A peer-reviewed study about Wikipedia's accuracy

[DC Tom]

Are you honestly this incapable of understanding a single word of my posts?

 

I think the bigger question is: are you honestly this incapable of understanding a single word of YOUR OWN posts? You've contradicted yourself so many times, you've effectively staked out a position that encompasses every single position possible - except, unbeliveably, the right one. And amazingly enough, it seems to be unintentional.

[DC Tom]

Falsehoods are declaring that the heritability of intelligence is 80% because intelligence correlation between twins is 80%.

(not to mention that mainstream biology states that the heritability of intelligence is 0.6, not 0.8)

 

Falsehoods are claiming that IQ is a complete and accurate assessment of intelligence.

 

Falsehoods are applying heritability to an individual and acting liek it has some type of merit.

 

Falsehoods are the refusal to answer the numerous amounts of questions provided to you.

 

Falsehoods are concluding that environment doesnt affect phenotype.

 

Falsehoods are relying on wikipedia as your only "source".

 

Falsehoods are essentially any idea that pops into that little idiot head of yours.

 

Don't forget:

 

A die has a true average roll of 3.5.

 

Error causes regression toward the mean.

 

Luck causes regression toward the mean.

 

Variance does not cause regression toward the mean...except when it does...except when it doesn't.

 

The genotype affects environment.

 

Children are dumber than their parents because their parents were wrong.

[Orton's Arm]

1. Falsehoods are declaring that the heritability of intelligence is 80% because intelligence correlation between twins is 80%.

(not to mention that mainstream biology states that the heritability of intelligence is 0.6, not 0.8)

 

2. Falsehoods are claiming that IQ is a complete and accurate assessment of intelligence.

 

3. Falsehoods are applying heritability to an individual and acting liek it has some type of merit.

 

4. Falsehoods are the refusal to answer the numerous amounts of questions provided to you.

 

5. Falsehoods are concluding that environment doesnt affect phenotype.

 

6. Falsehoods are relying on wikipedia as your only "source".

 

7. Falsehoods are essentially any idea that pops into that little idiot head of yours.

I've taken the liberty of numbering your points, to make it easier to respond. I hope you mind.

 

1. According to the American Psychological Association, the heritability of I.Q. rises to 0.75 by late adolescence. Other sources indicate that by adulthood, the heritability is 0.8. For you to pretend that 0.6 is the only reasonable estimate for heritability (because some textbook said so) shows an ignorance of the many studies which point to a higher number as people reach adulthood.

 

2. Intelligence tests are useful, if imperfect, measurements of intelligence. High scores on intelligence tests correlate with a number of biological factors, as well as with specific life outcomes. Those who claim that intelligence tests are useless are either ignorant of the field of intelligence measurement, or else have an ideological ax to grind.

 

3. Shared environmental factors (same parents, same school, same meals, etc.) do not explain a significant percentage of adult variations in intelligence. 80% of intellectual variation is explained by genetics, with the remaining 20% of that variation being due to unique environmental factors (such as head injuries) and to measurement error. Yes, all this is at the group level, but there'd have to be something pretty dramatic going on for someone's environment to play a substantially larger-than-normal role in determining his or her intelligence.

 

4. If you ask questions which I've already covered, you shouldn't necessarily expect an answer.

 

5. Studies show that by adulthood, shared environmental factors (c^2) have little or no ability to explain differences in intelligence. If those studies displease you, conduct your own study on the subject.

 

6. Given that I've quoted from a number of sources, I don't see why you pretend that Wikipedia is my "only" source.

 

7. You say that any idea that I think of must be false, and then you wonder why I won't answer your many stupid questions. Why would I answer your questions when a) the questions betray a fundamental inability to understand my posts, and b) I know you wouldn't listen to, or understand, the answers anyway?

[Orton's Arm]

And yet...you can't tell me jack sh-- about psychometrics.

 

So of course I'M the one that knows nothing about it.

You've demonstrated precisely zero knowledge of the word "psychometrics." In fact, your demonstrated knowledge has been less than zero, because you've accused me of ignorance about the word in response to a factually correct post.

[Orton's Arm]

Don't forget:

 

A die has a true average roll of 3.5.

 

Error causes regression toward the mean.

 

Luck causes regression toward the mean.

 

Variance does not cause regression toward the mean...except when it does...except when it doesn't.

 

The genotype affects environment.

 

Children are dumber than their parents because their parents were wrong.

More blather.

[DC Tom]

You've demonstrated precisely zero knowledge of the word "psychometrics." In fact, your demonstrated knowledge has been less than zero, because you've accused me of ignorance about the word in response to a factually correct post.

