These people... I mean the likes of Philippe Rushton. They bend the truth to forward their personal racist agendas and then claim that we liberals are bending the truth to match reality.
Let's talk about regression to the mean.
Simply stated... it means that for a continuously distributed inherited characteristic (like height, people are anywhere between 4 and 8 feet tall, they don't vary in discrete units of 1.05 feet), the characteristic an offspring inherits will regress towards the means of that characteristic in his parents' populations. Now, Rushton argues that whites' average IQs are 100, asians are 106, and so on and so on... so obviously white children will regress towards 100... but this is wrong, and who gives a flying fuck what Rushton thinks? We're meritocracies, not racist states.
There's such a thing as ASSORTATIVE MATING.
Let's pretend. There's a population with an average IQ of 100. There are two lucky offspring (not related) from that population with IQs of 130 whose parents (4 parents... to emphasize that they're not related) all had IQs of exactly 100. They're more likely to mate with each other than some other person of IQ 100... this is called assortative mating. Now, statistically speaking, their offspring will likely have an IQ of 115. Right? So, let's assume they have many children and at least one turns out to have an IQ of 130 or higher. Now he will again mate with another person of above average intelligence, perhaps with another person who is also the product of similar assortative mating practices. The end result is that his "population" will have a significantly higher average IQ than his race's average. In genetics it seems that the definition of population is constantly being revised to suit particular purposes... but in this case the most appropriate definition would relate to a person's genetic history because that's the best indicator of his offsprings' IQs. Let's say an individual's population is defined as the group of individuals with which he might choose to mate (because of assortative mating, this population is likely to have a shared genetic history as far as IQ is concerned).
So even regular assortative mating is expected to produce lower and higher IQ "populations" (defined as above) within a single race. But the definition of population is further narrowed because we also judge our mates (or serious romantic partners) based on their families. I personally have a strong feeling that people judge me not only on my own intellectual achievements (or characteristics), but also those of my family (I'm lucky there). This is common among families which produce more intelligent children... it has been my experience that intelligent people are more choosy about whom they will mate with (not necessarily about whom they will sleep with). A person's skin color, however, will not miracolously change as his/her family's IQ goes up.
Point is: I personally know of black families with a respectably long (can only be so long) ivy league legacy.
This is so ridiculous. It didn't hit me how full of shit this guy was until he started to talk about K-type mating. Many of the scientific geniuses of the past were known to be philanderers. Decidedly not K (which is more "dad" as oppposed to "cad"). Svedberg, for instance. It just irks me because it feels like he's imposing his own morality upon others.
Then he calls us equivocators who are trying to sidestep the truth about racial inequalities.
I challenge Rushton to measure the IQs of students at a prestigious university who marry other students at (said) prestigious university. Then measure the IQs of their offspring (if they have any). Let's see how well his flawed version of regression to the mean holds up against empirical evidence.
Lastly, I did read some guy's parsing of the liberal viewpoint on this intelligence thing: Well, we're supposed to believe that IQ doesn't matter and have all these arguments justifying that notion... but nevertheless claim to have high IQs. This is incorrect in both cases (if applied to me):
1. I believe IQ does matter. I believe, nevertheless, in an intellectual environment where everyone is afforded equal opportunity high IQ individuals will succeed and have better mating chances. In academia, intelligent individuals do better, are happier, and probably have better mating chances (controlling for other factors like height, physical attractiveness, etc.). This is at least true of high IQ people who elect to go into professions that require high IQs. What I don't believe is that skin color (or cultural background) should have influence on your chances to get a job. Furthermore, IQ tests can be fickle. There are many legitimate reasons why someone might not do well on an IQ test. In college (and especially in hard sciences) students and professors constantly have to prove that they possess the required intelligence to do their jobs. IQ tests are almost completely superfluous in this case. Yes, intelligence can help... but no amount of intelligence will render sweat and blood unnecessary. Nose to the grindstone, baby. Even the GRE, which is basically an IQ test (granted the testee understands the optimal strategems for the computer adaptive test and so forth), does not predict graduate students' success or failure well. Personally, I believe this is true because by the time you graduate from college with a high enough GPA to attend grad school, you've shown you have the smarts required to succeed in grad school. Any additional smarts is (almost) superfluous. Then, you have to show you have the toughness and grit to complete a PhD thesis, which is no small tast... and while intelligence certainly doesn't hurt, it doesn't help as much as you would think (creativity and the willingness to get messy and make mistakes helps more I think).
