Search the Community

Google is the world's largest breeding ground for sociopaths who see morals as obstacles to overcome, rather than paths to follow. Their utter indifference to the ethical repercussions and potential consequences of their actions is beyond all comprehension. Stefan, if you see this, I need to tell you that I strongly disagree with you about artificial intelligence. It is far more capable than you seem to think. Please watch the videos listed below and make a video on it at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Such sophistication!

How is it even theoretically possible for artificial intelligence to exceed the intelligence of man? I can see how it may be more intelligent than most but not all.

I wanted to thank and congratulate Stefan Molyneaux for his dogged investigation of the career killing topic: Race, Sex and IQ. I think he has finally proposed a hypothesis that is worth researching and is provable and scientific. The hypothesis I see as valid is: (1) There are differences in mean IQ by race and gender. (2) owing to the shape of the normal distribution, the proportion of people occupying a given interval of IQ scores will vary with distance from mean. (example: the interval of IQ 100-115 contains 34% of people but the interval of 130-145 contains 2% of people) (3) TO BE PROVEN: When dealing with the middle 68% of individuals (+/- 1 std, the people you most often interact with) there is less confidence that racial/sex differences in IQ will be observed owing to variations in and between groups. (This can be shown with a power calculation) (4) MOLYNEAUX'S INSIGHT: For an equal size IQ interval on the tails of a normal distribution, the confidence about IQ increases nonlinearly. SO given some prior knowledge, (e.g. that a person has an IQ>115, i.e. a so called 'elite') once can be more confident of observing bias in race/sex proportions. At the very least statistical tests can be done to prove that one needs a larger sample of people from IQ[85,115] interval to be confident of a race/sex difference than one would need from an IQ[130,160] interval. It needs some clean up but it seems like a good paper if it hasnt already been published. If the work has been done I would be interested in a citation.

