125's quite above average. About 1 in 20. It's easy to forget differences in the kind of intelligence IQ measures if you're in a career like engineering, programming etc etc where people are very likely to have significantly above average speed/competence with IQ test style questions. — fdrake

Of course - 100 is the average by definition. In my experience of people in everyday life, apparent IQ level does not have a high correlation with competence, maturity, compassion, or responsibility.

Alright then, you jumped to an assumption. :clap:

Oi. That had to have been purposely ambiguous. So you could grade harsher on some and easier on others.

Dear Francis,,

I'm sorry, my friend, but what you are saying is simply false. Modern standardised IQ tests reliably and accurately measure what psychometricians refer to as "g-factor" - the "general (fluid) intelligence factor"; and G-factor, BTW is not an abstract or man-manufactured (factitious) social construct, it is a REAL, "biological" phenomenon thatexists in the real natural world. "G-factor" is closely related to the notion of "executive functioning" in neuropsychology, and executive functioning is a meta-construct that describes the unified operation of a number higher cognitive, rational mental processes, such as those that are involved in tasks like problem-solving, analysis/synthesis deliberation and judgement, etc. Healthy, normal (unimpaired) EF is also the means by which adults acquire the capacity for competent self-regulation/control, and the exercise of prudential wisdom in securing their desired long-term, future goals. The executive functions are localised anatomically in the human brain's prefrontal cortex, a region of the neo-cortex that does not reach full maturity until around the age of 25 years.

I do agree with you that there does not appear to be any kind of robust correlation between affective mental processes like "compassion", and general intelligence - at least not in the mainstream scientific research literature. Though personally, I do think, there may well be a direct -ish relationship of some kind between emotional states like empathy/compassion and cognitive measures like the "g-factor," though this particular field of scientific research is extraordinary complex and it may take many years before neuroscientists are able to shed any further light on the issue.

Regards

Dachshund

I think Dungeons and Dragons represents it the best. Wizards (mathematicians, engineers, scientists etc) are typically high intelligence (IQ) and low (or middling) wisdom. Clerics (nurses, counsellors, social care workers etc) have high wisdom and low (or middling) intelligence.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are a "libtard" ? :lol:

No. Do you know what they say about people who assume? :wink:

Not in Dungeons and Dragons. Wisdom is intuition, you can roll a wisdom check to assess someone's emotional state from body language, sensing motives is a wisdom based skill, medical knowledge is wisdom based, perception is wisdom based, capacity to learn a standard profession is wisdom based... — fdrake

The meaning of the term widom is rather ambiguous today - it is used describe a number of different human attributes. In Victorian times it was synonymous with the word "prudence", and this is the sense that I am using it in my post. Prudence today connotes "caution", but in the 19th century, as I say, it referred to wisdom in the context of good common sense, it comes from the latin "prudentia, which is a contraction of "providentia", ( meaning to see ahead, sagacity). Thus, in the 19th century, a prudent or "wise" man was said to be one who made timely preparations for the contingencies of the future and any long-term goals he desired to achieve in the years ahead; for instance, a wise man was one who put aside a little money from his wages each month to invest for his retirement in old age, or save some money each week in order to be able to send his children to good schools in the future, today a wise man is one who gives up smoking tobacco / drinking excessive quantities of alcohol in light of it deleterious effects we are told by the medical profession that these substances will likely have on our health and well-being in the future etc.

You say "wisdom is intuition"... "sensing motives", etc; I think you are referring here to what is known in the vernacular as nous (the ancient greek word for (conscious) "mind" or "street smarts"; again, these are different intellectual qualities to what I would call "wisdom".

Medical knowledge in the West is fact - based; i.e. based on the growing body of hard facts/objective evidence established by the ongoing process of empirical medical/scientific research. To be a wise doctor takes EXPERIENCE (many years of it!) using these facts and learning from the outcomes of their application in the past, because medicine is not a precise, exact science like physics.

Regards

Dachshund

Makes an "ASS" out of yoU and ME. Right?

Not in Dungeons and Dragons. Wisdom is intuition, you can roll a wisdom check to assess someone's emotional state from body language, sensing motives is a wisdom based skill, medical knowledge is wisdom based, perception is wisdom based, capacity to learn a standard profession is wisdom based...