2. I don't claim to have a monstrously high IQ. I do very well on somewhat g-loaded IQ-like tests like the GRE, the GMAT, and the MAT (see previous posts). But on traditional IQ tests with harsher time limits (like the wonderlic) I would probably score 120 - 130. That's not monstrously high.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Fond reminiscing
During my two relationships so far I've developed a superstition that whenever I fondly reminisce about the S.O. or ex, she feels sick of me. Or whenever I thought she hated my guts she seems to miss me or something. And when I thought she probably doesn't miss me or I just felt annoyed with her... then she seemed (confusingly) to miss me or want to see me.
So now I have this illogical belief that my ex is kind of tired of me (because I presently miss her). I insist that I'm not crazy because I know this belief is irrational and in a sense I know there's no mysterious connection between me and her... but my mind clings to it as if though there is. It's this strange paradox of knowing the truth but being obsessed with an illusion... an illusion that's discomforting and annoying. So yeah, it's kind of disconcerting. And I've constructed an entire story around this strange feeling. It all started with idle curiosity a few months ago (or maybe semi-stalkerism): 1. In this story, a friend that she recently made on facebook was actually someone she slept with. He regretted doing this. That's why he put something like "regret is doing abc..." on his profile. Regret being her. She nevertheless didn't regret it. 2. Her feelings hurt a little (because of his regret) she decided... eventually... to contact me. When I responded, she mysteriously felt sick of me again.
This kind of weird superstition is strengthened by my feelings mirroring these imagined (or maybe real) events... I wasn't thinking about her. Then I felt this pang (probably when she slept with the guy and temporarily forgot about me) which inspired me to look her up on facebook. I decided I didn't give a shit (mirrored by her finding out he regretted sleeping with her). Then all of a sudden I miss her again (she feels sick of me).
Funnily enough... all of this was inspired by a blatantly racist blogger on some "majority rights" website. He was writing about how the arguments that a book makes on interracial mating improving offspring health and intelligence are naive. But in turn, he seemed to be making the argument that white people should mate with other white people (not Jews or Asians). I thought for while then about my own opinion on the subject. My ex is ethnically Jewish. And I sometimes wonder whether she subconsciously felt better than me because of this. To a large degree, I believe this is also an illusion. But when she left me she seemed to be saying that I'm not good enough for her... in some way. And I didn't open up enough and show her my culture and family and "who I am as a person." But I remember having a conversation about this that disturbed me... me talking about how I am embarrassed by some aspects of my culture and how if I told her she wouldn't understand. She said that maybe she should dump me. I felt it was all very hypocritical. The thing about it is that there is almost never an overt expression of this racism (or whatever form of discrimination), but consider this friend I had... he was from Israel... and when he finally started speaking freely (or, in a train of consciousness manner) he spoke about how Jewish people were smarter than other people (I didn't bother to point out to him that it's exclusively the Ashkenazim that are smarter... and he isn't Ashkenazim). This just made me cringe inside while I sat there listening to him blabbing and making a fool out of himself.