I just wanted to present my theory regarding race, genetics and intelligence because I may be party to some rare knowledge which I came about as a result of getting my genetics mapped by 23andMe a few years ago. I was rather astonished when I got my results back to discover that my maternal haplogroup, i.e. based on my mitochondrial DNA this was the population from I was descended via my mother, turned out to be M1a which I discovered was possibly Ancient Israelite. I am of Scots/Irish descent and so this was a huge surprise. Indeed, according to 23andMe, my DNA is more than 95% British and Irish which would tend to suggest that my maternal haplogroup wasn't an outlier and must be relatively common among various populations of the UK. A little while later, while attempting to make sense of my maternal haplogroup, I learned about the 12 tribes of Israel. Despite being brought up Catholic, this was news to me. It seems that 10 of the twelve tribes were missing in action from around the 7th century BC. I waded through a lot of strange stuff on YouTube but I became fairly convinced that there must be something in the story that the descendents of the missing 10 tribes had populated Europe, many of them coming to the British Isles. There are even sources which state that the Celts actually called themselves Hebrews. Now, why do I think this is related to race, genetics and intelligence specifically? Well, it seems that M1a is one of the common maternal haplogroups of the Ashkenazi Jews. Now, I don't have the Ashkenazi genetic marker although I've just realised that I don't know if that marker is present on the paternal Y or maternal X chromosome so there might be a little issue with my theory. However, what I had previous thought was that my maternal ancestor split from the root Ancient Israelite population that gave birth to the Ashkenazis before they acquired their particular Ashkenazi marker. When I was six I scored highly on a Weschler IQ test (WISC). So, essentially, my theory is that the Ashkenazi Jews are actually a subpopulation of a larger group, some of whom are actually descendants of the Celts and live in the British Isles. This would also to my mind explain the huge contribution of the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English to science, literature, philosophy, etc., etc., over the centuries. This is actually the result of our descent from a base population with shared roots with the Ashkenazi Jews who are acknowledged to have the highest IQs. If the kinship of British or European Ancient Israelite to the Ashkenazis were studied I suspect that together we would jointly be top of the IQ scale. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there which supports my theory, e.g. search for The Scottish Declaration of Independence 1320, which refers to them being "the people of Israel". There are many other sources too which link the Scots, Welsh and Irish to the Hebrews. It would be interesting to know if anyone else with a similar background has discovered similar unexpected ancestral roots after doing a genetic test and what people think of my theory.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994) estimate that ‘the genetic component of IQ is unlikely to be smaller than 40 percent or higher than 80 percent’ (p. 105). And claim that ‘The most unambiguous direct estimates, based on identical twins reared apart, produce some of the highest estimates of heritability.’ (p. 107). Moreover, they say that: ‘The purest of the direct comparisons is based on identical (monozygotic, MZ) twins reared apart, often not knowing of each other’s existence. Identical twins share all their genes, and if they have been raised apart since birth, then the only environment they shared was that in the womb. Except for the effects on their IQs of the shared uterine environment, their IQ correlation directly estimates heritability.’ (p. 107) This ideal scenario of reared-apart twin research, put forth by Herrnstein and Murray (1994), is far from the reality of what actually occurs in studies of reared apart twins. The use of the term ‘reared apart’ is highly problematic in and of itself. Put simply, most twins ‘reared-apart’, aren’t reared apart for significant portions of their developing lives. Jay Joseph (2015) evaluated some of the most well-known twin studies and I will be relying heavily on his work to justify this claim. The first twins reared-apart (TRA) study was conducted by Newman, Freeman, and Holzinger (1937, cited in Joseph, 2015) and included 19 pairs of monozygotic twins reared-apart (MZA). Here’s Joseph’s summary of each pair: ‘the MZA age of separation ranged from 3 weeks to 6 years, and pairs often grew up in the same town or region. Rather than being “separated,” many pairs had regular and prolonged contact and, more importantly, had a relationship with each other. For example, Pair I corresponded with each other and had been living together for 1 year when studied; Pair II had lived and worked together for 5 years; Pair IV had visited each other all their lives; Pair V lived together for 1 year and had visits and were regularly in correspondence; Pair VI was in regular contact their entire adult life and were living together at age 58 when studied; Pair VII had annual visits; Pair IX lived 3 miles apart and saw each other regularly; Pair XII had seen each other often for 5 years leading up to the study; Pair XIII visited each other regularly in the years leading up to the study; Pair XIV corresponded and tried to spend a few weeks per year with each other for the 15 years leading up to the study; and Pair XIX was reared together for the first 6 years of life and studied nursing together at age 17.’ (p. 24 & 28) Shields (1962, cited in Joseph, 2015) published the second TRA study which included 44 MZA pairs. Again, Joseph summaries the supposedly ‘reared-apart’ twins: ‘Examples from Shields’ case descriptions of the 44 MZA pairs seen in Table 2.2 include, “have always been closely attached to each other,” “have been in business together for the past 8 years,” “were in cottages next door to one another and attended the same school,” “went to school together,” “came home to mother at 14,” “ were dressed alike . . . . They attended the same school,” “met about once a fortnight during adolescence,” “brought up within a few hundred yards from one another,” “met about twice a week and sometimes spent holidays together,” “met regularly,” “now correspond frequently and meet at holidays,” “until [separation at age 8] the twins had done everything together,” “formed an extremely close association,” “brought up together till the age of 7,” “were reunited most of the time from 5 to 15,” “were closely attached and went about a lot together,” “became very close . . . . they are mutually dependent,” “After reunion [at age 5] in the parental home the twins went to private schools together until [age 17],” and “lived a few roads away from each other in the same northern industrial town. They were dressed alike.”’ (p. 30-31) Juel-Nielson (1965, cited in Joseph) studied 12 MZA pairs without using a control group. Here is Joseph’s summary of the twins: ‘age at separation ranged from 1 day to almost 6 years, and 5 of the 12 pairs spent at least the first year of life together. In addition, Pair IV (“Ingegerd & Monika”) was reared together with their mother between the ages of 7 and 14. Several pairs had a close relationship and years of mutual contact. Each of the 12 case histories Juel-Nielsen presented contained a section called “The Twin Relationship,” which should not be found in a study of “reared-apart” twins where the common perception is that twins were separated at birth and had never met, and therefore had no relationship with each other. Most twins in this study grew up in impoverished rural or urban environments. This restricted range of rearing environments added an additional important similarity-producing bias to the study.’ The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA) is the most well-known TRA study. It’s been referenced in many popular books including Pinker’s The Blank Slate (2002) and Ridley’s Nature Via Nurture (2003). One of the MISTRA’s researchers, Nancy Segal, was interviewed on FDR last year. Segal authored Born Together – Reared Apart (2012), which discusses the findings of the MISTRA. As you may by now be able to guess, the use of the term ‘reared apart’ in her book title is far from accurate. As Joseph (2015) notes, the MISTRA ‘consisted mainly of MZA pairs only partially reared apart, most of whom grew up reared together—at the same time—in similar social, political, and cultural environments.’ (p. 103). The facts about the TRA study samples enumerated above clearly conflict with reasonable conceptions of what it means to be ‘reared apart’. Joseph (2015) also evaluates other TRA studies in his book, citing similar flaws. To come back to The Bell Curve (1994) for a moment, what is concerning about Herrnstein and Murray’s work, is that they do not appear to mention any of the issues regarding the use of the term ‘reared apart’ as it relates to twin studies. In fact, their section devoted to genetics and IQ is only about 4 pages long (see p. 105-108). The sad fact is that the mislabelling of these twin studies as ‘reared apart’ is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to their flaws. Below is a partial list of TRA study issues and biases discussed by critics, summarised by Joseph (2015): Many twin pairs experienced late separation, and many pairs were reared together in the same home for several years Most twin pairs grew up in similar socioeconomic and cultural environments MZA correlations were inflated by non-genetic cohort effects, based on common age, common sex, and other factors Twins share a common pre-natal (intrauterine) environment, and the MZA pre-natal environment is more similar than the DZA pre-natal environment TRA study findings might not be (or are not) generalizable to the non-twin population In studies based on volunteer twins, a bias was introduced because pairs had to have known of each other’s existence to be able to participate in the study MZA samples were biased in favor of more similar pairs, meaning that studied MZA pairs are not representative of MZAs as a population The similar physical appearance and level of attractiveness of MZAs will elicit more similar behavior-influencing treatment by their social environments Twins sometimes had financial and other types of incentives to exaggerate or lie about their degree of separation and behavioral similarity, and their accounts are not always reliable There were several questionable or false assumptions underlying the statistical procedures used in the studies MZA pairs were not assigned to random environments There was researcher bias in favor of genetic interpretations of the data There were problems with the IQ and personality tests used The validity of concepts such as IQ, personality, and heritability are questionable In cases where evaluations and testing were performed by the same person, there was a potential for experimenter bias in favor of twin similarity A registry should be established to house raw TRA study data, which should be made available for independent inspection and analysis I encourage everyone who is interested in the topic of individual differences (including IQ) to read about the flaws in twin research. This research method has become the foundation of a lot of behavioural genetics research but it is deeply flawed. It seems that most critics of behavioural genetics are labelled as left-leaning, PC egalitarians who think that identifying differences in race, IQ, etc. is prejudicial. That may be so, but you don’t have to be a PC lefty to be sceptical of the conclusions drawn by behavioural geneticists. As Joseph (2015) has demonstrated, there is a plethora of reasons to doubt their conclusions (e.g. IQ heritability estimates). I recommend Joseph’s books The Trouble with Twin Studies (2015) and The Gene Illusion (2004), which I have referenced below. If you’d prefer not to read a whole book on the subject, Joseph also blogs at Mad in America (created by Robert Whitaker, of whom many of you may be familiar), where you can find several articles that concisely explain his arguments against the validity of twin studies. ReferencesHerrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster Joseph, J. (2015). The trouble with twin studies: A reassessment of twin research in the social and behavioral sciences. Routledge. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Penguin. Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. HarperCollins. Segal, N. L. (2012). Born together—reared apart: The landmark Minnesota twin study. Harvard University Press. Also see: Joseph, J. (2004). The Gene Illusion. New York. Algora. The Trouble with Twin Studies (Featured Blog): http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-trouble-with-twin-studies/ Studies of Reared-Apart (Separated) Twins: Facts and Fallacies (Featured Blog): http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/ “Bewitching Science” Revisited: Tales of Reunited Twins and the Genetics of Behavior (Featured Blog): http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/bewitching-science-revisited-tales-of-reunited-twins-and-the-genetics-of-behavior/