 

Factually correct? You've been wrong about ever single thing you've posted in the past five months; now we're just supposed to accept at face-value some meaningless sh-- you toss against the wall and hope sticks? At best, it's factually ambiguous, since you can't back it up with anything, which makes it equivalent to pulling still more nonsense out of your ass.

[Orton's Arm]

Factually correct? You've been wrong about ever single thing you've posted in the past five months; now we're just supposed to accept at face-value some meaningless sh-- you toss against the wall and hope sticks? At best, it's factually ambiguous, since you can't back it up with anything, which makes it equivalent to pulling still more nonsense out of your ass.

This is beyond insane. First, you accuse me of not knowing what psychometrics was, and asked for a definition. I provided a definition, which you ridiculed. Now you're complaining because I didn't back my definition up?

 

Listen, buster. If you want to ridicule my definition of psychometrics, it's time for you to start backing stuff up. You say my earlier post was a bunch of nonsense. Fine. Which specific claims were nonsense? What do you feel is the correct definition for psychometrics, and can you back that definition up? It's time for you to put your money where your very loud mouth is, and start backing up the accusations you so freely throw around. I'm waiting. . . .

[EC-Bills]

Factually correct? You've been wrong about ever single thing you've posted in the past five months; now we're just supposed to accept at face-value some meaningless sh-- you toss against the wall and hope sticks? At best, it's factually ambiguous, since you can't back it up with anything, which makes it equivalent to pulling still more nonsense out of your ass.

 

Robble robble robble

[DC Tom]

This is beyond insane. First, you accuse me of not knowing what psychometrics was, and asked for a definition. I provided a definition, which you ridiculed. Now you're complaining because I didn't back my definition up?

 

Listen, buster. If you want to ridicule my definition of psychometrics, it's time for you to start backing stuff up. You say my earlier post was a bunch of nonsense. Fine. Which specific claims were nonsense? What do you feel is the correct definition for psychometrics, and can you back that definition up? It's time for you to put your money where your very loud mouth is, and start backing up the accusations you so freely throw around. I'm waiting. . . .

 

In other words: you can't explain it, so you're going to put the burden on me. Uh-uh...you brought it up, you explain it. Explain it correctly this time.

 

Or you can just admit you're wrong. It'll be a lot easier in the long run. Hell, if you'd admitted five months ago that you didn't know statistics instead of trying to prove something that's completely incorrect, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

[EC-Bills]

In other words: you can't explain it, so you're going to put the burden on me. Uh-uh...you brought it up, you explain it. Explain it correctly this time.

 

Or you can just admit you're wrong. It'll be a lot easier in the long run. Hell, if you'd admitted five months ago that you didn't know statistics instead of trying to prove something that's completely incorrect, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

 

Yeah but life would be nowhere near as entertaining.

[DC Tom]

Yeah but life would be nowhere near as entertaining.

 

It's like panning for gold. You have to sift through a ton of silt, but occasionally you find that shiny nugget like "error causes regression toward the mean" or "genetics causes the environment".

[Ramius]

2. Intelligence tests are useful, if imperfect, measurements of intelligence. High scores on intelligence tests correlate with a number of biological factors, as well as with specific life outcomes. Those who claim that intelligence tests are useless are either ignorant of the field of intelligence measurement, or else have an ideological ax to grind.

 

3. Shared environmental factors (same parents, same school, same meals, etc.) do not explain a significant percentage of adult variations in intelligence. 80% of intellectual variation is explained by genetics, with the remaining 20% of that variation being due to unique environmental factors (such as head injuries) and to measurement error. Yes, all this is at the group level, but there'd have to be something pretty dramatic going on for someone's environment to play a substantially larger-than-normal role in determining his or her intelligence.

 

:worthy: your stupidity is priceless! I seriously want to thank you for amusing me on a daily basis with your very own brand of super-retard.

 

So now, differences in intelligence are due to error and head injuries? :worthy:

 

 

http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgss...lity.intro.html

 

#1 Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait. Similarly, a numerical estimate of environmentability provides no information about the important environmental variables that influence a behavior.

 

 

#2 Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. They tell us nothing about an individual. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment.

 

#3 Heritability depends on the range of typical environments in the population that is studied. If the environment of the population is fairly uniform, then heritability may be high, but if the range of environmental differences is very large, then heritability may be low. In different words, if everyone is treated the same environmentally, then any differences that we observe will largely be due to genes; heritability will be large in this case. However, if the environment treats people very differently, then heritability may be small.