It has bothered me for some time that there are differences in the average IQs of different races. Research clearly indicates that certain races on average perform better than other races. But I believe the only place where this type of research serves any purpose is when you address educational inequalities in schools. Race isn't the first thing you should look at when judging how intelligent the offspring you would produce with another person would be. When you judge what effect "regression to the mean" would have on your offspring with that person... consider the mean of that person's relatively recent genetic history (~2 or 3 generations back), not his race. The following bit might all sound very racist. But keep in mind that I'm making these arguments to prove that you cannot judge a person based on his race. Consider that Southeast asians (Indians) have, on average, lower IQs, but the Brahmin castes have the highest IQs for any group of people measured (as a group they have an average IQ of around 120 which is higher even than the average of Ashkenazi Jews). The point is, if you were to regard a Brahmin as coming from a SE Asian population, you might think his population's average IQ is 85 when in fact his population's AVERAGE IQ is already at the 90th %ile in the US population and at the 75th %ile relative to Ashkenazi Jews (assume about 10 point average IQ difference, about 2/3rd a standard deviation). But I'm sure there are dumber Brahmins whose populations are dumber too. Another aspect about family history is the fact that in families you can actually witness regression to the mean. I mean... if you see that in person A's parents were both world renowned scientists, but their kids (excluding person A) are only college graduates who get by with bachelors degrees and don't do much else. You can start to guess that maybe there is regression to a fairly low mean in this family. Your suspicions might be confirmed by looking at person A's uncles and aunts and such.
The problem for me is that I am basically on top (as any Brahmin emigre to the US would also be). Maybe if my (illusory) ex were less dismissive of goyim intelligence in general she might notice such things. I know this because in the country where I have immigrated from IQ tests were seen as very good (and they are accurate for people who are familiar with western culture) and therefore basically everyone in my immediate family was given IQ tests. My parents had IQs of 125 and 135. And my suspicion is that these IQ tests place too much emphasis on time... and that mental power wise, my parents are even smarter (a suspicion is based on how easily they succeed academically). At college, my grandmother and grandfather on my dad's side were the best out of a million or so students. My dad had 5 brothers and sisters. One sister had an IQ of 150, another 145, another sister 125 and the one person to become a medical doctor, ironically, had an IQ of 115. IQs ranged within narrower limits for my mom's siblings, but as a rule were about 2 standard deviations above the mean or higher (my late uncle was apparently really smart, around 145, but he was also unmotivated and didn't finish engineering school even after 10 years in college). My grandmother on my mom's side was especially smart. People can tell this just by associating with her. I know that one of her brothers (my great uncle) had a measured IQ of 160 and that both her other brothers became computer programmers (stereotypically nerdy profession... but also consider that this was in the 195os or 1960s and it would have been so much harder to learn computer programming... think punch cards). So no matter who I mate with, my offspring will probably regress to a lower mean than the average of my family.
What is my point with this? My point is that it is a mistake to look at race... instead, you should look at family history. And another point is that it often turns out that people mysteriously act to maximize their genetic benefit from mating.... even though they are not consciously aware of such things. Being closed minded severely narrows your opportunities. A woman of any race would probably produce smarter children if she mated with a black man whose genetic history indicates a mean IQ of 125 in his family than she would produce if she mated with a white man whose genetic history indicates a mean IQ of 90 in his family (considering that both men themselves measure at 115, say). So, on a scientific basis, his arguments are misguided. Scientificaally I accept that there is such a thing as an average IQ and I do think such things matter. But I believe that the way humans mate control for these types of things. It's very interesting and odd that I find out that girls I am attracted to often happen to be Jewish... after the fact... and these are not the types of girls that are obviously Jewish (they don't have the stereotypically Jewish features). But I'm not exclusively attracted to Jewish girls. In fact, I will probably find a non-Jew to mate with just because I think Jewish families tend to place too much emphasis on whether your mate is Jewish or not, and trying to make up for your lack of Jewishness is just not worth it. This must be how it feels to be discriminated against. And the thing that bothers me is not the average race/IQ shit... it's the fact that people don't bother to consider more carefully each individual situation.
My point is that I will not rule out the possibility that things like recent genetic history factor into your offspring's intelligence... but I do feel that human mating interactions are highly complex and were evolved to control for these more subtle factors... in other words, if you do what feels right, you will probably end up doing the right thing.
