/7682.html) seems to (at least partly) contradict the position you are taking in this thread. Do you have any response to it? There seems to be plenty of internet "evidence" that IQ can be influenced strongly by education (the link is relating to college level education - I would intuitively expect that earlier education would have even more of an impact).

[/ QUOTE ]

Cripes. Is it really that difficult to compare the scores from kids of any color that went to the same highschool. And/or from acknowledged 'better' schools.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Cripes. Is it really that difficult to compare the scores from kids of any color that went to the same highschool. And/or from acknowledged 'better' schools.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand. I thought that Phil153 claimed that education didnt have much effect on IQ and that in general it declined over time - that it was pretty much set at age 3. This seems to contradict that and I wondered where he derived his views. Not sure how your post answers that (or were you addressing something else?)

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
True, what I said might not match up with what David had in mind, but I'm not overly concerned about David's particular intentions. I'm more concerned about under waht conditions the ideas he was expressing might be.

As such, I think they're relevent when it comes to issues and problems of significant importance, not things liek individual jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give some examples?

PairTheBoard

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
However, from what I understand, most of these environmental factors are heavily biased towards the early stages of fetal, infant, and child development.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, younger = more malleable.

Although I can't imagine 70% of college-age or younger people are incapable of becoming msl literate. Maybe motivationally disadvantaged.

I keep seeing some kind of My Fair Lady deal here

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.

[/ QUOTE ]

most people would probably agree brain structure becomes "set" somewhere between 3-puberty I would guess. I think around 6 or 7 or so is the best current guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by brain structure and where did you get that age?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
I would just hesitate to claim that the lack of a certain ability follows from "brain structure" and that it is immutable at birth. Especially since it's not grounded in any sort of scientific evidence. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.



most people would probably agree brain structure becomes "set" somewhere between 3-puberty I would guess. I think around 6 or 7 or so is the best current guess.



That's just false.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at ease of learning language and to a lesser extent ease of learning musical stuff relative to a person's age you'll see what I mean. The brain is very fluid up until about puberty and then after that the "pathways" pretty much "harden".

Also you may dispute the relevance but psychologists think that a person's personality is basically fixed by age 5 or 6 or 7 or something like that, pretty young. (introverted, extrovered, that kind of crap)

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, what I said might not match up with what David had in mind, but I'm not overly concerned about David's particular intentions. I'm more concerned about under waht conditions the ideas he was expressing might be.

As such, I think they're relevent when it comes to issues and problems of significant importance, not things liek individual jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give some examples?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave the example of whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq (at the time). That's certainly far more important than how to fix a car.

I'm thinking of any issue that carries significant political or economic implications. Abortion and Climate Change would be other examples.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Prenatal development is pretty environmental, wouldn't you say?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you are asking here. Prenatal influences are environmental and definitely affect intelligence.

But postnatal influences, including nutrition, enrichment, and education, are huge as well. Are you suggesting that I'm only thinking about prenatal when I say "environmental"?

[ QUOTE ]
Environmental factors are huge of course - just like in height. But just as short parents generally have shorter kids, regardless of nutrition or exercise, smart parents generally have smarter kids. There seem sto be natural upper bounds on an individual's IQ, just like height.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about the size and variability of differences you are talking about and the complexity of the trait.

[ QUOTE ]
As for what IQ measures, it's an excellent measure of MSL thinking and the brain's capacity to process complex information in a meaningful way. That's exactly what it's designed to test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain what you mean by "complex information"? Because IQ tests certainly do not test for processing ability of complex information by any reasonable definition that I've heard. Think about autistics. Many of them test average or better on IQ tests and have massive deficits in complex reasoning, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty much a slam dunk that intelligence potential is largely determined by hereditary factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Potential" is a huge word in that sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if you don't agree with that, you'd have to agree that intelligence is pretty much set by the time a person reaches 3,

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord no.

[ QUOTE ]
which means that Taraz's comments about education and hard work have nothing to with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

No again.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at ease of learning language and to a lesser extent ease of learning musical stuff relative to a person's age you'll see what I mean. The brain is very fluid up until about puberty and then after that the "pathways" pretty much "harden".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are really overgeneralizing here. There are different types of learning which have different (or no) critical periods.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
If you look at ease of learning language and to a lesser extent ease of learning musical stuff relative to a person's age you'll see what I mean. The brain is very fluid up until about puberty and then after that the "pathways" pretty much "harden".



I think you are really overgeneralizing here. There are different types of learning which have different (or no) critical periods.

[/ QUOTE ]

well for most things it's probably meaningless, that by the age of 10 your upper potential was fixed at 3 SD above the norm instead of the 4.5 SD if you had developed those abilities.

I mean chess has no critical period per se, although it has been analagized to a language, but it is so much more easier to learn and master if you start young. More importantly though when talking about the right tail of the curve, all of the grandmasters I think learned chess as a child, with the possible exception of some 19th century ones.

----
but thinkiing about it I think DS 30% unable to think critically/mathematically doesn't really come from this area, but rather from just having lived their whole lives without anything other than add/sub, these people will simply be unable to excercise these abilities due to simple atrophy. I'm thinking of 30, 40, 50 year old people who can't even do mult/div in their head here.

I guess I meant 70%. It does seem really high but let's remember that for most people thinking is something they actively dislike or are simply not interested in doing. I guess some of them could un-atrophy their brains if they wanted to.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I already gave the example of whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq (at the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

You claimed the people involved in making that decision were probably all MSL literate. Yet they made the wrong decision. Is this an example that supports your view here,


[ QUOTE ]
I interpreted David's post to mean that most meaningful problems always have enough MSL in them (especially "L" - logic) to give an MSL literate a significant edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having made the wrong decisions, I wonder how good the decision would have been if made by intellegent people using common sense who wouldn't pass Sklansky's 3% test for MSL. What if they had relied on military and CIA assesments of intelligence but focused more on cultural and sociological assesments of the region.

I don't really see this example shedding much light on your proposal. This "Significant" advantage, is it the Huge One Sklansky has in mind when he asserts the Moron image?

Another problem is that it's not that clear that the people that made the decision were MSL literate according to Sklansky.

Look, nobody is arguing that, all other things being equal, the MSL skilled has some advantage in anything that involves some MSL. That's obvious. What Sklansky proposes is something much more radical. Your proposal looks like it slides Sklansky down to a more fuzzy notion of "significant". Sklansky makes no mistake about how huge an advantage he's talking about. Not only is it a Huge advantage when all other things are equal but it remains so when there is expertise in the non MSL area. And for areas with relatively small amounts of MSL. That's what makes the proposal more than a triviality.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You claimed the people involved in making that decision were probably all MSL literate. Yet they made the wrong decision. Is this an example that supports your view here,

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair to say that people like feith and perle are msl literate and that they got exactly what they wanted, so I don't think it's fair to say they made a "wrong decision".

[David Sklansky]

"What Sklansky proposes is something much more radical. Your proposal looks like it slides Sklansky down to a more fuzzy notion of "significant". Sklansky makes no mistake about how huge an advantage he's talking about. Not only is it a Huge advantage when all other things are equal but it remains so when there is expertise in the non MSL area. And for areas with relatively small amounts of MSL. That's what makes the proposal more than a triviality."