Hello, I'm skeptical of some of the IQ tests that come up on a basic google search in that it seems likely that they'd give you a higher number to make you feel smart about yourself so you buy into the stuff they're offering and just wanted to hear what others on here used to verify their IQ. So far I've had sites tell me ranges from either 100 to 128, and I want to know if my brain is that of a layman NPC or an industrial powered engine of special snowflakes. I thought it was low-average from shitty school experience but I'm skeptical now. The sites I used were, Memorado, IQ-test.dk, and this other one that seemed good but didn't give me the result cause it didn't tell me about the 20 Euro price tag until after I spent all my time finishing it. All insight and sources are appreciated sincerely, or if there's a thread or resource somewhere that I overlooked please let me know. Thank you.

If researchers failed to find genetic markers to account for discrepancies in intelligence (besides disorders like down syndrome) and if there is no strong evidence that it is the result of a consortium of genes, then it would be worthy to look into epigenetics. In other words, it would be worthy to also control for the expression of genes and familial history that could influence it. This raises the question: does the environment explain a population's intelligence? Do lower IQ people who immigrate in higher IQ nations, have their intelligence increase down the generations significantly? If not, Are their long lasting differences on how the epigenetics of an individual behave and react Now hopeful someone in the field sees this and weighs in.

Many of you have probably seen my videos in which I illustrate provocative and compelling philosophical thinkers. If you haven’t please check out my YouTube channel Illustrated Philosophy. Here’s the latest one narrated by Stef and Dr. Linda Gottfredson on race and intelligence.

This is worth watching for Dr. Rushton (a former FDR guest) single-handedly taking on a panel of PC sociologists on topic of race and intelligence. There's also some interesting counterarguments put forward by Dr. Graves regarding R/K selection theory.

Which IQ test(s) reliably measure(s) G, where can I take it/them, what agencies or persons administer them, and how much does it/do they cost? If there are any special conditions the agency/agencies or person/persons you name require, What are the conditions I must meet in order to take it? Thank you : ]

Thought there were some interesting insights and responses in this crowd-sourced inquiry into the implications of lower IQ...in this case around 70. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ygt9k/what_does_an_iq_of_70_entail_cognitively/

I would appreciate some hypotheses. Here is a map of the world by IQ: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/IQ_by_Country.png It seems that generally the further away you are from the equator, the smarter you are. My hypothesis is: 1. You need a high IQ to survive colder areas. You need to be able to foresee the future and plan for the winter. People with low IQs are not good at planning for the future. Surviving the winter, growing food and getting water in the winter forces you to work hard which stimulates brain activity allowing most to achieve a higher IQ. What do you think?

