William_the_Bloody

Thanks, I try to use science as the basis of all my decisions, as opposed to political philosophy or religion, but when the science isn't sound, it to becomes theoretical ,so you have to tread lightly....particularly with this topic.

Anyways busy so it may be a bit before I fire off my next entry.

William_the_Bloody

Too busy with work to work on my journal, but I thought I would make it clear that my sympathy for Blue collar Republicans who have been ripped off by their own party for years does not equate to endorsing Trump.

In short, Trump is a rich unstable megalomaniac whose skillfully exploited a large disenfranchised voting bloc.

I'm neither left nor right at the moment, but I'm definitely against anyone off their rocker having access to the world's biggest nuclear arsenal.

William_the_Bloody

Allright I was probably a little harsh on Mr. Trump above, the fact is its hard to determine the real Trump from the showman, I definitely think he's been reading his Mussolini 101 books on how to whip the masses into a loyal frenzy though.

Anyways I'll get to part 2 of my intelligence entry sometime soon, but for now...

this has probably been the most interesting and enlightening article explaining the Trump phenomenon,...in short the return of white ghettos,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-donald-trump/

or if you are Chomsky fan (I am not) ,he is quite articulate on this issue.

Donald Trump Is Winning Because White America Is Dying

As someone who grew up as a working class white this hasn't been too hard for me to figure out, considering my step dad & half of my mom's friends have been thrown out of their previous good paying union jobs that took flight, and are now working for temp labour agencies without hope of proper retirement.

Both the left and right need to reform itself and fast, otherwise fascism will be back in vogue!

SuperSymmetry

The rise of American authoritarianism - Vox

Here's a neat article on Trump's popularity that you could read, Will. The author lets some of her own views and biases slip in there occasionally, but the info in it is otherwise solid if not really interesting. It's kinda long, but I think it's well worth the read.

William_the_Bloody

Thanks I'll take a look at it, and get back to you, cheers.

William_the_Bloody

Intelligence part 2: Can we reliably measure intelligence?

Introduction:

Is there a scientifically reliable way to measure intelligence? And if there is, are the results largely inherent, or driven by environmental factors?

This could possibly be the most important series of questions I research for my journal, for the findings could have a profound impact on how we view equality, particularly if there is solid evidence to back up the notion that income inequality is largely driven by inherent differences in peoples intelligences.

I should therefore note that these questions have already been answered to a large extent by my first journal entry on intelligence, where it was discovered that we do not definitively know what creates differences in intelligences between people, or by how much, and to what degree. In fact, scientists are still debating on what constitutes intelligence, and if it’s quantifiably measurable.

So this begs the question; how reliable is our current way of measuring intelligence?

IQ tests:

We currently measure human intelligence through intelligent quotient (IQ) tests. These tests operate by subjecting an individual to a series of cognitive exams that are used to determine their overall intelligence relative to the general population.

The most popular IQ test used today, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was created by David Wechsler an American psychologist who believed that intelligence was made up of specific elements that could be isolated and measured, and because they were interdependent upon each other, they could be combined to assign an IQ number that determined one's overall intelligence.

The WAIS itself is broken down into two subscales that measures one verbal IQ and performance IQ. The verbal IQ, measures one's verbal intelligence (Reading comprehension ect) and contains a working memory component, while the performance IQ measures one's problem solving ability (Puzzles ect) and contains a processing speed component.

Combined together, these tests assign a person's intelligence a number in which 95% of the population falls between 70 and 130, with anything below 70 referring to retardation, and anything above 130 referring to being gifted. 100 is considered the average mean.

It should be noted that IQ tests are measuring what psychologists believe constitutes intelligence, not what actually does. As explained before, there is no concrete biological evidence (that I know of) that specifically states x and x in the brain = your level of intelligence.

IQ tests are therefore subjective, not objective, and though I am loathe to use the phrase theoretical construct, that is exactly what they are.

