tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post6938438645604459515..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: The great chain of beingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-72378904606806909262014-09-09T14:28:16.110+01:002014-09-09T14:28:16.110+01:00http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/domi...http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/dominic-cummingss-thoughts-on-education.html This is my first mention of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-84897483935651975372014-09-09T14:26:40.463+01:002014-09-09T14:26:40.463+01:00It is a fascinating proposal. I have put it into m...It is a fascinating proposal. I have put it into my overflowing "Must post more about this" in tray.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-60943492039583553912014-09-09T14:02:36.365+01:002014-09-09T14:02:36.365+01:00Fascinating!
It seems so simple and straightforwar...Fascinating!<br />It seems so simple and straightforward that I fear I must be mis-understanding it.<br />Recognize the greatest number of options and conform your behavior to maintain the viability of the greatest number of these options into the future. Repeat for a few hundred million years.<br />This segues into what we know about ourselves today. Higher ability people are better at handling adversity and changed circumstances that are lower ability people.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-63305404144304904242014-09-09T08:32:05.586+01:002014-09-09T08:32:05.586+01:00I think we can show co-evolution with dogs, which ...I think we can show co-evolution with dogs, which is why we imagine we understand each other, but not birds and not most living things. As to common ancestor species, I think that is closer to the case, but only because all organisms have common problems to solve: finding food and avoiding predators. That requires a nervous system of some sort, and what we call intelligence arises from that. Wisner-Gross would say that it was an emergent property of all complex systems which have to avoid getting trapped by keeping their options as open as possible. F = T ∇ Sτ is the formula. http://www.insidescience.org/content/physicist-proposes-new-way-think-about-intelligence/987Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-7750651592402099382014-09-08T17:11:59.308+01:002014-09-08T17:11:59.308+01:00If g holds true for other species (dogs,birds), do...If g holds true for other species (dogs,birds), does that imply co-evolution or will the infancy for g be located in a common ancestor species?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-23155149290701782912014-09-05T14:20:47.797+01:002014-09-05T14:20:47.797+01:00If the concept of g factor either state universal ...If the concept of g factor either state universal characteristics that define the intelligence, I can agree. But I can not agree that the g factor is universally applicable.<br />Your concept is, but its reachability is limited.<br />Yes, there is a clear relationship between mathematical reasoning and verbal reasoning. However, the fact that there is a correlation, it is not conclusive as to its universal applicability.<br /><br />Another problem is that for intelligence is attributed unilateral judgment of value among the cognitive characteristics. For example, people of low intelligence, are considered as hopelessly inferior to people of higher intelligence, read iq, when it is clear that if you have a lack of any component, you will get the compensation. Brains do not have voids inside, I guess. There many other advantages related not only with cognitive capacity but, general capacity, like psychological advantages.<br /><br /><br />I still believe that a good portion of psychometry, still based on the idealization of what intelligence is, while it is a universal value, literally. And the best way to understand it is through the ability that people have to find harmonic and disharmonic patterns in the real world.<br />If you are able to find the correct causal patterns, then you may be able to understand the reality and to infer more complex abstract observations.<br /><br />The 'Education' is a filter, derived from the ancient Chinese meritocracy. The memorization capacity is the star of education and those who can decorate a larger amount of information, will be more apt to go up in scale, social and academic. However, there are so many environmental factors (nepotism, favoritism by cognitively non-objective reasons, unilateral selection of a type of intelligence for colleges ..) we are being deceived by our faith in the meritocracy of Western civilization, which have long been deteriorated.<br /><br />We're defining 'smarter' based on the results of all these factors. Not only are we defining mistakenly 'smarter' but neglecting the diversity of 'smarter' based on unilateral selective filters as iq and 'education'. <br />Another mystery of psychometrics is the way psychometricians take iq tests. There are no criteria in conducting research, speak iq without specifying what iq is working, finally ... <br /><br />SantocultoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-85361042899984612872014-09-05T12:54:09.109+01:002014-09-05T12:54:09.109+01:00The Gould Proposition
It is not immoral to fudge ...The Gould Proposition<br /><br />It is not immoral to fudge the numbers if the motivation to do so abides by the greatest good principle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-15277489106098272522014-09-05T10:05:07.359+01:002014-09-05T10:05:07.359+01:00PCA is conceptually distinct from exploratory fact...PCA is conceptually distinct from exploratory factor analysis. It incorporates all variance into the analysis and does not discriminate between common and unique (error) variance, whereas EFA assumes that each variable is a linear function of a unique factor and 1 or more common factor(s), and attempts to model the relationships between common factors and their relationships to the actual variables. <br /><br />The upshot of this is that although PCA and EFA usually produce similar results, only factors should be thought of as latent variables, not components. It's a philosophical difference that is sometimes important.Andrew Sabiskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13017718231961934541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-55887446940977252272014-09-04T15:33:10.866+01:002014-09-04T15:33:10.866+01:00The Gould cranial fallacy? Gouldian plausibility? ...The Gould cranial fallacy? Gouldian plausibility? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-77085037066436837412014-09-04T01:30:35.417+01:002014-09-04T01:30:35.417+01:00Thank you.