I recently talked with a civil engineer while playing tennis and he said that the core problem in American and world society is low intelligence, to which he traces every social pathology including wars and other forms of mass violence. His central argument is that morality and intelligence are directly correlated, and that people of low intelligence (80% of the population by his measure) are incapable of the reasoning needed to make sound judgments and decisions, even when the facts and relevant information needed are at their fingertips. I countered that most people are conditioned to revere authority figures (priests, politicians, scientists, teachers, parents, etc.) and to accept their judgments and decisions without critical scrutiny. He said that such acceptance is immoral, and a mark of low intelligence, since the intelligent person will pursue the truth even in the face of adversity. He uses 9/11 as an example. Volumes have been written to discredit the government's 9/11 narrative (see Stefan's podcast on 9/11 - 2006?), and some of it is definitive, but he says proving that the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 came down by controlled demolition is child's play, and that any moral (intelligent) American knows the truth about the collapse and where the damning finger of justice should be pointed, for that day of horror and the wars, death and destruction that have followed. Few do. Here is what he sent me: 9/11 For Dummies. 1) Towers 1 & 2 of the WTC were each over 1,300 feet tall ( 1/4 mile) and consisted of 236 exterior vertical steel columns (14" square in cross-section) and 47 interior vertical steel columns (some 52" x 22", and some 36" x 16" in cross-section), all more than 1,300 feet tall and tied together with horizontal steel beam grids at each of the 110 floors. 2) After the towers' collapse, there were no 1,300 foot long columns, which would have spanned 2 city blocks (1/4 mile). Instead, photos show myriad gnarled pieces of steel columns in and around the 208' x 208' base of the towers, few of which are more than 30 feet long. None of the column pieces are longer than the diagonal of the square base, which is 295 feet. 3) Therefore, 283 steel columns 1,300' tall were cut into small pieces (most less than 30') in the 15 second collapse of each tower. 4) The only natural forces acting on the towers were a) gravity and b) fire at the upper 1/3 of the south tower and the upper 1/4 of the north tower. Gravity can't cut steel and fire can only if its temperature is greater than 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a concentrated form such as a welding torch. Office fires satisfy neither the temperature requirement, nor the concentration requirement for cutting steel. Also, the fact that thousands of people were alive in most parts of the towers prior to collapse, indicates no fire threat to the steel columns was present in most of their vertical length. Thus, we can eliminate natural forces and conclude that the multiple cuttings of each of the 283 vertical steel columns of Towers 1 & 2 of the World Trade Center were made by unnatural or man-made methods and technology. 5) So, whether it was Thermite or Thermate that cut the steel columns, or whether you call it controlled demolition, implosion, or some other name, it was man-made technology and methods that brought down Towers 1 & 2 (&7) in typical controlled demolition rapidity and result.

Watched the call-in show about intelligent people being around un-intelligent people. I thought that Stefan did an excellent job describing the problem that goes with being an intelligent person around people who are less intelligent, however I thought there was something missing. I find myself in a similar situation, I know that I have a higher intelligence than most of my clients (which is the general public) except I am a business owner and I rely heavily on my ability to be confident in what I'm providing, and more importantly how I communicate that to my clients. The trouble I find, is that I have a very difficult time relating to people in a way that's meaningful to them. I know what I would want to hear when buying my services, but I have the hardest damn time figuring out the best way to communicate it to my clients. I guess what I found lacking in Stef's answer in the call in show is, What in the world do we do about the problem? I'm trying to figure out more practical solutions to the problem. Like in my case, do I just give up trying to educate my clients and leave it to an advertising/marketing company or are there techniques I can use to, in a sense, bring myself to their level and communicate more effectively?

Hey guys, I'm curious to get your feedback on this hypothetical: Say a healthy number of humans were transported to a brand new habitable world similar to Earth. Then remove the past memories of these humans by inducing amnesia somehow. These humans, besides the amnesia, have healthy brains and were not abused as children. My curiosity here is as to the likelihood these humans would fall into statist community organization or would they resemble a community similar to an anarcho-capitalist society? I.E. Would simply the presence of healthy, intelligent brains influence the formation of statist or free societies if there was no reference to any past history? I understand this is a hypothetical that doesn't have a feasible premise. In other words, I'm not proposing this hypothetical to show a way we can solve our problems in today's world. It's merely a mental exercise to explore the evidence that supports one outcome or the other for curiosity's sake. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions!