"Usually females are not good about thinking in a logical way."
It was kind of on topic and I could hear him talking to a woman in the hall.
How does he escape that, exactly, because he is foreign? Like, in his home country, females are very un-logical? Or, this could be interpreted as a language issue? (Because it really doesn't sound like a language issue.)
Anyway, as to the OP, I downloaded the actual paper to read some day (read: likely never), but (possibly because of my low IQ?), I would like to think that this is true.
3: She interpreted it as a language issue and told him not to be sexist. Same woman comes into his office and says really stupid things about his country on a fairly regular basis. Maybe he was just trying to make her leave.
It follows from the definition of g that if this paper is true (sure, why wouldn't it be) then you could derive a perfectly legitimate estimate of an individual's g by giving them a battery of tests of racial prejudice and conservatism and so on.
Except that it is easier to pretend to be not racist on a test than it is to pretend to be not stupid.
Well, then presumably that would bias the results in the original paper, which would mean it wouldn't be true, which would mean that 5 wouldn't hold.
I was thinking that more people might mind being considered stupid than racist and that would motivate more gaming of the tests.
then you could derive a perfectly legitimate estimate of an individual's g by giving them a battery of tests of racial prejudice and conservatism and so on.
You're joking, right? If not, I'm going to believe that your stats class was as bad as you say.
Right, I understand. But that problem would afflict the original paper, too. If the original paper came up with measures that don't suffer from that problem, then [ 5 ], assuming you use those measures.
If they didn't come up with measures that avoid that problem, then they may have discovered that intelligent people are better able to hide their racism.
Sorry, should be high IQ people in 10.
Since 9 is unsigned, I'm going to assume it's Shearer. Shut up, racist.
then they may have discovered that intelligent people are better able to hide their racism
That is pretty much exactly what I think they found. I did open the paper. Very nice mediation methods.
I love those charts with the diamonds and the betas. We've got one a paper under review with one of those charts.
9 Was me.
Let me try it this way: Dutch people are statistically taller than Americans. So you could derive a perfectly legitimate estimate of an individual's height by giving them a battery of tests to measure their knowledge of Dutch.
15: true! But height is different in that it's not defined purely statistically. g (with the caveat that people are looking for biological correlates and blah blah blah) is just a measure of the common factor that underlies tests of intelligence. So if you have a test that correlates with IQ, that test is going to have some kind of g loading. If you take a bunch of reasonably independent tests that correlate with IQ they're going to have some common factor that's as useful as anything in measuring g. Which all points out that trying to measure g is useless, but that's okay, because that's what I was trying to say.
And the statistics class really was that bad, but the instructor didn't attempt to teach factor analysis, so you can't blame her for any endumbening on my part.
If you take a bunch of reasonably independent tests that correlate with IQ they're going to have some common factor that's as useful as anything in measuring g.
You can get a reasonable estimate of the population mean for a defined group, but you can't make a "legitimate estimate of an individual's g" unless the r-squared is very high, which I don't think is being claimed (disclaimer: I haven't read the paper).
Like, in his home country, females are very un-logical?
His home country of everywhere, am I right, fellas? Fellas?
Further to 20: They aren't making the claim that racism and conservatism are part of 'g'. They are using 'g' but not studying it.
18: I almost said a legitimate but noisy estimate. And you would have to have a lot of tests/large n. And it is probably incorrect to assume that g would be the largest common factor between tests measuring things like racial prejudice and conservatism. So okay, in my attempt to make fun of g/Shearer I was being imprecise.
When I said "imprecise" in 22 I was being imprecise. I probably should have said "half-assed".
I have so much reading to do, guys.
You're only saying that because he's white. Fight. Fight. Fight.
I think I took that same stats class Sifu did, a year before, in which case, yeah, it was pretty bad. I have only slightly more statistical knowledge, but a much greater aversion to using it.
27 would be reasonably surprising to me, unless fm was in the same department I'm in. Are you in the same department I'm in, fm?
I guess I was in a different and also awful stats class. That's not very exciting.
The probability of there being only one awful stats class at any good sized university approaches zero.
I've found that the people who are more likely to use heuristics instead of thinking things through are more likely to fall for stereo-typing and prejudice. I'm talking about the class of people categorized as "Authoritarian followers.'
It makes sense. Authoritarians followers rely on generalizations and rules of thumb and begin with a conclusion and pick the 'facts' to support that conclusion.
In general these people would do less well on tests measuring reasoning power and logic.
31.2: That's pretty much humans, not authoritarians. Authoritarians are distinguished by where they get their heuristics.
||
http://youtu.be/FjaKtx_dN78
See 10:20 -- It's like Hennessee it talking just to you, unfogged!
|>
And the statistics class really was that bad
I have found that what statistics classes lack in quality they more than make up for in quantity.
32: All of the personality disorders and psychological groupings are characterized not so much by the presence of certain traits, but by the extent to which these traits coming from certain portions of their brains affect their overall personality.
Yes, to some degree all people use heuristics in place of reasoning, because heuristics are generated in a part of the brain that is common to all. This areas evolved before our pre-frontal cortex, where much of our higher level reasoning takes place.
Authoritarian followers use those functions to a very great degree, more than most people do, and in some cases authoritarian followers are simply not capable of using what we call "reasoning" or "logical thinking" to any degree.
Authoritaain followers employ what I call "backward thinking," or more precisely "backwards reasoning." They form their conclusion first, then look for 'facts' to support the conclusions.
And yes, we all are capable of doing this. But many of us are also capable of keeping an open mind and accepting those conclusions which result from rational thinking.
This is a big reason why the 'scientific method,' which relies on the second form or reasoning, is so foreign and threatening to authoritarian followers. Their minds simply can not follow that kind of reasoning.
So lack of quality has a quantity all its own?
35: "The food here tastes terrible!"
"And the portions are so huge!"
33: Unfogged: the next level. Learn to simultaneously masturbate and cry.
32: Looking closer at 32, I think that you are saying that authoritarian followers have heuristics that are not formed through reasoning. I agree with this. Also, I think authoritarians are less capable of changing their heuristic when confronted with evidence which conflicts with their heuristics.
Authoritarian followers are more closed-minded, less open to conflicting ideas, and less able to reason things through to form new conclusions and heuristics.
40: Among other things, I'm disputing the notion and heuristic reasoning is in any way bad, atypical, or substandard for large sets of problems.
When you say that heuristic reasoning doesn't involve higher level reasoning or the pre-frontal cortex, I suspect that you using a very half-assed definition of 'heuristic.'
I've found that the people who are more likely to use heuristics instead of thinking things through are more likely to fall for stereo-typing and prejudice.
The authors of the study probably would characterize themselves as "thinking things through," but I kind of suspect they're engaging in stereotyping and prejudice.
Of course, probably the same could be said about someone who is willing to characterize the study's authors this way without actually reading the study.
s/b "the notion that heuristic reasoning"
Checking back in this thread, it seems that Moby's got it well handled. Great!
41: Would you be satisfied if I spoke of the pronounced use of "simple heuristics" and the inability to generate more complex heuristics when characterizing a certain set of people?
Don't make me tell Herbert Simon's ghost to come and find you.
I'm sure he's got better things to do.
It's not like he's in a rush to bring back my latte.
Anyway, you can have relatively complex heuristics and still be really racist. I wouldn't even bet that racism was negatively related to the complexity of heuristics about certain sets of people. For example, anti-Semitism usually involves the combined beliefs that one group is both inferior and controls the world. It depends on your definition of "complexity" and that is whole mess to get into.
I'm not going to argue with somebody's ghost, but it seems most of his research was done before we knew very much about the actual physical workings of the brain.
Also, the ideas of heuristics and using rules-based engines for AI pretty much fizzled out.
Simon did great with the data he had on hand, but I think we are getting a lot more data now and some of his ideas can be refined or improved.
48: You are bring up the notion of having a compartmentalized brain, which is also an enhanced characteristic of authoritarian followers. They have no problem holding two or more contradictory ideas at a time. They seem to lack some of the integrative functions that are present in other people.
I think the idea that the brain is just one big neural network is false. If anything, I think it is a complex of loosely connected neural networks, some of which may actually work in opposition to others. Much of the latest work in psychology is better identifying and articulating these internal conflicts within the brain, and animal studies and non-invasive brain scans are providing a lot more data to us, although we have a LONG way to go before we understand it all.
Simon did great with the data he had on hand, but I think we are getting a lot more data now and some of his ideas can be refined or improved.
See Tversky & Kahneman. Or, Kahneman and Tversky.
Anyway, I'm not really bringing up the notion of a compartmentalized brain and I'm certainly not disputing that we have a long way to go before we understand it all. I'm disputing that the complexity of a heuristic is related to it's utility or accuracy.
[Confidential to Moby] Time for one of my favorite 2001 HAL quotes: "Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. "
I'm stating that a reliance on simple heuristics, along with having a compartmentalized brain and a reduced ability to change one's heuristics based on evidence or reasoning leads towards a tendency of black-and-white thinking and prejudice.
I'm saying that heuristics provide a quick and easy method for making decisions and forming judgements, but they are only useful in a certain set of situations.
I ain't denying the widespread use of heuristics, or their usefulness in some cases. I'm saying that heuristics, especially simple heuristics, have limitations, and people who can only use simple heuristics without using other types of reasoning will likely perform less well on tests that measure reasoning.
Hence the connection between lower measured IQ and prejudice.
black-and-white thinking
Low IQ-ist.
along with having a compartmentalized brain
I've been pondering this all day and I seriously haven't the slightest idea what it means.
You are bring up the notion of having a compartmentalized brain, which is also an enhanced characteristic of authoritarian followers
On the other hand, I am confident that this means nothing.
Arguably those ideas are contradictory!
9: Of course what 5 proposes would work. There might be too much noise in the measurement to be useful, but there would be an individual-level signal there. After all, in essence that's how you convince the other psychometricians that your new test is a test for intelligence (or neuroticism or whatever). This just makes the bogosity of the proceedings obvious. (Excuse me, this operationalization of the construct suffers from impaired face validity.)
I went to the Container Store to buy compartments for my brain.
60: I'm taking "too much noise in the measurement to be useful" as vindication of my point, whatever else the good professor says.
"Perfectly legitimate" does not preclude "extremely noisy".
Anyhow, I just got a poster abstract accepted, so I must be doing something not-wrong.
Good job on being less beside the point than a sufficient number of other people. In your first year, no less.
Prediction: Shearer will avoid this thread like the plague.
But it's damn beautiful.
Shearer's IQ is much higher than his composite score on the SCARB (Sifu Conservatism and Racism Battery) predicts.
SCARB (Sifu Conservatism and Racism Battery)
I disapprove of everything conservatives and racists say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it without fear of battery by Sifu Tweety!
I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works.