 

Your inability to distinguish between a population with a distribution and an individual is one of your thousands of downfalls. First off, why do IQ measurements fall off with increasing age? Because IQ is an ok test, but overall is wholely inadequate when determining overall intelligence. Regarding the distribution, try to chew on this. There will be some conclusions you can draw from an IQ distribution. You can say that generally, anyone with an IQ above say 130, will BE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT turn out to be a "productive member of society". But you CANNOT take billy with his 140 IQ and say Billy will be a more productive member than fred because billy has an IQ of 140 and fred has an IQ of 90. Why? Because you cant make assumptions on one individual. Kind of like how you cannot ever, ever, roll a 3.5 on a die.

[DC Tom]

:lol: your stupidity is priceless! I seriously want to thank you for amusing me on a daily basis with your very own brand of super-retard.

 

So now, differences in intelligence are due to error and head injuries? :lol:

http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgss...lity.intro.html

Your inability to distinguish between a population with a distribution and an individual is one of your thousands of downfalls. First off, why do IQ measurements fall off with increasing age? Because IQ is an ok test, but overall is wholely inadequate when determining overall intelligence. Regarding the distribution, try to chew on this. There will be some conclusions you can draw from an IQ distribution. You can say that generally, anyone with an IQ above say 130, will BE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT turn out to be a "productive member of society". But you CANNOT take billy with his 140 IQ and say Billy will be a more productive member than fred because billy has an IQ of 140 and fred has an IQ of 90. Why? Because you cant make assumptions on one individual. Kind of like how you cannot ever, ever, roll a 3.5 on a die.

 

Let's see if I can anticipate the surreal potato-head HA answers to all this...

 

#1 Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait. Similarly, a numerical estimate of environmentability provides no information about the important environmental variables that influence a behavior.

Clearly you haven't been reading his posts, as he already said that. He'll also said that when they find the alleles that cause intelligence, they won't matter as they'll confirm the heritability of intelligence.

 

#2 Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. They tell us nothing about an individual. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment.

 

Right. That means that a person's shyness correlates with their genetics by 0.40, which means that 40% of their shyness is due to genetics, just like it says.

 

#3 Heritability depends on the range of typical environments in the population that is studied. If the environment of the population is fairly uniform, then heritability may be high, but if the range of environmental differences is very large, then heritability may be low. In different words, if everyone is treated the same environmentally, then any differences that we observe will largely be due to genes; heritability will be large in this case. However, if the environment treats people very differently, then heritability may be small.

Which is what the twin and adoption studies show: in different environments, genetics is demonstrated to be the main component of intelligence. The link proves his point.

 

Because you cant make assumptions on one individual. Kind of like how you cannot ever, ever, roll a 3.5 on a die.

 

No, but you can make assumptions about the population. Just like how you roll a die multiple times to establish a die has a true roll of 3.5, you can test an individual multiple times to establish their true test score, which is then heritable by their children, unless the person you're testing is very lucky, because luck isn't heritable.

 

 

Oh yeah, and...

 

So now, differences in intelligence are due to error and head injuries? :lol:

 

Only with you and me.

[Ramius]

Let's see if I can anticipate the surreal potato-head HA answers to all this...

 

Clearly you haven't been reading his posts, as he already said that. He'll also said that when they find the alleles that cause intelligence, they won't matter as they'll confirm the heritability of intelligence.

Right. That means that a person's shyness correlates with their genetics by 0.40, which means that 40% of their shyness is due to genetics, just like it says.

 

Which is what the twin and adoption studies show: in different environments, genetics is demonstrated to be the main component of intelligence. The link proves his point.

No, but you can make assumptions about the population. Just like how you roll a die multiple times to establish a die has a true roll of 3.5, you can test an individual multiple times to establish their true test score, which is then heritable by their children, unless the person you're testing is very lucky, because luck isn't heritable.

Oh yeah, and...

Only with you and me.

 

 

i forgot about some of those concepts. like how when parents take an IQ test, it is error filled, but when their kids take the same test, it is error free. So having kids fixes the error of the test.

[Orton's Arm]

In other words: you can't explain it, so you're going to put the burden on me. Uh-uh...you brought it up, you explain it. Explain it correctly this time.

 

Or you can just admit you're wrong. It'll be a lot easier in the long run. Hell, if you'd admitted five months ago that you didn't know statistics instead of trying to prove something that's completely incorrect, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

In other words, you're going to continue to throw accusations around, and you're going to continue to refuse to back them up. The fact that you engage in credibility-free accusations is something you've been doing for quite some time.

[Ramius]

In other words, you're going to continue to throw accusations around, and you're going to continue to refuse to back them up. The fact that you engage in credibility-free accusations is something you've been doing for quite some time.

 

and you still cant define nor explain psychometrics, kind of like you dont understand telomeres

[DC Tom]

In other words, you're going to continue to throw accusations around, and you're going to continue to refuse to back them up. The fact that you engage in credibility-free accusations is something you've been doing for quite some time.