But yes, IQ tests tend to correlate with each other, so there's some good evidence that they measure some underlying thing - which is called a g-factor. Some measures of EQ have decent construct validity too. There's much more overlap between IQ and intelligence (general knowledge, puzzle solving etc) than IQ with wisdom or charisma (force of character, way with words). There's a lot of overlap between EQ (sense motive, determining emotions) and wisdom, less with intelligence. A sage would probably have very high wisdom and quite high intelligence.

I think the Dungeons and Dragons analogy is surprisingly representative and nuanced.

This is what we call low-quality posting.

This is what we call low-quality posting. — Akanthinos

I do beg your pardon M'Lud !

Of course - 100 is the average by definition. In my experience of people in everyday life, apparent IQ level does not have a high correlation with competence, maturity, compassion, or responsibility. — T Clark

Indeed. IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to do the test.

Indeed. IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to do the test. — charleton

That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact.


Current standardised IQ tests do accurately and reliably measure general intelligence ("g-factor") as I defined it above. Moreover, these measures of IQ have a very high predictive validity. These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT merely measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop.

Regards

Dachshund

That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact. — Dachshund

Yeah, but what is the point of that argument in the context of this thread? Voting is not problem-solving. You can have a 180 I.Q. genius vote for a moron because the moron's wife is hot. Or because you think the moron would be cool to have a BBQ with.

That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact. — Dachshund

Good correlation between a test and some property doesn't make what the test measures "a scientific fact." It makes the test a potentially useful instrument for understanding. In the case of the IQ test, it's for understanding human behavior.

So what level of IQ should someone have in order to be allowed to vote? 100? That excludes 50% of the population?

Taxation without representation likely won't end well.

Considering this though, those living off social welfare are not really being taxed... so do they deserve representation? Well, they obviously need some form of representation, but perhaps a different forum would be appropriate there.

Something like 45.3% of Americans don't pay [income] taxes though, due to tax breaks, liabilities, or lack of income. That's a group that is bound to include many of the mentally disabled. If you're an earner and paying taxes though, even if you are not the smartest, you will want a say with where your money goes. Even an idiot can point a gun.

Moving to a system where the wealthier have voting control may lead to greater risk of extreme inequality. Perhaps land ownership or completed military service would also be pathways to voting access. Only allowing those with an education and a high intellect is a concern to me though, as education does not always translates into economic sensibilities. #communism

Current standardised IQ tests do accurately and reliably measure general intelligence ("g-factor") as I defined it above. — Dachshund

I recently read an excellent paper(*) by Clark Glymour, and reread another one(**), regarding the widespread misuse of factor analysis and multiple regression in social sciences. Regarding the former method, Glymour argues convincingly that Spearman made unwarranted statistical and causal assumptions while arguing for the existence of a unique g factor that would account for the correlations between results of tests of various cognitive abilities.

Moreover, these measures of IQ have a very high predictive validity.

Yes, they do. But there is an step from this constatation to the inference that what it is that they measure is the cause of what it is that they predict. Herrnstein and Murray, in The Bell Curve, purported to show by means of multiple regression that a variety of social ills, behaviors and outcomes likely were caused by heritable components of cognitive abilities. In order to make causal claims on the basis of observed sets of correlations, though, regression models must, here also, be supplemented with a range a statistical and causal assumptions. Glymour argues that Herrnstein and Murray, just like Spearman, made several unwarranted assumptions.

These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT merely measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop.

Only some of those facts are hard. And among those that are hard, they is much room for discussing what it is that they really mean and what it is that can be validly inferred from them.

(*) This paper appeared a chapter 12 -- "Social Statistics and Genuine Inquiry: Reflections on
The Bell Curve" -- in the book Intelligence, Genes and Sucess: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve, Sptinger-Verlag 1997

(**) This one is available on Glymour's Carnegie Mellon University webpage: What Went Wrong: Reflections on Science by Observation and The Bell Curve, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), 1-32.

