@whiic yes, that does count.

Now goodnight

The actual trenchcoat mafia was pretty cringe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su_vpW3mM5w

20 years ago.

@ETBrooD Went afk due to irl stuff

>Can you explain g to me?

g can be roughly said to be the "innate problem solving ability" of a person, which is the underlying basis for "intelligence"

Different tests have different g loadings, as illustrated above

A test with higher g loading correlates with other test taking ability in a cognitively complex task. For instance, if you score high on, say, backward digit span, you are more likely to score high on another test with a high g loading etc.

The main part is that g highly heritability, hence subtests which are more g loaded are more heritable than subtests which are less g loaded

It has also been seen through the Flynn Effect that subtests with lower g loading are more 'malleable'

So the rise in "IQ scores" of, say, a black African's offspring in US due to better environmental conditions will be more in subtests like forward digit span (a low g loaded subtest related to rote memory) than, say, Raven's Progressive Matrices

To quote Arthur Jensen, "the rise in IQ scores in the US have been hollow for g"

I suggest the great book on this by Jensen called "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability"

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

@Cobra Commander Whiic labels people he disagrees with on the right as "Nazis" since he is a petulant boomer

https://youtu.be/u1jsWrQu7CQ

This video, which you have often posted here to dunk on JF, also has a great description of the g factor from 57:33 to 1:07:59 @ETBrooD

Whiic is taking a little time off in the cell

@Monstrous Moonshine Too bad your explanation comes many hours too late.

You had a chance to prove that you're not a phony and you blew it. I'm not buying your excuse, you saw my comment.

What?

>Too bad your explanation comes many hours too late.
Turns out that people have other stuff to attend to irl lmfao

>You had a chance to prove that you're not a phony and you blew it. I'm not buying your excuse, you saw my comment.
Says the guy repeating the idiotic spiel regarding g, refuted in the same video he has linked multiple times (JF Gariepy is a scientist) and didn't understand the philosophical underpinnings of his own ideology when confronted in a debate a few months ago (Rothbard's justification of NAP and Anarcho Capitalism)

Projection is thy name

https://twitter.com/SurvivetheJive/status/1134378136655859712

In other news,

> our new approach estimates larger FST values of 26% for native worldwide human populations and 23% for admixed Hispanic individuals, whereas the existing approach estimates 9.8% and 2.6%

More good news for Race Realism

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#FST

> Wright (1978) calculated FST values under 5% indicate little genetic differentiation between populations, 5% to 15%, moderate genetic differentiation, 15% to 25%, great genetic differentiation, and above 25%, very great differentiation which is the threshold for subspecies (races).[67] Human continental population divisions fall at the lower end of moderate genetic differentiation (<10%), while demes and ethnic groups under 5%: "Hence, as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human FST value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional [definition of] subspecies".[68]

Rationalwiki BTFO'd by their own standard of evidence

How long has this debate been going on?

@Monstrous Moonshine You saw my question about g before you left, so you could've at least excused yourself so I'd know why you're not answering. But you didn't even do that. So now the point of the exercise is failed.

The point was to see if you actually know what you're talking about by having you explain it in your own words without delay so that you wouldn't reasonably have time to study g one more time before responding.

It's very convenient that at this precise moment you "had to leave".

Either way, you still don't seem to understand why it's very hard to believe that AH actually explained things correctly in his video because, as I said, he didn't set up his argument properly.

I don't think people who would watch his video for the first time without prior subject knowledge would understand what in the hell he was talking about and be able to repeat it in their own words.

The point is not whether his argument about g is correct or not, but whether he presented it correctly or not.

For that I only look at his video presentation alone.