 

The closest I've come to a credibility-free accusation is Hamburger University...and honestly, I wasn't even serious. I was more convinced you were a Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology grad.

 

But the REAL reason you can't explain psychometry is that your only source for it - Wikipedia - contradicts what you've already written, so you won't dare link to it, and God help us if you can find any other source...

[Orton's Arm]

#1 Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait. Similarly, a numerical estimate of environmentability provides no information about the important environmental variables that influence a behavior.

 

 

#2 Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. They tell us nothing about an individual. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment.

 

#3 Heritability depends on the range of typical environments in the population that is studied. If the environment of the population is fairly uniform, then heritability may be high, but if the range of environmental differences is very large, then heritability may be low. In different words, if everyone is treated the same environmentally, then any differences that we observe will largely be due to genes; heritability will be large in this case. However, if the environment treats people very differently, then heritability may be small.

1. I never claimed that the specific genes which influence intelligence have been discovered.

2. A heritability for I.Q. means that, on average, 80% of intellectual differences are determined by genetics. Again, that 80% can be lower or higher for specific people, but you'd generally expect to see something extreme about the underlying environment if someone radically deviated from that 80%.

3. Heritability tells us the portion of observed variation that can be explained by genetics. If everyone's environment was the same, all observed differences would be due to genetics.

:lol: your stupidity is priceless! I seriously want to thank you for amusing me on a daily basis with your very own brand of super-retard.

 

So now, differences in intelligence are due to error and head injuries? :lol:

http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgss...lity.intro.html

Your inability to distinguish between a population with a distribution and an individual is one of your thousands of downfalls. First off, why do IQ measurements fall off with increasing age? Because IQ is an ok test, but overall is wholely inadequate when determining overall intelligence. Regarding the distribution, try to chew on this. There will be some conclusions you can draw from an IQ distribution. You can say that generally, anyone with an IQ above say 130, will BE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT turn out to be a "productive member of society". But you CANNOT take billy with his 140 IQ and say Billy will be a more productive member than fred because billy has an IQ of 140 and fred has an IQ of 90. Why? Because you cant make assumptions on one individual. Kind of like how you cannot ever, ever, roll a 3.5 on a die.

You are right to say that Billy (I.Q. = 140) won't always be more productive than Fred (I.Q. = 90). But give me a choice between a million Billys and a million Freds, and I can easily tell you which group will be more productive. If you give me a social policy which encourages those million Billys to have more kids than the million Freds, I can tell you that we're on the way to a long-term level of greater prosperity, lower crime, etc. Presently the reverse is true.

[Orton's Arm]

The closest I've come to a credibility-free accusation is Hamburger University...and honestly, I wasn't even serious. I was more convinced you were a Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology grad.

 

But the REAL reason you can't explain psychometry is that your only source for it - Wikipedia - contradicts what you've already written, so you won't dare link to it, and God help us if you can find any other source...

I've already given a definition for psychometrics. Apparently you are unable to do the same. You're also unable to point out any specific errors in my earlier post. Instead, you stick to general accusations, which are harder to refute.

 

Yes, everything you've written about psychometrics--from the initial accusation, to the subsequent refusal to substantiate it--has been 100% federally certified, credibility free.

[Orton's Arm]

 

i forgot about some of those concepts. like how when parents take an IQ test, it is error filled, but when their kids take the same test, it is error free. So having kids fixes the error of the test.

Even Tom now understands the test/retest effect. At least, I think he does. The fact that you still don't get it shows your own stupidity. And the fact that you're actually making fun of it shows you lack the wisdom to keep silent on the many occasions when you don't know the first thing about what's being discussed.

 

Listen, bonehead. Let me explain this nice and simple, so that even a "McDonald's wouldn't hire me" reject like you can understand it. First, you give a group of people an IQ test. Some people are scored correctly, others get lucky, and an equal number get unlucky. Then you select a subset of the first group based on their test scores. This is the part you don't understand. Insofar as test scores are a result of luck, the group you selected got disproportionately lucky. Let's say that a test score is 90% due to something innate, and 10% due to luck. If that's the case, the average person in that subset you selected is only 90% as far from the population's mean as his test score says he is. When you retest the subset, the average score will move 10% closer to the mean.

 

Suppose you select a group of parents based on their test scores. Their test scores say they're 40 points above the population's mean I.Q. If the test is 10% based on luck, then they're only 36 points above the mean I.Q. Suppose their children have I.Q.s of 136. Does this decline in test scores imply the children aren't as smart as their parents? No.

 

Your inability to understand something even as simple as this is why you couldn't get hired at McDonald's.