Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!cbmvax!snark!eric From: eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Stupidity about intelligence Message-ID: <106@snark.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 04:31:48 EDT Article-I.D.: snark.106 Posted: Thu Jul 2 04:31:48 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 05:27:57 EDT References: <126@snark.UUCP> Organization: Thyrsus Enterprises, Malvern PA 19355 Lines: 105 Summary: it is to chuckle In article <2386@lifia.UUCP>, phs@lifia.UUCP (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes: > In article <126@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > As an aside, I must say that moving this to talk.politics is the surest way > to replace scientific discussion by plain chaotic shouting. This is in > contradiction with what you say about looking for rational thinking Perhaps -- but *you* are the first person that has responded with anything resembling chaotic shouting. > [ Gould described how, during the last two centuries, all the "scientific > theories" proving the inferiority of some races or social groups have all > been built on top of false reasonnings and erroneous methodology. Of You are confusing a number of issues here. I made it very clear in my first posting that I am interested in the theory and practice of psychometry. I have no sympathy for attempts to prove the inferiority of races and social groups. I find the reactions of people who can't seem to separate the two issues amusing -- they seem to reveal a fear that the development of accurate psychometry might somehow make racism respectable. That sounds like prejudice to me... > [Gould] just shows what is not proven, and it turns out that very little has > been convincingly proven (I use "convincingly" because the notion of what > is a proof is subjective, but let's not enter this debate). ] But this is precisely the debate you've invited by replying to me. What pychometric method *would* constitute such a 'proof'? > [much expostulation on what he thinks I meant by "philosophical criticism"] > No scientific > person can possibly believe that FACTOR ANALYSIS BY ITSELF can prove > anything, and this has nothing to do with philosophy. I don't believe that factor analysis by itself proves anything either. But when the *results* of factor analysis can be used predictively then it's hard to argue that the results are meaningless. And this *is* a philosophical observation -- looking for the meaning of evidence in correlations between not-obviously-related data is straight empiricism, while Gould's position that the correlations don't mean anything unless you have some formal a priori reason to believe them has the effect of a return to Platonism and the notion that experimental data are some kind of dispensible approximation to a world of ideal forms addressible by purely theoretical ratiocination. > Thus you clearly say that your definition of intelligence is merely a > "statistical composite of results of tests". Now you should be aware that > this definition has NOTHING TO DO with the common understanding of the > word, Ah, I recognize this technique. This is called "trying to prove your point by introducing it as an assumption". Tell me -- when did you last hear of a drooling idiot scoring 150 on the Sanford-Binet scale? It is certainly true that many of the things we informally lump under 'intelligence' aren't currently measurable. It is equally true that many of the characteristics we associate with 'intelligence' are quite easy to measure -- vocabulary size, spatial visualization capability and the ability to solve logical puzzles make three excellent examples out of many. The distribution of these aspects of 'intelligence' and their correlations with each other are quite well predicted by the the 'g' factor and hereditarian hypotheses. Are you going to argue that these aren't 'real' intelligence? > [various strident accusations of flim-flam and intellectual dishonesty] > I agree with your opponent. You think that he has misunderstood you, but > this was inevitable given the words you use. His reaction is reasoned > because your posting must be considered at best dangerously unclear, at > worst dishonnest. This is the funniest thing you've said yet, because the 'unknown flamer' wrote me an apologetic note after seeing my reply, admitting that he'd gone off half-cocked and should have examined my posting more carefully. > >Can you say 'different species'? > > > >There. I'll bet you're reacting to that as though I'd written 'inferior > >species'. Sigh. That's why that fact is a Damned Thing. Some people never > >learn... > > Clearly you are conscious about the fact that it is dangerous to say what > you say, ... and though you say it. Maybe you think this is heroic ? I just > think it is immature. I think you, sir, are a self-righteous twit. There, do we feel better now? <***FLAME ON***> I write about 'Damned Things' because I *care* about knowledge and life and infinite possibility. I believe that clear thinking is powerful and liberating even (especially!) when the results don't fit current intellectual fashion and political correctness. If this makes me 'immature' than you can take your 'maturity' and insert it in a random body orifice till it rots. <***FLAME OFF**> If you can come up with an attack on psychometry that a) doesn't rely on gratuitous insult and b) addresses the issue rather than trailing off into irrelevancies about racism etc. etc., I will be very happy to listen. > Philippe SCHNOEBELEN, > LIFIA - INPG, UUCP : phs@lifia.imag.fr > 46, Avenue Felix VIALLET > 38000 Grenoble, FRANCE -- Eric S. Raymond UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax}!snark!eric Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718