A good way to explain why they are theoretical constructs is to use the analogy of a sports car. Imagine you have a high performance car, and you have an idea why one may be performing better than another, but you do not fully understand how each part of the engine operates. You measure how fast it can do a lap or the time it takes to jump from 0 to 80km per hour, but you have no idea as to why. Likewise, we may be able to measure that someone can solve spatial problems quicker than another person, but we have no idea as to why, and here in lies the problem.

IQ tests are subjective, and because of this, they have been mired in controversy since their inception, most notably around the issue of race, as they have been used in the past to justify racial segregation by perpetuating the myth that income inequality is the result of inherent differences in our intelligence, when other cultural and environmental factors have been in play.

One such controversy was the 1993 book the Bell Curve, which tackled the issue of race, and despite conceding that intelligence is determined in part by environmental factors, the book strongly leaned towards the belief that our IQ’s are genetically predetermined, via claiming that IQ’s are largely fixed after the age of 5. We now know however that this is not the case, as studies as shown that the IQ’s of teenagers can fluctuate dramatically…

If you think intelligence is set in stone, think again. A new study shows that IQ can fluctuate dramatically during adolescence, with some teens raising or lowering their scores by about 20 points. Psychologists have long believed that intelligence was fixed, and parents and educators often use IQ scores to determine whether children are "gifted" or need extra help at school. But the study suggests things are a bit more complicated.

IQ scores fluctuate dramatically in kids, study says - CBS News

In fact it appears that they can increase as a result of numerous environmental factors from being a musician, to having greater access to education, to getting regular physical exercise, to playing video games, and even possibly being a cab driver!?!

A new study has concluded that musicians have higher IQ scores than non-musicians, supporting other recent research that intensive musical training is associated with an elevated IQ score.

Do Musicians Have Higher IQs Than Non-Musicians? Yes, Says Study

A new study from Norway finds that students who remain in school longer than their counterparts have higher IQ scores.

Study: More Education Increases IQ Score

These navigational demands stimulate brain development, concludes a study five years in the making. With the new research, scientists can definitively say that London taxi drivers not only have larger-than-average memory centers in their brains, but also that their intensive training is responsible for the growth.

Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets - Scientific American

Here we show, for the very first time, that commercial video games can be used to reliably measure individual differences in general intelligence (g). One hundred and eighty eight university undergraduates took part in the study. They played twelve video games under strict supervision in the laboratory and completed eleven intelligence tests. Several factor models were tested for answering the question of whether or not video games and intelligence tests do measure the same underlying high-order latent factor. The final model revealed a very high relationship between the high-order latent factors representing video game and intelligence performance (r = .93)

Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can!

We have discovered that video game players perform 10 to 20 percent higher in terms of perceptual and cognitive ability than normal people that are non-game players,

Group

The research group analyzed the results of both physical and IQ tests when the men enrolled. The study shows a clear link between good physical fitness and better results for the IQ test. The strongest links are for logical thinking and verbal comprehension.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1202101751.htm

Obviously the claim of differing IQ scores in race is an important one, which I will be touching upon at a later date, but the point I’m trying to make here is that either intelligence is extremely fluid, IQ tests are very subjective, or both, as it appears that anything from breastfeeding to ping pong could have the ability to improve your IQ scores, so how is it that anyone can reasonably believe that IQ tests are an accurate measure of our inherent intelligence?

Well the answer may be found in the fact that they have found some correlation between IQ’s and income.

Past studies have shown that intelligence positively affects income ,or the money a person makes per year. "Individuals with a higher IQ typically have a higher educational attainment and a higher occupational status and that is very well established," said Ruth Spinks, a behavioral and cognitive neuroscientist. Participants with higher IQ scores tended to earn higher incomes, with each additional IQ point associated with an income boost of $202 to $616 each year. For example, a person with an IQ that's in the top 2 percent of society (130 points) would rake in between $6,000 and $18,500 per year more than an individual with an average IQ of about 100 points.

Not So Smart? You Can Still be Rich!