So now I have this illogical belief that my ex is kind of tired of me (because I presently miss her). I insist that I'm not crazy because I know this belief is irrational and in a sense I know there's no mysterious connection between me and her... but my mind clings to it as if though there is. It's this strange paradox of knowing the truth but being obsessed with an illusion... an illusion that's discomforting and annoying. So yeah, it's kind of disconcerting. And I've constructed an entire story around this strange feeling. It all started with idle curiosity a few months ago (or maybe semi-stalkerism): 1. In this story, a friend that she recently made on facebook was actually someone she slept with. He regretted doing this. That's why he put something like "regret is doing abc..." on his profile. Regret being her. She nevertheless didn't regret it. 2. Her feelings hurt a little (because of his regret) she decided... eventually... to contact me. When I responded, she mysteriously felt sick of me again.
This kind of weird superstition is strengthened by my feelings mirroring these imagined (or maybe real) events... I wasn't thinking about her. Then I felt this pang (probably when she slept with the guy and temporarily forgot about me) which inspired me to look her up on facebook. I decided I didn't give a shit (mirrored by her finding out he regretted sleeping with her). Then all of a sudden I miss her again (she feels sick of me).
Funnily enough... all of this was inspired by a blatantly racist blogger on some "majority rights" website. He was writing about how the arguments that a book makes on interracial mating improving offspring health and intelligence are naive. But in turn, he seemed to be making the argument that white people should mate with other white people (not Jews or Asians). I thought for while then about my own opinion on the subject. My ex is ethnically Jewish. And I sometimes wonder whether she subconsciously felt better than me because of this. To a large degree, I believe this is also an illusion. But when she left me she seemed to be saying that I'm not good enough for her... in some way. And I didn't open up enough and show her my culture and family and "who I am as a person." But I remember having a conversation about this that disturbed me... me talking about how I am embarrassed by some aspects of my culture and how if I told her she wouldn't understand. She said that maybe she should dump me. I felt it was all very hypocritical. The thing about it is that there is almost never an overt expression of this racism (or whatever form of discrimination), but consider this friend I had... he was from Israel... and when he finally started speaking freely (or, in a train of consciousness manner) he spoke about how Jewish people were smarter than other people (I didn't bother to point out to him that it's exclusively the Ashkenazim that are smarter... and he isn't Ashkenazim). This just made me cringe inside while I sat there listening to him blabbing and making a fool out of himself.
It has bothered me for some time that there are differences in the average IQs of different races. Research clearly indicates that certain races on average perform better than other races. But I believe the only place where this type of research serves any purpose is when you address educational inequalities in schools. Race isn't the first thing you should look at when judging how intelligent the offspring you would produce with another person would be. When you judge what effect "regression to the mean" would have on your offspring with that person... consider the mean of that person's relatively recent genetic history (~2 or 3 generations back), not his race. The following bit might all sound very racist. But keep in mind that I'm making these arguments to prove that you cannot judge a person based on his race. Consider that Southeast asians (Indians) have, on average, lower IQs, but the Brahmin castes have the highest IQs for any group of people measured (as a group they have an average IQ of around 120 which is higher even than the average of Ashkenazi Jews). The point is, if you were to regard a Brahmin as coming from a SE Asian population, you might think his population's average IQ is 85 when in fact his population's AVERAGE IQ is already at the 90th %ile in the US population and at the 75th %ile relative to Ashkenazi Jews (assume about 10 point average IQ difference, about 2/3rd a standard deviation). But I'm sure there are dumber Brahmins whose populations are dumber too. Another aspect about family history is the fact that in families you can actually witness regression to the mean. I mean... if you see that in person A's parents were both world renowned scientists, but their kids (excluding person A) are only college graduates who get by with bachelors degrees and don't do much else. You can start to guess that maybe there is regression to a fairly low mean in this family. Your suspicions might be confirmed by looking at person A's uncles and aunts and such.