Taxation without representation likely won't end well. — Sydasis

I've never understood this as to apply to current day situations in what appear to be Western societies (the thrust of this thread). In the context of when it was first voiced an entire group of people (US colonists) were taxed but could not elect members of parliament. It also opens up the spectre of an argument that those who pay more ought to have a bigger say or those who can't shouldn't.

If I'm taxed heavily, but I don't feel my contribution provides me adequate representation, I will simply flock to another country.

You could and then be confronted with the fact you have to pay taxes and don't get to vote for quite some time.

There is an impressive body of more recent research that strongly suggests:

(1) The "g-factor" represents a true high-order latent phenotype.
(2) The "g-factor" is largely a genetic phenomenon, with a heritability factor of over 0.85.
(3) "g" exists as a real phenomenon in the mind/brain as well as in psychometric tests.
(4) "g" can be understood as a causal differences construct.

If you are interested in any citations from the literature re the above, I can provide them for you.

Regards

Dachshund

There is an impressive body of recent research that strongly suggests:

(1) The "g-factor" represents a true high-order latent phenotype.
(2) The "g-factor" is largely a genetic phenomenon, with a heritability factor of over 0.85.
(3) "g" exists as a real phenomenon in the mind as well as in psychometric tests.
(4) "g" can be understood as a causal differences construct. — Dachshund

Yes, it's true that there exists such an vast body of literature. (Heritability of g over 85% seems to be an outlier, though). It's also true that most papers that criticize those general conclusions generally miss the mark. Clark Glymour stresses this fact. Most of the authors who question the general conclusions of Herrnstein and Murray do so on the basis of conflicting evidence that generally is produced by equally flawed applications of methods of factor analysis and multiple regression in order to derive causal inferences. Glymour knows this because he has devoted a significant part of his career to (1) investigating the epistemological limitations of statistical methods that are routinely being applied in both natural and social science, and, (2) together with a few colleagues, to developing more efficient and better validated methods with the help of computers. (Those methods were successfully applied in variety of biological and social fields, and even in aerospace. Check his home page for references, or Google up "TETRAD II")

If you are interested in any citations from the literature re the above, I can provide them for you.

Yes, please, do so. But also remember that the quantity of flawed studies that purportedly support a conclusion doesn't compensate for the common flaw that they may share. And also, if you have the time, have a look at the paper that I already provided a link to, and tell me if some of your studies still appear methodologically valid in light of Glymour's general objections.

If this makes you feel any better, when we (statistics students) were taught confirmatory factor analysis at university, we were strongly advised never to perform it for ethical reasons (see 'non-uniqueness of factor loadings' here), especially to avoid varimax rotation. Instead it was strongly implied that we use principal components in exploratory factor analysis instead. To my knowledge p-hacking is also cautioned against now, but the replication crisis wasn't yet a fashionable topic to teach budding statisticians.

Edit: The rule of thumb is: quantities derived from observational studies have indeterminate causal structure. The most you can do is rule some structures out. Further, thou shalt not interpret small studies causally without systematic controls and power calculations. He who does not do statistical power calculations (or type M&S error simulations) has forgotten the face of his father.

Edit: The rule of thumb is: quantities derived from observational studies have indeterminate causal structure. The most you can do is rule some structures out. Further, thou shalt not interpret small studies causally without systematic controls and power calculations. He who does not do statistical power calculations (or type M&S error simulations) has forgotten the face of his father. — fdrake

I'm indeed reassured to hear that. The two papers by Glymour that I referenced are now 20 years old. Maybe political scientists and psychometricians presently better heed the warnings and caveats from the professional statisticians who devise their methods and the software packages that they use. It may be mainly intellectual celebrities like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (who still reference The Bell Curve as the source of all their "scientific facts" regarding race, IQ and outcomes) who may not have gotten the memo.

— fdrake

Thanks for all those informative links!

Maybe political scientists and psychometricians presently better heed the warnings and caveats from the professional statisticians who devise their methods and the software packages that they use

This is a bit off topic, but I think it's of general interest.