It does seem plausible then that the cognitive exams of IQ tests measure some form of human intelligence as one can notably see a difference between someone who has an IQ of 130 to someone who has an IQ of under 70, but can we sum up someone’s intelligence to definitively say that one person is smarter than another? A recent study published in a Neuroscience journal would suggest that we cannot.

An individual's IQ score — long-held as the standard measure of human intelligence — is not a valid way of assessing brainpower, say Canadian researchers. A team from Western University is debunking the concept of general intelligence, saying that there is no single component that can account for how a person performs various mental and cognitive tasks. Instead, human intelligence is made up of multiple and distinct components, each of which must be looked at independently.

IQ myth debunked by Canadian researchers - Technology & Science - CBC News

Different circuits within the brain are used for different thought processes, the researchers showed, meaning separate tests of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal skills are needed to measure someone's overall intelligence.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence' - Telegraph

In short, the Canadian researchers have found that we have multiple intelligences that operate separately from one another, and therefore cannot be combined into one overall general intelligence score, in other words IQ scores are bunk… but the jury is still out on them.

In conclusion, despite their usefulness, it would appear that IQ tests in their present form are not a reliable or accurate way to measure ones inherent intelligence, and therefore any claim that income inequality is largely the result of innate differences in individual intelligences in largely conjecture, which cannot be validated by science.

Next up: Do different personalities lead some to have more financial success than others? And are bullies rewarded for in life for their behavior?

William_the_Bloody

Forgot to talk about he Flynn effect in part 2 of intelligence above; something to look up if your into critiquing psychometric tests.

Personalities:


Do certain personalities make more income than others? And if so, are personalities shaped primarily by our genetics or by our environment?

Whether or not our personalities are predominantly inherent or shaped by our environment appears to be a largely unresolved issue amongst the scientific community, but the findings so far do suggest that both play a factor with...

Around 40 percent of a person's personality traits stem from inherited genes, according to Dr. David Funder, psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside, and author of "The Personality Puzzle." This leaves room for considerable influence from environmental factors.

Do Children Inherit Their Parents' Personalities? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Meanwhile scientific studies continue to be carried out that support evidence for both sides of the equation.

Genes play a greater role in determining key personality traits like social skills and learning ability than the way we are brought up by our parents, researchers claimed.The findings contradict the existing belief among psychologists that the environment we grow up in plays a larger role than genetics in shaping our personality.Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life.

It's nature, not nurture: personality lies in genes, twins study shows - Telegraph

Writing in the Journal of Personality, the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact. Genetics were most influential on people's sense of self-control and also affected their social and learning abilities and their sense of purpose

Enviroment stronger than genes in determining your personality | Daily Mail Online

and on the contradictory side...

The debate over whether nature or nurture defines personality has taken a further twist after scientists found foster parents have a greater impact on personality than directly inherited genes from parents. Researchers at the University of Exeter and the University of Hamburg used the zebra finches to investigate how personality is transferred between generations. They found that foster parents have a greater influence on the personalities of fostered offspring than the genes inherited from birth parents.

Enviroment stronger than genes in determining your personality | Daily Mail Online

The current prevailing genetic evidence seems to suggest that we actually don't have genes for personality. And this conclusion doesn't come from a lack of trying: The US government has spent billions on genetic research.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ce-personality

So it appears that we are still in the fledging stages of understanding how a personality is constructed, and much like the origins of intelligence & mental health ailments, this issue is unlikely to resolve itself until there are further advancements in genetics and neuroscience. That being said, I think it is safe to assume that some reasonable percentage of our personalities are inherent, so that begs the question, are some personalities predisposed to be more successful in life than others?

The problem with answering this question is that we simply do not know why some people portray different personality traits than others, so instead of identifying genes or mechanisms in the brain that might give us some concrete insights into the construction of a personality, we are once again left to utilize psychometric tools to find our answers, and as consequence, the findings are subjective and open to error, in fact the most popular test to identify a person's personality today, the Meyer's Briggs test, is flimsy at best.