The problem for me is that I am basically on top (as any Brahmin emigre to the US would also be). Maybe if my (illusory) ex were less dismissive of goyim intelligence in general she might notice such things. I know this because in the country where I have immigrated from IQ tests were seen as very good (and they are accurate for people who are familiar with western culture) and therefore basically everyone in my immediate family was given IQ tests. My parents had IQs of 125 and 135. And my suspicion is that these IQ tests place too much emphasis on time... and that mental power wise, my parents are even smarter (a suspicion is based on how easily they succeed academically). At college, my grandmother and grandfather on my dad's side were the best out of a million or so students. My dad had 5 brothers and sisters. One sister had an IQ of 150, another 145, another sister 125 and the one person to become a medical doctor, ironically, had an IQ of 115. IQs ranged within narrower limits for my mom's siblings, but as a rule were about 2 standard deviations above the mean or higher (my late uncle was apparently really smart, around 145, but he was also unmotivated and didn't finish engineering school even after 10 years in college). My grandmother on my mom's side was especially smart. People can tell this just by associating with her. I know that one of her brothers (my great uncle) had a measured IQ of 160 and that both her other brothers became computer programmers (stereotypically nerdy profession... but also consider that this was in the 195os or 1960s and it would have been so much harder to learn computer programming... think punch cards). So no matter who I mate with, my offspring will probably regress to a lower mean than the average of my family.
What is my point with this? My point is that it is a mistake to look at race... instead, you should look at family history. And another point is that it often turns out that people mysteriously act to maximize their genetic benefit from mating.... even though they are not consciously aware of such things. Being closed minded severely narrows your opportunities. A woman of any race would probably produce smarter children if she mated with a black man whose genetic history indicates a mean IQ of 125 in his family than she would produce if she mated with a white man whose genetic history indicates a mean IQ of 90 in his family (considering that both men themselves measure at 115, say). So, on a scientific basis, his arguments are misguided. Scientificaally I accept that there is such a thing as an average IQ and I do think such things matter. But I believe that the way humans mate control for these types of things. It's very interesting and odd that I find out that girls I am attracted to often happen to be Jewish... after the fact... and these are not the types of girls that are obviously Jewish (they don't have the stereotypically Jewish features). But I'm not exclusively attracted to Jewish girls. In fact, I will probably find a non-Jew to mate with just because I think Jewish families tend to place too much emphasis on whether your mate is Jewish or not, and trying to make up for your lack of Jewishness is just not worth it. This must be how it feels to be discriminated against. And the thing that bothers me is not the average race/IQ shit... it's the fact that people don't bother to consider more carefully each individual situation.
My point is that I will not rule out the possibility that things like recent genetic history factor into your offspring's intelligence... but I do feel that human mating interactions are highly complex and were evolved to control for these more subtle factors... in other words, if you do what feels right, you will probably end up doing the right thing.
Friday, February 6, 2009
My actual IQ scores
My mom confessed my actual IQ scores when I again expressed doubt in my intelligence.
I'm fond of doing that. Doubting my competence. It used to be sincere. Now it's only half-sincere. But I'm not asking for pity. Mostly, I feel sorry for myself. I get high on a low.
Anyway, as a child my IQ score in the mid 120's. This is actually very respectable... but it was also disappointing to my teachers who thought I was in the 140's. Actually, I think as far as mental power I am in the 140 to 160 range. I'm starting to doubt the validity of all of this. But I did very well on the performance section (broke ceilings) and not so well on verbal (which is more of a measure of crystallized intelligence). My intellectual development was delayed by hyperammonemia, which may have temporarily lowered my fluid intelligence, thereby hampering my ability to learn and develop crystallized intelligence. My mom also related stories about how teachers would ask questions that stump the entire class... and I would wait in the back until no one answered and then deliver a well thought out and insightful answer (this is not done to make myself seem smarter... only to give others a chance to respond). But now I feel very comfortable expressing myself in English. I learn words and sentence structure very easily... often I only need to hear them once to infer meaning and I usually don't mind looking words up in the dictionary. And as I've learned more it has become easier for me to learn even more. But as I've said before, my vocabulary isn't THAT big. Or maybe a lot of it's very technical. Don't know.
