Gary Marcus

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -53
9/10/2024, 7:39:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Christian M
@TheSwolosopher
·
187d
@GaryMarcus @gen0m1cs @jeremykauffman As someone who has been screeching the flaws of IQ at Kauffman for years now, I feel compelled to tell you engaging with him has a negative chance of making a meaningful impact

It is intuitively obvious to him that it measures some “natural intelligence.”
It’s a dogma.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
188d
@gen0m1cs @jeremykauffman Are you are aware that these data and methods have not been peer reviewed per the author? and that the author says it is not appropriate to compare individual countries? And what you doing is considering misuse even by the author? And that the measures clearly conflate…
evolian
@gen0m1cs
·
188d
@jeremykauffman The most up-to-date national database places Haiti at a little more than 72 w/an SE of about 6 points (Jensen & Kirkegaard, 2024).

I’m sure you aware of the estimate from Human Varieties based on that 1985 US-gov sponsored study, here are some other estimates as well.
Jeremy Kauffman 🦔
@jeremykauffman
·
188d
Haiti has an average IQ of 67. Let's talk about what that means:

- With an IQ of 67 or below, the average Haitian -- over half the country -- would be considered too disabled to be eligible for the death penalty. Someone at this level will struggle to understand the…
William Strannix
@GetRyback92
·
188d
Assuming people from a certain nation have a certain IQ is a sign of low intelligence.

The statement engages in a critique of the methodological rigor of certain IQ studies, comparing them to previous works. It is part of a broader discussion on the validity and implications of IQ measurements, particularly in the context of national averages and their use in public discourse. The tone is critical but not overtly hostile, aiming to highlight perceived weaknesses in the newer studies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause direct harm but engages in a critique of the methodology used in certain studies. It does not promote harmful actions or speech.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of individuals by focusing on the methodological aspects of the studies rather than making personal attacks.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by pointing out methodological flaws, which can be seen as an attempt to improve the quality of discourse on the topic. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism of the studies' methodologies without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]