Maybe a fallacy could be named for him...Thank you.<br /><br />Maybe a fallacy could be named for him. That would make it better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-77126659351106780022014-09-03T22:31:27.702+01:002014-09-03T22:31:27.702+01:00I don't know of any studies showing that low a...I don't know of any studies showing that low ability people do better at boring tasks than bright people. Most findings are to the contrary: high ability people are better and faster at all tasks. I think the misunderstanding arises because bright people generally don't stick at boring work, so some employers prefer to hire lower ability workers who will probably remain in the job longer. Some data from the London Underground decades ago showed that the slower learners stuck the not very appealing job for years on end. True, they also had fewer job opportunities. (Now, to confuse matters, they have very high earnings because of strong unions).<br />Stephen Jay Gould. He had a very good prose style. I wish he had been more even handed and straightforward in talking about intelligence, and corrected his errors sooner, but that is paperbacks under the bridge. Thanks for your comments.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-2749450919719159012014-09-03T21:18:10.453+01:002014-09-03T21:18:10.453+01:00Professor Thompson
You have one of the best blogs...Professor Thompson<br /><br />You have one of the best blogs that I have happened upon. Please keep up the good work.<br /><br />It seems that a lot of people have a great deal of difficulty handling the fact that some people are just a lot smarter than others. <br /><br />One thing that has been in my mind for a long time is the following:<br /><br />I was told that supposedly there are tasks/jobs at which lower IQ people are better at than higher IQ people. Some high IQ types thought that this could not possibly be true and did some studies. Supposedly they found out that at what might be considered boring tasks, the high IQ minds wandered and made more mistakes. Also, the low IQ types took as gospel that an error or mistake was a near catastrophe whereas the high IQ types could see that a mistake was really not all that bad so they did not work as hard at avoiding them.<br /><br />Do you know of any such studies? Or was I perhaps just being mis-lead for my own good. <br /><br />And along that same line, don't you think people should quit kicking the corpse of poor ole S J Gould. I mean, if you are not willing to lie for the betterment of mankind, just what kind of person are you?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-32842317420193221362014-09-03T09:05:22.368+01:002014-09-03T09:05:22.368+01:00Need to post on encephalisation and intellect. Sma...Need to post on encephalisation and intellect. Smart birds have bigger brains than other birds. g holds true for humans, primates, and probably dogs. Rosalind Arden is looking for funding to get more dog intelligence work done on larger samples.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-26635144095628422442014-09-02T19:24:08.111+01:002014-09-02T19:24:08.111+01:00different species are decent solutions for their v...different species are decent solutions for their varying ancestral environments. <br /><br />not sure how my chipmunk knows when to "torpor," or how bees know how to interact with their sisters, or how spiders determine if there's enough moisture to hatch, or how water bears can do "cryptobiosis" for years then "come alive" when the time is right. <br /><br />i don't think these things are "g" related, so i agree with Gould (on this & this only), it's difficult to establish a great chain of being b/c "g" only works that way for primates:)<br /><br />PS - in re: to comment above -- given the high predisposition of older white males to commit suicide, i would think most successful suicides have triple digit IQs. i also think it should be legal (both to be smart & to be the boss of your life:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-62281275518215862442014-09-02T09:52:00.433+01:002014-09-02T09:52:00.433+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Agen Casino Onlinehttp://totalbet188.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-36735473652260268082014-09-01T20:29:21.437+01:002014-09-01T20:29:21.437+01:00Thanks for your question. Due to my own incompeten...Thanks for your question. Due to my own incompetence, the first draft of my reply to you has been lost, so I certainly have sympathy for those who don’t feel competent to handle the mental demands of today’s increasingly complex social environment. Remember, that is not just IQ, but also part of ageing.<br />I am a big fan of Linda Gottfredson's work. Put her name into the search bar of my blog and you will find about 30 references to her.The one below takes up the same reference you kindly gave in your comments.<br />http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/practice-makes-one-third-perfect-other.html<br />As to suicide, it would be dreadful if someone ended their life because they felt incapable. I feel sympathy with anyone in that predicament, and because I often meet people who are much brighter than I am, and who are much more dedicated to their work, I certainly think I know what it is like to feel slow intellectually. Morally permissible? I don't agree with that. Terminal illness and pain would be a good reason, but being a slower learner definitely not. Depending on the company we keep, most of us can be considered slow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-28066832497769852492014-09-01T16:41:10.192+01:002014-09-01T16:41:10.192+01:00Mr. Thompson,