You overstate my position. Being a big favorite to be correct when there is a disagreement, is not the same as a huge advantage. And my point that the msl incompetant's expertise in non msl areas is not enough to overcome the msl guy, applies only to those cases where the second guy has a good deal of expertise himself. For example I am quite sure that a college baseball coach who was fully familiar with what the math says about bunting, stealing lineups, etc would win more games than a major league manager who tried to do these things by the seat of his pants.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
What if they had relied on military and CIA assesments of intelligence but focused more on cultural and sociological assesments of the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would count cultural and sociological experts as also being in the top 3% of MSL (at least the L part anyway, which is the most important for most issues that don't directly involve science), if they weren't they wouldn't become leaders in their fields.

I think David's OP hints at a bigger problem. David talks about the middle 27% who think their opinions about certain matters should carry more weight than their abilities can justify. I'm more concerned with anyone who thinks their opinions should carry more weight than their abilities can justify. This is especially true of the top 3% because they're more likely to be in a position to actually carry out their opinions.

The people David complains about are usually just annoying, the people I'm concerned about can be absolutely terrifying.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]

Think about the size and variability of differences you are talking about and the complexity of the trait.

[/ QUOTE ]


I know that the intelligence of "normal" individuals spans all the way from borderline retard to David Sklansky. I know that the demonstrable differences between individual adults are enormous (regardless of reasons). I know that someone who only had a 8th grade education can destroy a college graduate on an IQ test, and other tests of thinking ability. I know that brain processing speed (maybe based on efficiency of learnt organization, maybe not) varies greatly. I know that a 400 gram chimpanzee brain can't come close to a human, and that body size adjusted brain size differences between animal species correlates with intelligence. Mostly importantly, I know that frontal grey matter in humans is strongly linked to IQ and intelligence and is mostly heritable.

And finally, I know that an organ as complex as the brain and so incredibly sensitive to variations in its internal components, is going to be at the mercy of a number of genes. You don't need a biology degree to come to these conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]

But postnatal influences, including nutrition, enrichment, and education, are huge as well. Are you suggesting that I'm only thinking about prenatal when I say "environmental"?

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course they're huge. As they are for height. But people getting adequate nutrition and exercise still span a variety of heights. This is the concept of potential. This is borne out by common sense - look at the variation between people growing up in the same families and circumstances. To my knowledge there are no strong differences in IQ between single children or those from large families, farmers or city dwellers, or even a nation of wealthy, highly educated Japanese and their poor, less educated Chinese cousins. What does this tell you??

Yet, there are significant variations between ethnic groups and family groups.


[ QUOTE ]

"Potential" is a huge word in that sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]



It seems there's a problem with the concept of intelligence potential. Are you disputing that there are upper bounds on an individual's intelligence, which can vary between individuals? Surely someone who studies brain processing and diseases or whatever it is you study, would have to agree that such things can vary significantly between people?

[ QUOTE ]

Can you explain what you mean by "complex information"? Because IQ tests certainly do not test for processing ability of complex information by any reasonable definition that I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]


Doing a painting is certainly very complex information processing. As is catching a ball I guess. So I'm guess I'm referring to complex MSL type processing. Lack of raw processing power is reason that most people choke on things like physics and the doubly indirected thinking needed to understand pointers in C++. They just cannot do it.

Edited on accident by Rduke55. I accidentally hit "Edit" instead of "Reply". I went back and copied and pasted so I think everything is back to normal.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

----
but thinkiing about it I think DS 30% unable to think critically/mathematically doesn't really come from this area, but rather from just having lived their whole lives without anything other than add/sub, these people will simply be unable to excercise these abilities due to simple atrophy. I'm thinking of 30, 40, 50 year old people who can't even do mult/div in their head here.

I guess I meant 70%. It does seem really high but let's remember that for most people thinking is something they actively dislike or are simply not interested in doing. I guess some of them could un-atrophy their brains if they wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to defer to RDuke on all of these neuroscientific matters since IIRC he's a full-blown neuroscientist and I am only about to start on my graduate studies. But I can't let this point go. Do you have any idea how plastic the brain is, even in adulthood? To claim that you somehow permanently lose the ability to do simple mathematical calculations by "atrophy" is so far beyond ridiculous.

I just don't understand where you are getting your facts from. Where have you seen this ever? Are you guys just making this stuff up as you go along? Maybe I'm just getting riled because this is my field, but it's extremely frustrating to me that some of you are claiming these things without any data whatsoever.

Nobody is disputing the fact that it is easier to learn things when you are young. But this doesn't mean that you can't learn things when you are older.

[Taraz]

Phil,

Even if I grant you everything in this post, answer me two questions.

Where in all that you wrote does it say that some people don't have the potential to be MSL literate? Where does it say that after some critical period early on in childhood you can no longer recover the potential to be MSL literate?

I'm not doubting that neurological factors that contribute to intelligence are heritable. I'm doubting your claim that you know that a certain percentage of the population doesn't have the capacity to learn certain things based on your "evidence". You basically made that up.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to defer to RDuke on all of these neuroscientific matters since IIRC he's a full-blown neuroscientist and I am only about to start on my graduate studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard J. Herrnstein was professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert on learning and cognition.

He wrote The Bell Curve

Don't be so quick to defer to expert opinion. What neuroscientists know about the brain is laughable, and largely useless compared to the volume of scientific and common sense evidence suggesting heritability of an upper IQ bound. Forest for the trees, and all that stuff.


I did it again. Sorry Phil, it should be corrected.

[Taraz]

Actually, I have one more bone to pick with you Phil.

How do you know what people with an IQ <110 can or cannot do? Do you poll everyone you meet and ask them their IQ? Do you then chart their abilities across a range of subjects? You just claim something like the following without anything to back it up:

[ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of things that people with <110 IQs cannot grasp or do. It's actually quite shocking. You don't see it much in everyday life because people have had a lifetime of adjustment and experience. And average social interaction hovers around 90.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you do poll everyone you meet, how do you know they aren't lying to you? I just want to know where you are getting all this.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if they had relied on military and CIA assesments of intelligence but focused more on cultural and sociological assesments of the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would count cultural and sociological experts as also being in the top 3% of MSL (at least the L part anyway, which is the most important for most issues that don't directly involve science), if they weren't they wouldn't become leaders in their fields.

I think David's OP hints at a bigger problem. David talks about the middle 27% who think their opinions about certain matters should carry more weight than their abilities can justify. I'm more concerned with anyone who thinks their opinions should carry more weight than their abilities can justify. This is especially true of the top 3% because they're more likely to be in a position to actually carry out their opinions.

The people David complains about are usually just annoying, the people I'm concerned about can be absolutely terrifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I'm making is that the people making the decision didn't need a lot MSL expertise. They needed the People Sense to know the importance of listening to the experts in the right fields. This is another thing Sklansky misses. A lot of problems are worked on in collaboration.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not doubting that neurological factors that contribute to intelligence are heritable. I'm doubting your claim that you know that a certain percentage of the population doesn't have the capacity to learn certain things based on your "evidence". You basically made that up.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's based on the predictive ability of SAT and IQ scores. It's based on the fact that you can't substantially improve scores on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which measures acquired verbal reasoning skills. <u>Acquired</u> verbal reasoning skills. Yet you can barely improve your score beyond a natural level no matter how much you study. These are teenage or early adult brains. Think about what that means.

