Smart Fraction Theory Thursday, Jan 28 2010
intelligence 11:15 am
Here is a paper from Talent Development and Excellence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (2009), “The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development”. Abstract:
Smart fraction theory supposes that gifted and talented persons are especially relevant for societal development. Using results for the 95th percentile from TIMSS 1995-2007, PISA 2000-2006 and PIRLS 2001-2006 we calculated an ability sum value (N=90 countries) for the upper level group (equivalent to a within country IQ-threshold of 125 or a student assessment score of 667) and compared its influence with the mean ability and the 5th percentile ability on wealth (GDP), patent rates, Nobel Prizes, numbers of scientists, political variables (government effectiveness, democracy, rule of law, political liberty), HIV, AIDS and homicide. Additionally, using information on school and professional education, we estimated the cognitive competence of political leaders in N=90 countries. Results of correlations, regression and path analyses generally show a larger impact of the smart fractions’ ability on positively valued outcomes than of the mean result or the 5th percentile fraction. The influence of the 5th percentile fraction on HIV, AIDS and homicide, however, was stronger. The intelligence of politicians was less important, a longitudinal crosslagged analysis could show a positive influence on the cognitive development of nations.
An interesting portion from the discussion:
The cognitive ability of political leaders is far less important. We could only find higher correlations to democracy and political liberty, in a longitudinal analysis democracy has a positive impact on cognitive ability of political leaders. People, if they have the chance to elect their leaders, prefer more educated ones. Political leaders have, in the long run, a positive influence on countries’ cognitive ability, presumedly by creating better educational and social environments increasing cognitive ability.
Tell us what you think if you read the whole thing.
That seem a bit self-fullfilling, the 95th percentile are the actual people that lead society today, so of course they are relevant for societal development. .
Ah! Published in Talent Development and Excellence i see; because, you coundn’t get it published in a real science journal. (it’s as bad as when the creationists set up their own journal so they could pretend they where ‘publised’!)
The worst kind of junk science. Wild abstraction, no facts, no evidence, no verifiable claims. And worse most of the assumptions are based on the work of discreditied scientific racists, like Herrnstein and Murray.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080603141407/http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95sum/bell.html
Including such ourages against science as, not actually collecting any data on IQ’s but just ‘assuming’ it on the basis of totally inconsistent data sets (IQ data cherry picked from sourses that fitted the authors political agenda); assuming IQ’s where where they had no data (and in almost every case they had no data) from suposed co-relates that remained proved; infering a whole country’s IQ on the basis of a sets of a dozen people or less: combining data set collected decades appart, by different researchers, using completely different methodologies, with out any controlls, many of with weren’t even IQ tests; guessing a countries IQ on the of what the neigboring country’s IQs; in one instance a whole country’s IQ was ‘assumed’ on the basis of a test given in the 1940′s to a class of four mentally retarded children.
But this is the internet so you have to assume that the mentally limmited will gather here and be gullible, as is their wont.
You people need to read Karl Popper and find out what proper science looks like.
Cerulean,
‘Wild abstraction, no facts, no evidence, no verifiable claims.’
Great description of your own comment!
‘And worse most of the assumptions are based on the work of discreditied scientific racists, like Herrnstein and Murray.’
They aren’t discredited. That’s not know science works; the theory that two and two make four isn’t discredited if the theorist is a Nazi. It’s either true or it isn’t.
Besides, if what you say is true about H&M, then the inestimable Hans Eysenck, who accepted race differences in IQ, personality, and social attitudes with a partly genetic component, would have to be “discredited,” too. Yet, actually, he was *the* most referenced researcher in science journals at the time of his death. Since you like to argue from authority and use shaming tactics, are you really lame enough to think you can decide who is and isn’t a scientist? Eysenck was far more of a scientist than you, obviously, and he accepted race diffs in IQ and much more.
Also, you should be ashamed of yourself, since even the U.S. government is ahead of you! It’s because Blacks on Death Row tend to score lower on IQ tests that they are most likely to be dropped from Death Row. So, since you’re trying to stop IQ testing, you’re really doing your best to cut their lifeline. Sick!
Blacks also stand to benefit from scientific eugenics more than any other group. I see that you’d prefer that that they continue to needlessly suffer and die, though. Ignorance is strength, eh?
Speaking of creationists, you’re on their side: you want us to deny evolution, after all, at least to the extent that it didn’t stop at the human neck and that you happen to find inconvenient at this time.
‘But this is the internet so you have to assume that the mentally limmited will gather here and be gullible, as is their wont.’
Mentally limited eh?
For someone so “skeptical” of IQ testing you’re sure quick to estimate the intelligence of others!
Anyway, another problem of yours is that MOST intelligence researchers accept that IQ is substantially genetic in origin. You’re going to have to do much better than just nitpick at one study – but you’re wrong, so you won’t be able to do any better.
Cerulean,
‘Wild abstraction, no facts, no evidence, no verifiable claims.’
Great description of your own comment!
‘And worse most of the assumptions are based on the work of discreditied scientific racists, like Herrnstein and Murray.’
They aren’t discredited. That’s not know science works; the theory that two and two make four isn’t discredited if the theorist is a Nazi. It’s either true or it isn’t.
Besides, if what you say is true about H&M, then the inestimable Hans Eysenck, who accepted race differences in IQ, personality, and social attitudes with a partly genetic component, would have to be “discredited,” too. Yet, actually, he was *the* most referenced researcher in science journals at the time of his death. Since you like to argue from authority and use shaming tactics, are you really lame enough to think you can decide who is and isn’t a scientist? Eysenck was far more of a scientist than you, obviously, and he accepted race diffs in IQ and much more.
Also, you should be ashamed of yourself, since even the U.S. government is ahead of you! It’s because Blacks on Death Row tend to score lower on IQ tests that they are most likely to be dropped from Death Row. So, since you’re trying to stop IQ testing, you’re really doing your best to cut their lifeline. Sick!
Blacks also stand to benefit from scientific eugenics more than any other group. I see that you’d prefer that that they continue to needlessly suffer and die, though. Ignorance is strength, eh?
Speaking of creationists, you’re on their side: you want us to deny evolution, after all, at least to the extent that it didn’t stop at the human neck and that you happen to find inconvenient at this time.
‘But this is the internet so you have to assume that the mentally limmited will gather here and be gullible, as is their wont.’
Mentally limited eh?
For someone so “skeptical” of IQ testing you’re sure quick to estimate the intelligence of others!
Anyway, another problem of yours is that MOST intelligence researchers accept that IQ is substantially genetic in origin. You’re going to have to do much better than just nitpick at one study – but you’re wrong, so you won’t be able to do any better.
I simply had to thank you so much all over again. I’m not certain the things I might have used in the absence of the entire strategies shown by you on such area. It previously was a difficult issue in my view, however , understanding the very well-written way you dealt with that forced me to leap for delight. I’m just thankful for the service and thus believe you are aware of a powerful job you have been undertaking educating most people via a blog. I am sure you have never come across any of us.