tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post6276920009935139870..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: #IQ2014 True but tabooAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-31501527183629241612014-12-18T14:36:45.403+00:002014-12-18T14:36:45.403+00:00Iq tests WITHOUT complete psychological consultat...Iq tests WITHOUT complete psychological consultation is like that<br /><br />http://www.jornaloflorense.com.br/userfiles/images/dal%20pizzol%20%C3%A1s%20cegas.jpg<br /><br />Blindy and russian roulette tests.<br /><br />Individual matter, specially in higher cognitive capacities.<br /><br />SantocultoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-66912050295900120662014-12-16T09:24:52.957+00:002014-12-16T09:24:52.957+00:00I have had to summarize quite a bit. Susan Pinker ...I have had to summarize quite a bit. Susan Pinker made it very clear that most journalists had a background in the humanities, and the only statistical concept they knew was "the average". As to thermodynamics, that is outside the scope. Pity, though. It would help in discussions of fuel policy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-87766836748763387652014-12-15T18:25:12.867+00:002014-12-15T18:25:12.867+00:00It also helps to realize that journalists, on the ...It also helps to realize that journalists, on the whole, are not very smart, at least not compared to your average scientist. In many cases, they really do not understand things like basic statistics, or the laws of thermodynamics.Toddy Catnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-42115642436025318952014-12-15T03:34:59.595+00:002014-12-15T03:34:59.595+00:00It's nice to see some advance, some sense made...It's nice to see some advance, some sense made no matter how small, on the problem of getting the mainstream to buy the realities of IQ as opposed to just ranting away in the corner as usual. melon headnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-51010407431730148542014-12-15T01:24:48.470+00:002014-12-15T01:24:48.470+00:00Of course. ;)Of course. ;)JayManhttp://jaymans.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-39352035997472793332014-12-14T22:32:39.363+00:002014-12-14T22:32:39.363+00:00People cannot stand too much reality, and that inc...People cannot stand too much reality, and that includes journalists. Off the record, of course.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-72578585828837049822014-12-14T20:52:38.560+00:002014-12-14T20:52:38.560+00:00To be clear on the above, not that I'm saying ...To be clear on the above, not that I'm saying there's anything incorrect or bad about Cochran saying that, only that that kind of straight talk doesn't go over well with hoi polloi.JayManhttp://jaymans.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-72021745167257923512014-12-14T20:50:52.267+00:002014-12-14T20:50:52.267+00:00"Excellent talk from Susan Pinker on the diff...<i>"Excellent talk from Susan Pinker on the difficulties of talking to the press about intelligence. She was able to very quickly explain that scientists often have great difficulty understanding that their interest in whether something is true or not does not meet the basic requirements of dealing with the public’s strong emotions regarding taboo subjects. Researchers cannot understand that a good story (true or not) always trumps their most earnest recital of reliable facts. The wisdom of crowds crowds out even the best statistics. You cannot expect to connect with an audience who are in the throes of righteous indignation by reading them a list of met-analytic effect sizes."</i><br /><br />Beautifully said. I <i>do</i> understand this, though. I just can't be bothered. :)<br /><br /><i>"Pinker’s one plea was “prepare yourself for talking to a journalist as you would for a job interview”. Understand your audience, and their interests and background before saying a word. Aim to make three points. If you want to say more, only do so if you can branch your additional remark off those three points. Never say anything “off the record”. There is no such thing. Watch your step, take care, and remember “the journalist always wins”. If you attack back (other than correcting an obvious major error) you will look petulant, and also give further publicity to whatever the journalist’s implied about you, for example that you want to use IQ tests to slaughter somebody, <b>or clone a master race</b>."</i><br /><br />Great advice. However, I'll let other people do that part, and I'll just tell the straight story. I'm with Greg Cochran on that.<br /><br />But mentioning Cochran, what happens when you say <a href="http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/" rel="nofollow">something like this</a>?<br /><br /><i>"The next point is that the luck only goes away once. If you took those kids from the first group, with average IQs of 110, and dropped them on an uninhabited but friendly island, they would presumably get around to mating eventually – and the next generation would also have an IQ of 110. With tougher selection, say by kidnapping a year’s worth of National Merit Finalists, you could create a new ethny with far higher average intelligence than any existing. Eugenics is not only possible, it’s trivial."</i><br /><br />I say scientists need better marketers, but it's inevitably going to be somewhat fraught relationship<br /><br />(To top it off, all those caveats mainly apply to <a href="http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2014/11/theres-something-about-teutonics.html" rel="nofollow">one prominent group of people</a>.)JayManhttp://jaymans.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com