The Meyer's Briggs test operates by asking a person a series of questions which will inevitably place them in a category that best resembles their personality. The scientific validity and reliability of the Meyer's Briggs test however has time and time again come under scrutiny from those in the academic community who don't see it as being supported by scientific evidence. In short, if an IQ test is piece of cardboard flying through the area than the Myer Briggs test is a piece of wet paper heading towards a high powered sprinkler.

Nevertheless, it is what we have to work with, and it has found that different personalities do lead to inequities in income. In other words, it appears that some personalities are predisposed to earn more income than others, in which those that have strong type A personalities, ENTJ and ESTJ, earn the most, with a mixed bag of type B and type A personalities being at the bottom.



In regards to answering a personal question I have; Do bullies and mean spirited people rise to the top? I have found the evidence on this seems to be really unclear as I could not find many studies on it, however a study done in Canada did find that bullies tend to earn more income, have a higher self esteem, and more sexual partners in their later lives than their victims. So it would appear that the human pecking order lives well beyond our adolescent years. Another article, though it did not cite any references, (but was able to pinpoint what my Meyers Briggs personality was in high school spot on), noted that ESTJ's were the bullies in high school, which scored the second highest on the Myer Briggs income ladder, thereby lending some credence to my first findings on bullies above.

Provocative new study finds bullies have highest self esteem, social status, lowest rates of depression | National Post

Here

All this being considered, I find the validity of the Meyer's Briggs test to be too shaky for my liking. It states that the two natural born leaders are in groups ENTJ and ESTJ, and that they are often impatient, judgemental and unskilled at empathy while other articles have noted that it is essential for natural leaders to have good empathy and listening skills, after all when the average person thinks alpha male, I'm sure they're thinking of Bill Clinton and Fred from Scooby Doo, not the Gordon Ramsey's and the Eddie Haskell's of the world, though they seemingly rise to power to.

So do differences in personalities result in inequities in income? It would appear so, according to the myer Brigg's test, but the science behind it is highly questionable, as it appears that we are still in the fledging stages of understanding what constructs our personalities, and whether or not they are predetermined largely by our environment or genetics.

I think it's safe to assume that your personality type does play a role in determining your financial success, but any claims made by people that some of us are naturally equipped to rise to the top of the income ladder based on our genetics, is purely conjecture at this point.

Next up: Human mating and competition

Pet_Sounds

Damn, time to find an environment that will make me an ENTJ. I'm apparently halfway there already--can't be too hard.

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

William_the_Bloody

Thanks SuperS that is an excellent article, though heavily biased as you point out, I don't particularly trust the stats they use though, for instance it states...

A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country.

That sounded suspicious to me because poll after poll has shown that Trump supporters are different from other Republicans in that they don't care about social issues like gay marriage and abortion, so I checked the source and found...

Data from Public Policy Polling show that a third of Mr. Trump’s backers in South Carolina support barring gays and lesbians from entering the country.

Now from a Canadian perspective, the idea that anyone could even contemplate supporting the above statement, to me is f'n disgusting and reprehensible....

but if you walk into a republican primary in one of the most conservative states in the union, and ask the views of frontrunners supporters (who has largely captured the evangelical vote from Cruz in this state) what their views are, your going to get some far right stuff.

To state that this is the views of Trumps supporters is highly disingenuous, I doubt this would be the case at a Republican primary in Seattle or New York.

So I think the article hit the nail on head with the authoritarianism, but at the same time I think it went out of its way to try and paint Trump supporters as suffering from an innate personality defect that threatens America.

I really enjoyed reading it though, thank you for your contribution! please feel free to send me links in the future.

Goofle

That article seemed to be in upside down land. And a typical left wing propaganda piece that we have come to expect. I'd argue Trump is as popular as he is because of authoritarians on the left. Who ultimately created Trump in the first place.

Sure, he also has regular old right wing support, and the 0.5% of crazy nut jobs, but he doesn't get where he is now without that reaction to the authoritarian left.

__________________