The methodological flaws that lead to the replication crises are still operative. Some of this can be attributed to 'publish or perish' culture, but I think - and I have little evidence for this compared to the enormity of the claim - that the interaction of:

(1) poor applied statistical pedagogy,
(2) low standards for experimental design
(3) 'convenience sampling' being equated to genuine random sampling strategies
(4) the identification of performing hypothesis tests with enacting an empirical paradigm of research.
(5) the identification of scientific relevance with a rejected null hypothesis

is a driving force of poor quality science.

Hypothesis tests themselves reward noisy data collection. Gelman and his coauthors have worked extensively on this recently. And in 2014 a biomedical science journal outlawed the use of p-value hypothesis testing in submitted papers. Hopefully the times they are a'changing.

The UNCRPD section 12 distinguishes mental capacity from legal capacity, saying (in other words) that the lack of mental capacity shall not be grounds to remove legal capacity. So far only the Republic of Ireland is fully compliant with section 12 (in Europe anyway, not sure about elsewhere).

Th acquisition of legal capacity is a recognition of adulthood, regardless of how well people understand the world they live in. Being non-disabled is no bar to being an ignorant vote-savaging twat in any case. I'd happily be ruled by a bunch of bipolar people. — bert1

I'm not sure why you cite UCRRPD as authority when it's not accepted as an authority anywhere. The authority of the rule in Ireland (if it has adopted it) comes only from Ireland having adopted it, not from it having any authority on its own.

But, since what you said seemed incorrect (or, at best, a really bad rule) I did look it up (http://www.era-comm.eu/uncrpd/kiosk/speakers_contributions/111DV69/Dimopoulos_pres.pdf) and what this author says is that the rule says legal capacity should not be arbitrarily denied someone based upon disability, which simply means that mental capacity can be used to deny legal capacity if warranted under the facts and it's not denied arbitrarily. The absurdity of holding a severely mentally limited person liable under a contract he signed hardly seems like a progressive notion.

To the extent though the rule does mean that there should be no legal protections or limitations upon those who lack the ability to comprehend what they're engaging in, I am encouraged by the overwhelming rejection of the rule by the various European countries.

(4) the identification of performing hypothesis tests with enacting an empirical paradigm of research.
(5) the identification of scientific relevance with a rejected null hypothesis

is a driving force of poor quality science.

Hypothesis tests themselves reward noisy data collection. Gelman and his coauthors have worked extensively on this recently. — fdrake

I concur very strongly, as Trump would say. I've recently argued with some of my friends about what seems to be the damaging effect of the hegemony of the research paradigm of p-value hypothesis testing in many areas of social science. It seemed to me to reflect some unwarranted empiricist assumptions about the categorical separation of 'raw' data from 'subjective' theory, and to foster an unwarranted skepticism directed at our theoretical and practical (technically effective) understanding of the world. For one thing, those empiricist assumptions obscure the fact that the null hypothesis can't generally be meaningfully falsified since its initial credence (prior probability) must be evaluated in light of the plausibility and fruitfulness of the "theory" that supports it. One example that we discussed was the idea of rejecting the null hypothesis (with p=0.01, say) in light of a statistically significant "result" of telepathic communication, which is absurd. At best, the Bayesian analysis of the result of the experiment that we just performed ought to lead us to update our credence in the reality of telepathy from a microscopic 'prior credence' to a slightly higher but trill microscopic 'posterior credence'.

And in 2014 a biomedical science journal outlawed the use of p-value hypothesis testing in submitted papers. Hopefully the times they are a'changing.

That's remarkable! I'll show this to my friends.

nah, children are considered "rational" "legally" from the moment they can be expected to understand that bad = no and good = yes, and that "x is bad is an instruction to be followed, basically. Before, the standard was 7 years old, which is where the "age of reason" expression comes from. Nowadays this is much lower than this, and 4-5 years old can be found "rational" in the eyes of the court. — Akanthinos

No idea what you're referencing, but our question wasn't when "rationality" was attained, and I've no idea how a recognition of rationality would result in a minor being treated like he was the age of majority. In Georgia (where I live), we adhere to a pretty standard rule that a child under 18 who wishes to sue must sue through his parents and he can only be sued through his parents. A child under 18 has limited liability in certain situations, and cannot be bound by a contract. None of this suggests that a 17 year old is inherently "irrational," only that he lacks the capacity to make such life changing decisions at an early age.