/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9692632
Great, tell me when they manage to increase the g of an adult.

>>9692641
Wait, Does london let children drive taxi's there?!

>>9692692
Only when a paki child groomer is present.

No response from the IQ shills?
Guess I'll just keep posting this in every IQ thread until they figure out their response.

>>9692641
Spatial reasoning is correlated with g.

>>9692632
>Doesn't this mean that intelligence as measured by your ability to quickly discern patterns is really just a function of training after all?
No, they've never been able to permanently increase iq or g with any kind of training despite spending billions of dollars trying.

>>9692971
Nobody responded because your reading comprehension is terrible.
>The posterior hippocampi of adult subjects who passed the difficult Knowledge exam for London taxicab drivers showed significant enlargement as opposed to before they began studying for it.
>The posterior hippocampi of adult subjects who passed the difficult Knowledge exam
>The posterior hippocampi of adult subjects
>adult subjects

>>9692993
Adult subjects actually strengthens the study, because:
>Several longitudinal studies have been conducted (e.g., [ 9–18 ]); some involved children or young adults, potentially conflating brain development with learning...

And what they found is:
>Here, by contrast, we utilized a unique opportunity to study average-IQ adults operating in the real world as they learned, over four years, the complex layout of London's streets while training to become licensed taxi drivers.
> In those who qualified, acquisition of an internal spatial representation of London was associated with a selective increase in gray matter (GM) volume in their posterior hippocampi and concomitant changes to their memory profile. No structural brain changes were observed in trainees who failed to qualify or control participants.
We see that intelligence is not fixed; it is PHYSICALLY built through training, and thus IQ does not indicate maximum potential.

>your reading comprehension is terrible
Funny you say this when it's clear you haven't even read one word. Could you, at the very least, skim the fucking abstract next time? Maybe get your shit straight before you post? I guess I shouldn't expect better from IQ pseuds.

>>9692990
This study is about self-motivated people working hard to improve in an area they care about. Very different from just throwing money and programs at uninterested children

>>9693073
Damn, not once did they think about conducting a study on self-motivated people, never ever been done. You might be onto something significant here! Can't wait to reach IQ 200 thanks to my self-motivated math studies.

neurogenesis is real.

>>9693126
>Completely ignoring the results of the study
I see.
When presented with the physical manifestation of an increase in spatial intelligence, which is correlated with g, your reaction is to violently look away. The actual state of hereditarians

Why do you retatds extrapolate findings like that? Was thay mentioned anywhere in the article? Neuroplacticity is nothing new, and g isn't defined as some sort of hard wire shit that determines your life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleability_of_intelligence..

>>9692632
Could be survivorship bias the ones who passed having higher genetic potential for neuroplasticity to begin with

>>9692632
They don't present any evidence of far transfer (or even near transfer) so this can't even considered to be g loaded. I don't think any g proponents deny specific skill acquisition and its structural basis.

>N = 16

What a huge sample size.

>>9693433
Just for people looking at this """""""""""""SCIENCE""""""""""""

Each of those dots is one of the subjects. The entire Studies """"RESULTS"""" would change with 2-3 different people sampled.

This is a joke of a study.

Also the variables are complete bs. Someone who is interested in being a taxi driver in a complex memorization area might be predisposed to being good at navigation.

The "Changes over time" show no rhyme or reason and are just as likely to be from a lucky sample. Considering it fits with what the authors wanted to see, it's probably entirely fraudulent.

Even if the study wasn't a joke. It does nothing to discredit g. Assuming you proved some magical property of the brain in a narrow case, why not do so with g?

These idiotic attempts are tiresome to read. As if the entire weight of endless studies and examples can be overturned by a stupid hacking trick on sample sizes and bias-induced results.

>>9693398
They want to justify their failure in life somehow

>>9692632
We all know g is pseudoscience.

These people have a political agenda that needs iq to be accepted as scientific fact.

I wonder how much are they getting paid...

/sci/ do you think it's a big problem that the majority of published research in psychology is actually completely wrong? The argument rages to this day with many publications and scientists arguing that the failure should be ignored due to political reasons or other excuses.

https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/
Wired Report that the failure of reproducibility is being used as a weapon, and so should be ignored.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/05/scholar-challenges-idea-reproducibility-crisis
He concludes that science “cannot be said to be undergoing a ‘reproducibility crisis,’ at least not in the sense that it is no longer reliable due to a pervasive and growing problem with findings that are fabricated, falsified, biased, underpowered, selected, and irreproducible. While these problems certainly exist and need to be tackled, evidence does not suggest that they undermine the scientific enterprise as a whole.”

http://dailynous.com/2015/08/27/just-one-third-of-published-psychology-is-reliable/

What we found is that when these 100 studies were run by other researchers, however, only 36% reached statistical significance. This number is alarmingly low. Put another way, only around one-third of the rerun studies came out with the same results that were found the first time around. That rate is especially low when you consider that, once published, findings tend to be held as gospel.

>>9693414
So neuroplasticity is genetically determined now? Seems like that would be an important aspect of what we call "intelligence." Does g take it into account, I wonder?

>>9693435
>>9693437
>>9693439
>>9693430
>Posting 5 times in a row
Calm down, take your time to read the evidence, and develop a complete, coherent opinion.

>deliberately ignoring the second link
Being lazy, or just dishonest? n=79. Pic related. Now, see how retarded you look when you fire off posts without thinking?
>Considering it fits with what the authors wanted to see, it's probably entirely fraudulent.
We can apply the appeal to motive fallacy to "discredit" literally any study. How about we try the facts and logic thing instead?
>These idiotic attempts are tiresome to read.
I see. So you save your energy by refusing to read?

>>9693650
low iq confirmation bias post spotted.

the absolute state of your rhetoricals is quite pitiful. all of them have obvious answers to the defense of g, but you're simply too myopic to spot them. get over yourself

>>9693668
>the answers are obvious ... you're simply too myopic to spot them.
Ah. The argument from supreme IQ. Very compelling.

>get over yourself
Says the one unironically using one-size-fits-all arguments.
Instead of focusing on me, why not focus on the data or its implications? As you said, the defense is simple and obvious; it should be nothing for you to explain it.

>shills force Harris in every single board
>they forget iq and race are still pseudoscience

>>9692632
>Doesn't this mean that intelligence as measured by your ability to quickly discern patterns is really just a function of training after all?

>nature vs nurture meme again

>>9693720
funny how fast this thread is sliding when normally they're permabumped

>>9692632
Really what you're going on about is IQ more than g itself

g is an abstract concept, the factor that explains differences in iq score. Calling g fake is kind of like calling prime numbers fake. They are presumed to exist based on our axioms.

With that said I think it's a pretty good case against the concept of IQ-score based eugenics, education, etc. Iq is just way too simple of a model to justify any kind of real world social policy.