I'm fond of doing that. Doubting my competence. It used to be sincere. Now it's only half-sincere. But I'm not asking for pity. Mostly, I feel sorry for myself. I get high on a low.
Anyway, as a child my IQ score in the mid 120's. This is actually very respectable... but it was also disappointing to my teachers who thought I was in the 140's. Actually, I think as far as mental power I am in the 140 to 160 range. I'm starting to doubt the validity of all of this. But I did very well on the performance section (broke ceilings) and not so well on verbal (which is more of a measure of crystallized intelligence). My intellectual development was delayed by hyperammonemia, which may have temporarily lowered my fluid intelligence, thereby hampering my ability to learn and develop crystallized intelligence. My mom also related stories about how teachers would ask questions that stump the entire class... and I would wait in the back until no one answered and then deliver a well thought out and insightful answer (this is not done to make myself seem smarter... only to give others a chance to respond). But now I feel very comfortable expressing myself in English. I learn words and sentence structure very easily... often I only need to hear them once to infer meaning and I usually don't mind looking words up in the dictionary. And as I've learned more it has become easier for me to learn even more. But as I've said before, my vocabulary isn't THAT big. Or maybe a lot of it's very technical. Don't know.
First author
Oh, and another paper on which I'm a first author was accepted to.
But I still have to "prove myself"
But I still have to "prove myself"
out abroad
well, for fear that i might be personally identifiable, I won't mention where I went... but I've been in another country as of late.
I'm starting to get tired of having people blush whenever I make an intelligent statement or whenever I say something that proves them wrong... about anything. it's more irritating because they assume my foreign brain can't grasp the concepts which are the products of foreign brains to begin with. or having to go to ridiculous lengths to assure people that i respect them.
maybe i just need to get laid
I'm starting to get tired of having people blush whenever I make an intelligent statement or whenever I say something that proves them wrong... about anything. it's more irritating because they assume my foreign brain can't grasp the concepts which are the products of foreign brains to begin with. or having to go to ridiculous lengths to assure people that i respect them.
maybe i just need to get laid
Monday, January 5, 2009
fellowship and other paper
After many sleepless nights, I've finished a draft of another paper. I'm very happy to again be on the road to finishing this paper, because I've been working on that project for way too long. Advisor says should have been faster. Yeah, well. Fuck. I'm human. Actually, I don't really have that much experience writing scientific papers and so fuck, what would you really expect from me?
Anyway, also applying to fellowship. Indifferent about this. Have a feeling I won't get it. But then again, it's worth a try. Maybe I'd rather have my friend get it. I don't mind teaching a bit and I can reapply for this fellowship later.
Anyway, also applying to fellowship. Indifferent about this. Have a feeling I won't get it. But then again, it's worth a try. Maybe I'd rather have my friend get it. I don't mind teaching a bit and I can reapply for this fellowship later.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Science!
One of the papers on which I am an author (4th author or something) is "basically accepted."
:)
:)
Yay!
Anyway, should hear back about other manuscript as well soon. I'm first author on that one.
Also, if all goes well, the ephedrine does its job and I stay on task, I'll submit another manuscript soon. Then we'll hear about that.
Also an author on another manuscript... but don't know if it will ever be submitted.
All one can do is hope for the best. SOOO much to do
:)
:)
Yay!
Anyway, should hear back about other manuscript as well soon. I'm first author on that one.
Also, if all goes well, the ephedrine does its job and I stay on task, I'll submit another manuscript soon. Then we'll hear about that.
Also an author on another manuscript... but don't know if it will ever be submitted.
All one can do is hope for the best. SOOO much to do
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)