Do you have sympathy for intellectu...Mr. Thompson,<br /><br />Do you have sympathy for intellectually slow people?<br /><br />Let me clarify what I mean by ‘intellectually slow person’. Obviously I am not referring to the person who meets the criteria for an Intellectual Disability (also called mental retardation)…. I am talking about the person who has the ability to learn necessary academic skills, but at a rate and depth below average same age peers. In order to grasp new concepts, this person needs more time, more repetition, and often more resources from teachers to be successful. Typically, this person has great difficulty with new and complex reasoning which makes new concepts difficult to learn.<br /><br />A slow learner has traditionally been identified as anyone with a Full Scale IQ one standard deviation below the mean but not as low as two standard deviations below the mean. The cognitive abilities of these learners are too high to be considered for an Intellectual Disability. However, the abilities are usually too low to be considered for a Learning Disability. Consider that a learning disability consists of discrepancies between average abilities and below average academics, coupled with a processing deficit. Schools often look for a discrepancy between a student’s ability and where they are performing. Slow learners tend to perform at their ability level which is below average. Unfortunately, these struggling learners often do not receive special education services.<br /><br />These individuals are prone to much anxiety and low self image which goes unnoticed by many in society. They often feel ‘stupid’ and begin hating school at an early age. Day-to-day academic life can be very draining and yet many somehow manage to make it through the system and through high school (in the United States)<br /><br />The psychologist and intelligence researcher Linda Gottfredson wrote a good piece titled Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life. An excerpt:<br /><br />“Life is replete with uncertainty, change, confusion, and misinformation, sometimes minor and at times massive. From birth to death, life continually requires us to master abstractions, solve problems, draw inferences, and make judgments on the basis of inadequate information. Such demands may be especially intense in school, but they hardly cease when one walks out the school door…”<br /><br />http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds…prints/1997whygmatters.pdf<br /><br />Two questions:<br /><br />1. Can you sympathize with a person who says that one of their major reasons for contemplating suicide often is that they just don’t feel competent to handle the mental demands of today’s increasingly complex social environment?<br /><br />2. Is it morally permissible for the intellectually slow person to commit suicide?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14332388043031669017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-65299886560522901222014-09-01T09:53:38.537+01:002014-09-01T09:53:38.537+01:00"By nature all men are equal in liberty, but ..."By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments". As Aquinas observed, we accord equal liberty to all citizens, as part of an altruistic assumption, hoping to get the best out of them, and out of society. Nonetheless, profound differences remain. So, your Ivy League graduate need not be more moral, or of higher personal value in a metaphysical sense. They will certainly be very very likely to be of more financial value, and that has positive moral implications because taxes on them will support other families. In fact, they are also a bit more likely to be tolerant and socially involved, and thus good people. As to the article, it pulls together a whole lot of different effects and attributes it to elite university education. I think the observed differences are not primarily due to education but to prior differences in interests. Final disclosure: I have no difficulty talking to plumbers, and painters. The guy painting for us at the moment only does so for clients who provide references to him. He does not like ill tempered customers, or those who quibble about his moderate bills.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-49238734955226927662014-08-31T17:43:10.159+01:002014-08-31T17:43:10.159+01:00Professor Thompson,
My apologies, I know this is ...Professor Thompson,<br /><br />My apologies, I know this is off topic but I think this is an important article:<br /><br />"One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not. Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people. Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more"<br /><br />Read the whole here:<br /><br />http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/#.VANPvYy9KSMAlekseihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11581363302791171286noreply@blogger.com