It's based on my experience tutoring high school and college kids. Most of the difficulties of high school students are based on cognitive and emotional blocks which can be unwound, since the subject matter is simple enough. But come to college subjects like pointer arithmetic, and they hit a brick wall. They cannot - cannot - grasp it. Even die hard computer science students end up dropping out because the subject matter is simply beyond them, no matter how hard they try. It's like they don't have that part of the brain. I've conversations with my college professors who say the same thing. There is a certain level of intelligence required to do well in physics/math, and if it's not there, no amount of teaching will bring it.

Take that for what you will.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"What Sklansky proposes is something much more radical. Your proposal looks like it slides Sklansky down to a more fuzzy notion of "significant". Sklansky makes no mistake about how huge an advantage he's talking about. Not only is it a Huge advantage when all other things are equal but it remains so when there is expertise in the non MSL area. And for areas with relatively small amounts of MSL. That's what makes the proposal more than a triviality."

You overstate my position. Being a big favorite to be correct when there is a disagreement, is not the same as a huge advantage. And my point that the msl incompetant's expertise in non msl areas is not enough to overcome the msl guy, applies only to those cases where the second guy has a good deal of expertise himself. For example I am quite sure that a college baseball coach who was fully familiar with what the math says about bunting, stealing lineups, etc would win more games than a major league manager who tried to do these things by the seat of his pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally you've given an example. One of your pet issues along with your Football example. Your clarification of your clarifying OP sounds a bit different than the language you used there,

[ QUOTE ]
Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

From you Baseball and Football examples, do you think you have shown such a sweeping generalization? Do you have examples in other fields? Ones where the inertia of traditional ways of doing things does not muddle the point the way it does in your pet examples?

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

No, it's based on the predictive ability of SAT and IQ scores. It's based on the fact that you can't substantially improve scores on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which measures acquired verbal reasoning skills. <u>Acquired</u> verbal reasoning skills. Yet you can barely improve your score beyond a natural level no matter how much you study. These are teenage or early adult brains. Think about what that means.

It's based on my experience tutoring high school and college kids. Most of the difficulties of high school students are based on cognitive and emotional blocks which can be unwound, since the subject matter is simple enough. But come to college subjects like pointer arithmetic, and they hit a brick wall. They cannot - cannot - grasp it. Even die hard computer science students end up dropping out because the subject matter is simply beyond them, no matter how hard they try. It's like they don't have that part of the brain. I've conversations with my college professors who say the same thing. There is a certain level of intelligence required to do well in physics/math, and if it's not there, no amount of teaching will bring it.

Take that for what you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your definition of MSL literate is different than Sklanksy's:

[ QUOTE ]

The specific stuff that needs to be learned is logic, (syllogisms, fallacies, truth tables) probability, including permutations and combinations and basic statistics, and some algebra, especially turning word problems into equations. Calculus, physics, and similar things are very good things to learn as well but for most people only because it helps train the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there comes a point in someone's life where learning highly complex subject material that you'd find in some college courses becomes difficult enough where you could declare it impossible without the requisite "intelligence". But learning simple logic, algebra, and statistics are not some of these subjects.

Some things are really, really hard to learn. And there might be a very small subset of the population who have the necessary intelligence, motivation, and training from early childhood who could learn these things. However, I doubt that we'd call any of these things essential for competency in life.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not doubting that neurological factors that contribute to intelligence are heritable. I'm doubting your claim that you know that a certain percentage of the population doesn't have the capacity to learn certain things based on your "evidence". You basically made that up.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's based on the predictive ability of SAT and IQ scores. It's based on the fact that you can't substantially improve scores on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which measures acquired verbal reasoning skills. <u>Acquired</u> verbal reasoning skills. Yet you can barely improve your score beyond a natural level no matter how much you study. These are teenage or early adult brains. Think about what that means.

It's based on my experience tutoring high school and college kids. Most of the difficulties of high school students are based on cognitive and emotional blocks which can be unwound, since the subject matter is simple enough. But come to college subjects like pointer arithmetic, and they hit a brick wall. They cannot - cannot - grasp it. Even die hard computer science students end up dropping out because the subject matter is simply beyond them, no matter how hard they try. It's like they don't have that part of the brain. I've conversations with my college professors who say the same thing. There is a certain level of intelligence required to do well in physics/math, and if it's not there, no amount of teaching will bring it.

Take that for what you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not with our current teaching methods. But you don't know what you don't know about what advanced teaching technologies of the future might be able to do.

PairTheBoard

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

And finally, I know that an organ as complex as the brain and so incredibly sensitive to variations in its internal components, is going to be at the mercy of a number of genes. You don't need a biology degree to come to these conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]



But why are you ignoring the mountains of evidence on environmental (pre- and postnatal, nutritional and educational, seneory, etc.) effects on the brain?

[ QUOTE ]

Of course they're huge. As they are for height. But people getting adequate nutrition and exercise still span a variety of heights.

[/ QUOTE ]



Again, nutrition is only part of it. Experience is huge.

[ QUOTE ]

This is the concept of potential. This is borne out by common sense - look at the variation between people growing up in the same families and circumstances. To my knowledge there are no strong differences in IQ between single children or those from large families, farmers or city dwellers, or even a nation of wealthy, highly educated Japanese and their poor, less educated Chinese cousins. What does this tell you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you aren't reading enough. How do you explain the shrinking of the "race gap" in the U.S.?

Also in biology, because of how evolution works, "common sense" can be your worst enemy.

[ QUOTE ]

Yet, there are significant variations between ethnic groups and family groups.

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually posted a couple times on this regarding the Ashkenazi jews. I'm not saying there aren't hereditary differences here. I'm saying that much, if not most, of the difference we see is most likely attributed to non-genetic factors.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Potential" is a huge word in that sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems there's a problem with the concept of intelligence potential. Are you disputing that there are upper bounds on an individual's intelligence, which can vary between individuals? Surely someone who studies brain processing and diseases or whatever it is you study, would have to agree that such things can vary significantly between people?

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I was unclear in my previous sentence. I'm not disputing an idea of an inherited "potential" that would be exhibited in a world where people had the same environmental history, what I'm disputing is its role in our societies vs. environmental influences.

[ QUOTE ]

Lack of raw processing power is reason that most people choke on things like physics and the doubly indirected thinking needed to understand pointers in C++. They just cannot do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think they still couldn't if they were intensively educated in it? I'm wondering where you get the idea about lack of raw processing power.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

Richard J. Herrnstein was professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert on learning and cognition.

He wrote The Bell Curve

[/ QUOTE ]


Haven't we been through this before? The overwhelming majority of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists don't believe the bell curve. Have you read any of the scientific criticisms of it? (cue PC argument)
Hell, have you read "The Mismeasure of Man" whcih predated it by a decade and a 1/2 (yet could have been written in response to it)?

[ QUOTE ]

Don't be so quick to defer to expert opinion. What neuroscientists know about the brain is laughable, and largely useless compared to the volume of scientific and common sense evidence suggesting heritability of an upper IQ bound. Forest for the trees, and all that stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
What can I say to this? "Them fancy, book-learned college types, what with all their edumacation and sissy degrees. They don't see what's right in front of their face."

Again, upper bound, fine. I said something similar in the billion chimps thread.

How can anyone debate with you if you're dismissing the very research dedicated to investigate this subject? And the people most qualified to comment on the subject? Oh right, because what we know is "laughable"

Also, you really don't want to use "common sense" as your point if you are talking about biology. You're getting close to HeavilyArmed/FLFishOn here.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Richard J. Herrnstein was professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert on learning and cognition.

He wrote The Bell Curve

[/ QUOTE ]




Haven't we been through this before? The overwhelming majority of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists don't believe the bell curve. Have you read any of the scientific criticisms of it? (cue PC argument)
Hell, have you read "The Mismeasure of Man" whcih predated it by a decade and a 1/2 (yet could have been written in response to it)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't bringing up The Bell Curve. That response was to Taraz about the value of expert opinion. He defers to you but not Dr Herrnstein. Expert opinion is worthless on contentious issues as The Bell Curve demonstrates.

BTW, I would be stunned if the "overwhelming majority" disagree with The Bell Curve. That means 90%+ to me. Also amazing is the statement "much if not most is environmental". I'll have to do some serious reading because from what I understand that opinion is not shared by a large majority of your colleagues.

I know you're a busy man so I'll try to keep my points clear in future.

[ QUOTE ]
What can I say to this? "Them fancy, book-learned college types, what with all their edumacation and sissy degrees. They don't see what's right in front of their face."

[/ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that there's a large body of data to indicate a profound difference in actual intelligence between individuals, families, and ethnic groups. The burden of proof is on those who claim this isn't mostly to genetic difference, as intelligence has been shown to be substantially heritable.

BTW, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to benchmark a computer or examine its inputs and outputs. It's barely relevant.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
That response was to Taraz about the value of expert opinion. He defers to you but not Dr Herrnstein. Expert opinion is worthless on contentious issues as The Bell Curve demonstrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what opinions should we respect?
My opinion based on the research. I didn't just pull it out of my butt.
If you're saying Herrnstein is a better authority here based on The Bell Curve then I'd have to disagree with that.
Herrnstein was also a Skinnerian behaviorist - which also has fallen away in science, for very good reasons.
Based on what is known about these subjects now you really can't point to old-school behaviorists as the authorities on intelligence no matter what seriously flawed book they wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I would be stunned if the "overwhelming majority" disagree with The Bell Curve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read any of the criticisms? I'd be surprised if you went into a good cognitive psych or neuroscience department and found 1 in 5 people that accepted the majority of The Bell Curve's conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Also amazing is the statement "much if not most is environmental".

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I am talking about the variation in intelligence between groups reported in books like The Bell Curve.
If you respond to one of my points here please explain how your views interpret the shrinking of the race gap in IQ scores over the past few decades.

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that there's a large body of data to indicate a profound difference in actual intelligence between individuals, families, and ethnic groups. The burden of proof is on those who claim this isn't mostly to genetic difference, as intelligence has been shown to be substantially heritable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be selectively reading. There is a huge amount of data looking at environmental influences on intelligence (ignoring the problems of measuring it)

Also, with traits as complex as intelligence, there is a serious burden of proof on the genetic side as well.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to benchmark a computer or examine its inputs and outputs. It's barely relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your analogy isn't valid and oversimplifies the question.
We're not talking about input-output here in this regard. We are talking about why outputs are different. How the "computer" wires up, etc. And the "input" side is hardly as simple as you are making it out to be.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
If you respond to one of my points here please explain how your views interpret the shrinking of the race gap in IQ scores over the past few decades.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is from Dickens and Flynn 2006:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2236/blacktestscoreriserh3.jpg

They claim 5 IQ points but it looks like ~3 to me. Without having looked at any data, I would say this could easily be accounted for by race mixing, and the effects of in-race heterosis as blacks (who were probably somewhat inbred by slave owners) travel further from their relatives. Plus a point or two from improved nutrition and health outcomes since the 50s. The other point is that this is a movement relative to white scores; there may well be things affecting white IQ distributions as intelligent whites are having far smaller families and breeding patterns change with modern life.

If anything I think this indicates a smaller environmental effect. Black education has skyrocketed since the 70s, as have their nutritional and health outcomes and social freedoms. And yet the IQ change is quite small, smaller than would be expected if the different was purely or mostly environmental.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course they're huge. As they are for height. But people getting adequate nutrition and exercise still span a variety of heights. This is the concept of potential. This is borne out by common sense - look at the variation between people growing up in the same families and circumstances. To my knowledge there are no strong differences in IQ between single children or those from large families, farmers or city dwellers, or even a nation of wealthy, highly educated Japanese and their poor, less educated Chinese cousins. What does this tell you??

Yet, there are significant variations between ethnic groups and family groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please explain the ethnic differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants (an order of magnitude in IQ)?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to benchmark a computer or examine its inputs and outputs. It's barely relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it would help if you want to accurately determine the cause of differences in benchmarks. Any moron (apparently) can tell you these people are smart and these people are dumb. But only a moron will follow that these people are smart becuase they're these people.

"Clearly as these studies show, all Dell <font color="white">(P4 2Ghz) </font> out perform HP <font color="white"> (PIII 750Mhz) </font> desktops."

I guess next you'll have us believe white peppered moths (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html ) are twice as delicious?

[Phil153]

The other point is that those claiming environmental effects have to show why these effects aren't noticable in comparisons of White or Asian populations.

BTW, I didn't intend this to be about race &amp; IQ. I didn't even bring it up. What I want people to admit is:

- There is a distribution of innate intelligence potential that looks a lot like the IQ curve in terms of average and standard deviation.

- IQ generally is not very changeable in the teenagers/adults who Sklansky's OP was referring to.

Apparently these points are contentious?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain the ethnic differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants (an order of magnitude in IQ)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about these groups.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to benchmark a computer or examine its inputs and outputs. It's barely relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it would help if you want to accurately determine the cause of differences in benchmarks. Any moron (apparently) can tell you these people are smart and these people are dumb. But only a moron will follow that these people are smart becuase they're these people.

[/ QUOTE ]
How would it help? I can easily tell you that one processor is slower than another by doing simple benchmarks. It's not that hard. Brain speed tests. IQ tests. There a million ways to measure intelligence that have nothing to do with neurons. And the measurement of the other side, environmental factors, can be examined in aggregate. Neurons tell us nothing about right now about the degree of environmental influence. That's the realms of statistics, psychology, anthropology and common sense.

You can control for the environmental variables that supposedly lead to IQ differentials between races. And guess what? When those variables exist in in-race comparisons, you don't see anywhere near the difference you do between Asians and blacks. In many cases you don't see any difference at all. Ethnically identical groups living vastly different lives in different countries score very closely.

I'll have to write up a post detailing the tremendous amount of evidence and most importantly, contradictory evidence that destroys the claims of those who invoke environment as the sole cause (as they do in race &amp; IQ debates).

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Without having looked at any data, I would say this could easily be accounted for by race mixing, and the effects of in-race heterosis as blacks (who were probably somewhat inbred by slave owners) travel further from their relatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to look at the data! There's a ton of mixed race studies out there (a lot of it is military folk - I remmber some important studies based on U.S. Servicemen in Germany - black vs. white fathers and no gap in the offspring) but they support environmental influences as being responsible for the gap!!!

[ QUOTE ]
If anything I think this indicates a smaller environmental effect. Black education has skyrocketed since the 70s, as have their nutritional and health outcomes and social freedoms. And yet the IQ change is quite small, smaller than would be expected if the different was purely or mostly environmental.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's that possession I'm talking about. There's data saying one thing. You say you haven't looked at any data but still make statements like that? Why do you think that it's not explained by environmental factors? Why do you think that it is smaller than could be explained by environmental factors? YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE DATA!
Also, why is the race gap smaller in other countries?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The other point is that those claiming environmental effects have to show why these effects aren't noticable in comparisons of White or Asian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on this?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I didn't intend this to be about race &amp; IQ. I didn't even bring it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's my fault. But once you start talking about the innate intelligence subject it's hard to avoid.

[ QUOTE ]
- There is a distribution of innate intelligence potential that looks a lot like the IQ curve in terms of average and standard deviation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problems I see are that the point I am trying to make is that - due to environmental influences, problems defining and testing, etc. - we haven't been able to determine the magnitude or how mutable "innate intelligence" is.

[ QUOTE ]
- IQ generally is not very changeable in the teenagers/adults who Sklansky's OP was referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about "complex intelligence"?

On a tangent, I thought I mentioned this before but maybe not, for a lot of your previous hereditary stuff, I think you are confusing within-group and between-group heredity.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's that possession I'm talking about. There's data saying one thing. You say you haven't looked at any data but still make statements like that?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well the IQ jump above is data. As is the fact that black educational attainment and health outcomes have skyrocketed since the 70s. And the race mixing is substantial, though what effect it has I've assumed and haven't examined. If I find I'm right about mixed race IQ then there'll be trouble.

I will happily look at hard data. I'm going to get a journal subscription and wade through the studies you discuss. I tend to puke at the biased presentations done by the "we're all equal and I'm going to ignore the 800 pound gorilla's worth of evidence that proves otherwise" camp, but I'll put up with it just for you, Rduke.

[Galwegian]

[ QUOTE ]

7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realise that you like to make provocative posts - and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think that there is any need to insult the "27%" to whom you refer. According to Meerriam-Webster a moron is "a mildly mentally retarded person". Do you not consider that maybe some of the so called "msl illiterate" have decided that there are better ways to spend their time. Just because they have the ability to learn about math and logic does not meant that they should do so. They should not be labelled retarded because of this

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain the ethnic differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants (an order of magnitude in IQ)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know nothing about these groups.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you don't need an electrical engineering degree to benchmark a computer or examine its inputs and outputs. It's barely relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it would help if you want to accurately determine the cause of differences in benchmarks. Any moron (apparently) can tell you these people are smart and these people are dumb. But only a moron will follow that these people are smart because they're these people.

[/ QUOTE ]
How would it help? I can easily tell you that one processor is slower than another by doing simple benchmarks. It's not that hard. Brain speed tests. IQ tests. There a million ways to measure intelligence that have nothing to do with neurons. And the measurement of the other side, environmental factors, can be examined in aggregate. Neurons tell us nothing about right now about the degree of environmental influence. That's the realms of statistics, psychology, anthropology and common sense.

You can control for the environmental variables that supposedly lead to IQ differentials between races. And guess what? When those variables exist in in-race comparisons, you don't see anywhere near the difference you do between Asians and blacks. In many cases you don't see any difference at all. Ethnically identical groups living vastly different lives in different countries score very closely.

I'll have to write up a post detailing the tremendous amount of evidence and most importantly, contradictory evidence that destroys the claims of those who invoke environment as the sole cause (as they do in race &amp; IQ debates).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't propose to change your mind. I just want to counter your vitriol, for those that may be on the fence. There is nothing that can convince a racist, that race is irrelevant.

There are more than 70 valid definitions of intelligence, I doubt highly that a multiple-choice test measures anything definitively other than multiple-choice test taking. There is no possible way to come to a conclusion of cause through any benchmark. Any scientifically valid experiment conducted on human beings that controls for environment is illegal. Think about it.

I couldn’t find a link so I’ll describe it from memory. There was a university study done on groups of black and white students. The first group of black students, were told that they were going to administer a test that would measure their intelligence. They told the same to the first group of white students. I’m sure your happy to hear that the white students out performed the black students. The second group of black students, were told that they were going to administer a test that would measure their athletic ability. The second group of white students, were told the same. The black students out performed the white students (again no surprise right?). In all four groups, in both comparative trails, the researchers administered the same test. THE SAME TEST!. They only told the different groups (intelligence and athleticism) different things.

All the statistics in the world may point to, or cause you to believe what ever you want, but the above experiment shows clearly and irrefutable that what ever may cause high test scores (that’s all your measuring) is not based on race or genetics. It doesn’t matter how (you interpret) much evidence you show otherwise. (If you can I’d love to read how you can control for “self image” without any human rights violations.)

Let me try some analogies.
You have a color, but you aren’t sure what color it is. After much testing you determine according to the data that it is blue. You aren’t sure, but don’t know how to interpret the data any other way.
A more experience scientist decides to duplicate your study. He devises an experiment that can measure blueness. It can’t measure any other color, but if it’s blue, it will result in some value. It comes up zero.
What ever your data may be saying, we can now say for certain it’s not blue. It doesn’t mean your data is “wrong”, but it certainly means that your interpretation is.

You sit down at a $10/$20 table. After playing for 5 hours, you realize that of the last 150 flops 96 contained an Ace.
A. 64% of the last 5 hours of flops contained an Ace.
B. 64% of flops will contain an Ace.
C. The deck is rigged 64% towards ace flopage.
D. The dealer is cheating 64% of the time.
Any and all of those statements can describe what you’ve witness, but only A is true with any certainty. It describes what has happened. It by itself doesn’t mean anything. You can chose what ever you want (I’d personally lean towards D but I wouldn’t call it science).

Statistically there are twice as many black violent crime offenders than white. This is a fact. It is indisputable. The leap to “blacks are twice as likely to commit a violent crime” is one that identifies you as a racist. DUCY? Read the poker analogy until you do (you’d be choosing B if it isn’t clear).

You can demonstrate a million times that the primary cause of intelligence <u>may</u> be genetic. It <u>may</u> be racial. It only takes one demonstration to show that it is not, and all previous demonstrations MUST mean something else.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

Well the IQ jump above is data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a small piece that you don't believe anyways "looks like ~3 to me."


[ QUOTE ]
As is the fact that black educational attainment and health outcomes have skyrocketed since the 70s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which are the reasons people believe the gap is narrowing. I don't know why you are hand-waving other reasons that aren't backed up.

[ QUOTE ]

And the race mixing is substantial, though what effect it has I've assumed and haven't examined. If I find I'm right about mixed race IQ then there'll be trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of trouble? I don't know what you mean here.

[ QUOTE ]

I will happily look at hard data. I'm going to get a journal subscription and wade through the studies you discuss. I tend to puke at the biased presentations done by the "we're all equal and I'm going to ignore the 800 pound gorilla's worth of evidence that proves otherwise" camp,

[/ QUOTE ]

You prefer the ones biased in the other direction.

And seriously, the evidence doesn't point away from these environmental influences. I posted before that when The Bell Curve came out I was a supporter of it and made the same naive arguments you did. As I read the research and became better educated in my field I changed my views. It wasn't easy, I was resistant, but it did happen.

[ QUOTE ]

but I'll put up with it just for you, Rduke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realise that you like to make provocative posts - and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think that there is any need to insult the "27%" to whom you refer. According to Meerriam-Webster a moron is "a mildly mentally retarded person". Do you not consider that maybe some of the so called "msl illiterate" have decided that there are better ways to spend their time. Just because they have the ability to learn about math and logic does not meant that they should do so. They should not be labelled retarded because of this

[/ QUOTE ]

Rereading my words I realize that I should have said that my gripe was with only a portion of the 27%. Those who mistakingly think there is little downside for them if they don't learn. If they realize the downside, realize that that there opinions about many things are tainted by their ignorance (and thus they shouldn't go out of their way to offer them) but they choose not to learn anyway, they are not morons.

[Phil153]

Your post contains many logic errors, aside from the unnecessary charges of racism. I don't care about blacks specifically. Make it a comparison between White and Asian if you prefer. Or sub-Saharan Africans and Northern Africans (both black!!!). Or Asians and Blacks, if you really want to hit the ball out of the park.

[ QUOTE ]
There are more than 70 valid definitions of intelligence, I doubt highly that a multiple-choice test measures anything definitively other than multiple-choice test taking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the evidence, because IQ correlates well with a great number of things, among them success in life, job attainment, academic success and so on. And that's as a predictive measure. Psychologists themselves consider IQ to be a quite accurate measure of g.

Your third paragraph suggests that the results on IQ tests are solely due to attitude at the time of test taking. I hope you can see why this is thoroughly amusing to me and 95% of psychologists.

[ QUOTE ]
Statistically there are twice as many black violent crime offenders than white. This is a fact. It is indisputable. The leap to “blacks are twice as likely to commit a violent crime” is one that identifies you as a racist. DUCY? Read the poker analogy until you do (you’d be choosing B if it isn’t clear).

[/ QUOTE ] But the statement that "Blacks as a group must have either circumstances or social or behavioral factors that lead their members to commit twice as much crime" is NOT a racist one.

[ QUOTE ]
You can demonstrate a million times that the primary cause of intelligence may be genetic. It may be racial. It only takes one demonstration to show that it is not, and all previous demonstrations MUST mean something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you are quite wrong here. Perhaps someone has the patience to explain it to you.

[Taraz]

Just as a note, when I said that I defer to RDuke I meant that I'm going to let him carry on the debate. I think the point is an important one and I'm afraid I might muddle something up that he would state more clearly.

And the study that 2OuterJitsu was talking about is dealing with the phenomenon called Stereotype Threat. One of the professors at my school did a lot of pioneering research in this field so I've heard a lot about it. Here's a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
- IQ generally is not very changeable in the teenagers/adults who Sklansky's OP was referring to.

Apparently these points are contentious?

[/ QUOTE ]
I posted a link above which queries this. I have no idea of it's credentials but there were plenty more which seemed to contradict your claim that IQ doesnt improve much with education. Do you know of any studies on the effect of education on IQ scores?

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
"What puzzles me David is how a person as smart as you so consistently writes so imprecisely."

David, by his own admission, is lazy. While he decries the 27% who are capable of more, he writes poorly, one would think, solely because of his own laziness. Despite the fact that he is a famous author who claims he could write the best algebra book ever written because he could explain it better than anyone else. He writes the definitive book on mid-stakes limit hold'em and tells people to not complain about his poor writing, but rather to use the money they make from his advice to buy a book by Hemingway.

Perhaps the alternative would be to have to admit that, in some arenas very different from picking a house color, brains are not enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think this is the case, when things come to someone easily, they do not understand how anyone else cannot also see it easily. I have a hell of a time teaching algebra to someone my own age. I cannot for the life of me understand how they do not see how easy it is. I skip steps that i think are pointless and leave them out. I also do not write clearly sometimes because I do not understand how my true meaning is not implied in my short hand. this is particularly the case on web forums.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to defer to RDuke on all of these neuroscientific matters since IIRC he's a full-blown neuroscientist and I am only about to start on my graduate studies. But I can't let this point go. Do you have any idea how plastic the brain is, even in adulthood? To claim that you somehow permanently lose the ability to do simple mathematical calculations by "atrophy" is so far beyond ridiculous.

I just don't understand where you are getting your facts from. Where have you seen this ever? Are you guys just making this stuff up as you go along? Maybe I'm just getting riled because this is my field, but it's extremely frustrating to me that some of you are claiming these things without any data whatsoever.

Nobody is disputing the fact that it is easier to learn things when you are young. But this doesn't mean that you can't learn things when you are older.

[/ QUOTE ]

to be fair I'm talking maybe the bottom 20 or 30% of adults here. I don't think you realize just how dumb these people are. Maybe it's mental as in mental illness maybe they just do not want to think I don't know.

I mean maybe if I imprisoned and tortured them and made them learn but short of that there's just no way.

[PLOlover]

btw taraz I said the brain "sets" before puberty and you said it did not. well obviously people can still learn after puberty, so it doesnt totally solidify, but in many respects such as those I've mentioned it does (language, etc.).

so I guess the answer is a lot of it depends, but the only way to make a false statement is to say something like the adult brain is just as fluid and malleable as the child brain.

If i had to do a totally wacked out guess I would guess that in childhood one learns say 1000 basic building block things that can all be rearranged and combined and stuff and then as an adult you can use those 1000 blocks and adult learning is building advanced complicated structures using those 1000 blocks.

But as an adult you pretty much cannot increase your basic building block set.
You can see this in language as an adult has to filter the foreignn language through his native language (use his existing building block set), whereas a child can just pick it up naturally by adding new basic building blocks unique to the new language.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
btw taraz I said the brain "sets" before puberty and you said it did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not exactly what I was disagreeing with. I was more concerned with your claim that the age at which it set was 7 years old. This is what was said:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

most people would probably agree brain structure becomes "set" somewhere between 3-puberty I would guess. I think around 6 or 7 or so is the best current guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also hesitate to use the word 'set'. That's very, very misleading. Your brain is never really set. Especially not across the board like you seem to have been suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]

well obviously people can still learn after puberty, so it doesnt totally solidify, but in many respects such as those I've mentioned it does (language, etc.).

so I guess the answer is a lot of it depends, but the only way to make a false statement is to say something like the adult brain is just as fluid and malleable as the child brain.

If i had to do a totally wacked out guess I would guess that in childhood one learns say 1000 basic building block things that can all be rearranged and combined and stuff and then as an adult you can use those 1000 blocks and adult learning is building advanced complicated structures using those 1000 blocks.

But as an adult you pretty much cannot increase your basic building block set.
You can see this in language as an adult has to filter the foreignn language through his native language (use his existing building block set), whereas a child can just pick it up naturally by adding new basic building blocks unique to the new language.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're extrapolating way too much off of your knowledge of how we learn language. Language is an incredibly complex phenomenon and doesn't really have great parallels to other modes of thought. Even if I completely granted you all that you said about it being extremely difficult to learn new languages after a certain age, this doesn't necessarily mean that I can't learn math concepts or logic or things of that sort. It's not as straightforward as that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

to be fair I'm talking maybe the bottom 20 or 30% of adults here. I don't think you realize just how dumb these people are. Maybe it's mental as in mental illness maybe they just do not want to think I don't know.

I mean maybe if I imprisoned and tortured them and made them learn but short of that there's just no way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you realize why these people are as 'dumb' as they are and I don't think it's clear at all that they could not improve.

Do you honestly believe that if you would give them a year, a few quality teachers, and offer them a million dollar prize that they wouldn't pick up algebra or simple propositional logic?

The only point I'm trying to make is that the brain isn't as immutable as you all seem to be suggesting. I really don't think people realize how big environmental factors (nutrition, education, motivation, etc) are across the lifespan.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're extrapolating way too much off of your knowledge of how we learn language. Language is an incredibly complex phenomenon and doesn't really have great parallels to other modes of thought. Even if I completely granted you all that you said about it being extremely difficult to learn new languages after a certain age, this doesn't necessarily mean that I can't learn math concepts or logic or things of that sort. It's not as straightforward as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my "blockhead" theory covers why an adult who only knows arithmetic cannot get a phd in math. which is not to say they can't learn algebra.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're extrapolating way too much off of your knowledge of how we learn language. Language is an incredibly complex phenomenon and doesn't really have great parallels to other modes of thought. Even if I completely granted you all that you said about it being extremely difficult to learn new languages after a certain age, this doesn't necessarily mean that I can't learn math concepts or logic or things of that sort. It's not as straightforward as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my "blockhead" theory covers why an adult who only knows arithmetic cannot get a phd in math. which is not to say they can't learn algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but this thread has to do with simply being MSL literate. Sklanksy and others were claiming that a majority of the population don't have the 'brain structure' to become literate. I thought you were agreeing with this claim.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but this thread has to do with simply being MSL literate. Sklanksy and others were claiming that a majority of the population don't have the 'brain structure' to become literate. I thought you were agreeing with this claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe most people would have to learn more than 3 or 4 levels to become msl literate and they don't have enough basic blocks handle it, after 2 or 3 levels any more learning just collapses back on itself. so to speak.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but this thread has to do with simply being MSL literate. Sklanksy and others were claiming that a majority of the population don't have the 'brain structure' to become literate. I thought you were agreeing with this claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe most people would have to learn more than 3 or 4 levels to become msl literate and they don't have enough basic blocks handle it, after 2 or 3 levels any more learning just collapses back on itself. so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is complete conjecture on your part.

And what are these levels you're talking about? I think I might have missed something in this thread.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is complete conjecture on your part.

And what are these levels you're talking about? I think I might have missed something in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it's the "blockhead conjecture".
what I mean is arithmetic is a prerequisite to algebra. and you have to have algebra to do X. and you have to have X to do Y.

and each level has to be ingrained before you can master the next level, and so on. So I'm saying that there's only so much deep learning that can be done after a certain age. although I think with more advanced things like higher mathematics I think the generallly recognized age is around 30 rather than puberty.

I mean, yeah, it's just a made up theoryl.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
yes it's the "blockhead conjecture".
what I mean is arithmetic is a prerequisite to algebra. and you have to have algebra to do X. and you have to have X to do Y.

and each level has to be ingrained before you can master the next level, and so on. So I'm saying that there's only so much deep learning that can be done after a certain age. although I think with more advanced things like higher mathematics I think the generallly recognized age is around 30 rather than puberty.

I mean, yeah, it's just a made up theoryl.

[/ QUOTE ]

but think about if some musical genius said something like "only 5% of americans have the necessary brain structure to become instrument literate" where he meant like you could play a musical instrument "unconsciously" and riff with a band and just know how to play, which is a whole different thing than playing sheet music.

I doubt many people would disagree with him because they know how many levels you have to go up just to be able to play sheet music, and then to be able to play naturally takes so much practice and so much learning that most people just don't have the necessary prerequisites to even be able to start such a project.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this is complete conjecture on your part.

And what are these levels you're talking about? I think I might have missed something in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it's the "blockhead conjecture".
what I mean is arithmetic is a prerequisite to algebra. and you have to have algebra to do X. and you have to have X to do Y.

and each level has to be ingrained before you can master the next level, and so on. So I'm saying that there's only so much deep learning that can be done after a certain age. although I think with more advanced things like higher mathematics I think the generallly recognized age is around 30 rather than puberty.

I mean, yeah, it's just a made up theoryl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still missing something. What does this have to do with 'brain structure' and being MSL literate?

If you just have a theory about learning and aren't trying to claim that a sizable portion of the population can't become MSL literate because of inferior brain power I have no quarrel with you.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

but think about if some musical genius said something like "only 5% of americans have the necessary brain structure to become instrument literate" where he meant like you could play a musical instrument "unconsciously" and riff with a band and just know how to play, which is a whole different thing than playing sheet music.

I doubt many people would disagree with him because they know how many levels you have to go up just to be able to play sheet music, and then to be able to play naturally takes so much practice and so much learning that most people just don't have the necessary prerequisites to even be able to start such a project.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue with him to and ask him to define what he means by 'brain structure'. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him, but this is far from claiming that people don't have the capacity to become MSL literate. If you want to claim that only 5% of the population can learn multivariable calculus it would be less controversial (but still likely wrong IMO).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still missing something. What does this have to do with 'brain structure' and being MSL literate?

If you just have a theory about learning and aren't trying to claim that a sizable portion of the population can't become MSL literate because of inferior brain power I have no quarrel with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

would you have a different opinion if DS had used 'mind structure' instead?

Also some people might only know +_/* but be able to outcalculate DS or any other really smart people, so I don't think it's so much that they have inferiror brain power so much as it is that they are unable to learn a very complicated set of &lt;stuff&gt; and be able to run that program.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to claim that only 5% of the population can learn multivariable calculus it would be less controversial (but still likely wrong IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people over 20 who know only basic arithmetic do you think could learn such a high level math stuff?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still missing something. What does this have to do with 'brain structure' and being MSL literate?

If you just have a theory about learning and aren't trying to claim that a sizable portion of the population can't become MSL literate because of inferior brain power I have no quarrel with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

would you have a different opinion if DS had used 'mind structure' instead?

Also some people might only know +_/* but be able to outcalculate DS or any other really smart people, so I don't think it's so much that they have inferiror brain power so much as it is that they are unable to learn a very complicated set of &lt;stuff&gt; and be able to run that program.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would prefer that he say something like "70% don't have the access, motivation, or the ability to learn X" instead of something so rigid. I just think that it's entirely unclear what factors go into learning new paradigms and to claim that they can't learn because of some biological limitation is completely unfounded.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
they can't learn because of some biological limitation is completely unfounded.

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you skip the 2nd grade to go fishing and you don't do the times table drills and whatnot for a whole year your brain won't have those patterns laid down, mentally speaking and biologically speaking.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they can't learn because of some biological limitation is completely unfounded.

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you skip the 2nd grade to go fishing and you don't do the times table drills and whatnot for a whole year your brain won't have those patterns laid down, mentally speaking and biologically speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't mean that you can't go through the 2nd grade at some later point in life. Why would you call that brain structure? Isn't that just your education level?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't mean that you can't go through the 2nd grade at some later point in life. Why would you call that brain structure? Isn't that just your education level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at the time it's brain structure because the kid didn't get those proteins laid down in his brain or whatever.

final table 5.50 stars rebuy PLO6max, time to gamble lol.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't mean that you can't go through the 2nd grade at some later point in life. Why would you call that brain structure? Isn't that just your education level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at the time it's brain structure because the kid didn't get those proteins laid down in his brain or whatever.

final table 5.50 stars rebuy PLO6max, time to gamble lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but that's a retarded way of saying it. Do you really go around saying that people don't have the 'brain structure' for something because they haven't learned it yet? The implication was that these people can't learn because of this brain structure.

Good luck in the tourney.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but that's a retarded way of saying it. Do you really go around saying that people don't have the 'brain structure' for something because they haven't learned it yet? The implication was that these people can't learn because of this brain structure.

Good luck in the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah probably better way to say it, but let's say the kid goes fishing for 20 years. Now in this case, sure total extremity, but the kids or now the mans brain is totally unformed in abstract symbol manipulation skills that we take for granted.

fwiw I'm sure I'm one of the ones DS would consider stupid or whatever, but I'm good at the skill sets I have. I don't consider myself inferior just because theres a lot of graduate level math I cant comprehend.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

yeah probably better way to say it, but let's say the kid goes fishing for 20 years. Now in this case, sure total extremity, but the kids or now the mans brain is totally unformed in abstract symbol manipulation skills that we take for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might grant you this scenario. But as you concede, it is an extremely rare case.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post contains many logic errors, aside from the unnecessary charges of racism. I don't care about blacks specifically. Make it a comparison between White and Asian if you prefer. Or sub-Saharan Africans and Northern Africans (both black!!!). Or Asians and Blacks, if you really want to hit the ball out of the park.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two more things since you've made my point for me: North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are both black, but they are not the same race. North Africans are Caucasian.

I.Q. correlates well, until you start looking at the Highest I.Q.(s) and the Highest levels of success. That means they don't correlate well. I'm sure that's a logical error on my part.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a whole lot of Blatent logical errors made by people in these discussions here. When they are they are quickly pointed out. And posters who are just inept with logic are soon shipped to Politics to give out headaches for a week or two until they get banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Miscommunication is the default.

[augie_]

David, you are as American as apple pie!

[playforGod]

Mr. Sklansky,
I will not insult your intelligence but your general assumption is both ambiguous and unfounded. There are no scientific studies done over enough time with enough subjects to give proof to your statements that such a high percentage of society does not have the capacity for literacy and or deep understanding of math/science/logic...

Furthermore, I specualte that the lack of educational background, environment is more a cause of the widespread ignorance in these areas. Although this philosophical debate is age old I tend to be more in agreement with this belief than your supposition that most humans simply do not have the capacity to learn and understand in these areas.

"I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor."
Henry David Thoreau.

[Divad Yksnal]

Quote:
"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.



You are overestimating the problem. Let's rephrase my statement. When I write a post that one thousand people read, and Andy Fox and Pair The Board disagree with it, it is because they misunderstood my point in half those cases.

I never remember YOU misunderstanding."

True, enough. David, remember the average poster, though?


D.Y.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- IQ generally is not very changeable in the teenagers/adults who Sklansky's OP was referring to.

Apparently these points are contentious?

[/ QUOTE ]
I posted a link above which queries this. I have no idea of it's credentials but there were plenty more which seemed to contradict your claim that IQ doesnt improve much with education. Do you know of any studies on the effect of education on IQ scores?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wanted to read the study itself before commenting, but I haven't been able to find it. There are so many ways this could have been done that I can't offer intelligent commentary.

Education obviously has some effect for those held behind, or understimulated. The simple parts of many IQ tests include metrics of acquired knowledge - recognizing squares, being familiar with number sequences, as well as a portion on vocabulary. These can obviously improve with a good education and training. But like the LSAT (a test of acquired verbal reasoning skills), once you have a basic education, you cannot substantially improve your performance no matter how much coaching you get. There seems to be a natural barrier based on how well your brain is structured to absorb and process information, either created at a young age or based on how much of which brain part/wiring genetics gave you. And the reason I think most of the IQ differences are genetic is because other races who have poor nutrition, poverty, and so on, do not suffer these low IQ afflictions. In fact, they still outperform the wealthiest nations on earth. Life tends to thrive, and reach potential through a variety of paths. For example, a kid who misses out on some childhood growth due to illness will usually make it up later. For people who have adequate food and education, I don't see how the difference in tests largely measuring latent ability can be so vast if Ub - Uw = 0.

Anyway, I am clearly ill equipped for this discussion, with RDuke claiming expertise, so I'll return to it later. I've got some interesting stuff to post already /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
you cannot substantially improve your performance no matter how much coaching you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

[ QUOTE ]
...other races who have poor nutrition, poverty, and so on, do not suffer these low IQ afflictions. In fact, they still outperform the wealthiest nations on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand here?

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a kid who misses out on some childhood growth due to illness will usually make it up later.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly not true. Missing critical periods can be devastating.

For a simple example in the brain look up monocular deprivation and ocular dominance columns.

[Galwegian]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. It does bother me when people disagree because they think I am saying something I am not. Granted that might be my fault for writing imprecisely.

Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying. So I want to spell out clearly my attitude about the msl illiterate since it relates to many of my posts.

1. I believe that in the US only about two to four percent are msl literate.

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.

3. I fully recognize that those who are msl illiterate have a lot to contribute to the world. And often do contribute more than most msl literates.

4. I believe that there are many subjects where msl illiterates have opinions that should be taken seriously. Either because their illiteracy doesn't come into play, as in deciding the best color scheme for the house, or because the main component by far is pure value judgement, as in debating partial birth abortions.

5. On the other hand I believe that in order for a subject to qualify as one where msl illiterates should be largely ignored, it is not necessary that there be a highly correlated math model. It is only necessary that logical deduction, probability, algebra or whatever play a bit of a roll in the decision. It doen't matter that msl illiterates who are very familiar with the subject might get it right more than msl literates who are less familiar. Because there will be some who have both attributes. And even if they are slightly less familiar than the msl illiterates they are still the big favorite to be right. Because of the fact that one logical error in the analysis totally taints any conclusion from that point.

6. I believe that if the above conclusions were generally accepted it would not hurt a lot of feelings in the 70% who have no physical chance to become msl literate. Because I believe that the great majority already know or sense that their opinions on anything vaguely technical are very iffy. Most of these people aren't very opinionated about much of anything. Certainly not about whether tax rates should be increased, more soldiers should be sent somewhere, or classroom sizes should be changed. They pretty much realize they are unqualified.

7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm playing devil's advocate here) How can you post something like this when you have also made your (in)famous admission of (relative) illiteracy at the start of one of your poker strategy books? You know the one that effectively says 'I know my writing is poor, but if you take the time to wade through it, you can go and buy loads of books by Hemeingway' (I'm too lazy to go and get the exact quote.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this has been asked in the thread, but.. Where or how do you derive this 30%?

If I pulled a number out of a hat, this would seem potentially reasonable, but in my limited experience most people I bump into can grasp logical fallacies/concepts like, say, "denying the antecedent"..esp. when given a simple example...as well as seeing how people can (even smart ones) easily fall into the tempting/wishful traps when arguing a position.

Maybe most people don't have the brain structure to master advanced calculus or whatever and that it depends on how you define the minimal MSL literacy.