There are people who find the very idea of general intelligence controversial. They are a minority because this is a clearly perceptible aspect of human being which reflects itself immediately in language, the common vehicle of human interaction. As a functional property of the nervous system of an animal, it can be expected to have patterns of variation and underlying causes both genetic and epigenetic which are consistent with the overall pattern observed in animal subsystems generally. It's applied mathematical statistics consequent upon the central limit theorem and Law of large numbers are personally observed by me. I consider the existing measures valid only in their statistical moments and to have exponentially decreasing significance with higher positive moments and only in a multi-factorial way. So for example, my father¹ and Marilyn Vos Savant have/had fuzzy G factor parameters measured ≥ 4 σ². Marilyn claims 6 or higher but see my entries on the talk of her article. With it's chi-squared distribution, 98% of the population is below 2 sigma which is the criterion for Mensa membership. The difference between 4 and 2 is same as the difference between 2 and 0 and this is what I observed also of Mensans, including my visit to an IRC channel supposedly peopled by that group last night. Lycurgus 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Very high IQ is not as rare as you might think nor as small a class as some other small classes such as billionaires or supercentenarians. In North America the statistical expectation based on observation is between 50-70,000 person at roughly 4 σ or above. I don't think North America could have more than 20% of the worlds total so that would be around a quarter million such individuals. On the other hand there are currently only about 1K billionaires and half that many (75 known) supercentenarians both of these worldwide.
In other words, if you accept that the proper hedge at her value of the parameter is 6 +/- 2, then there are as many as a quarter million Marilyn's in the world right now. Similarly given the simple minded model above and using a flat 5 σ the number is still roughly 1500. Even at crisp 6 σ , an appropriate last significant moment, the number is way more than 1 (We will calculate it later).
Interestingly, again using the above reasoning, the 'mensan' class, those with 2 σ g or better is a class of around 60 million and the "0s&1s" about three billion living persons, respectively.
The remaining approx. half are behind the current curve of human being as (mis?)measured by extrapolated American g.
c. 4700 公元
With respect to the work of Lynn and Vanhannen, they do acknowledge that the factor would of course be self-reinforcing in effect or in other words more properly viewed as in effect an indicator of the health of different countries. Personally I am not troubled by the discovery (should it come) of a genetic/epigenetic basis for the difference of the wealth and power of nations such as they believe they have shown. Genetic/epigenetic factors which are to be the subject of engineering corrections apply to everyone. For example when we are considering functional classes such as the centenarians (since everyone suffers from the genetic 'disease' of aging).
c. 4707 公元
For my money Jeanne Calment kicks 7 kinds of ass vs. Marilyn. I especially love the part about the guy who tried a viaticating reverse mortgage on her flat and his widow ended up continuing the payments. Also they say you're OK if you survive 5 years after quitting smoking: she quit at 117.
¹ Supposedly measured as "160" in US Federal Prison system as basis for a presidential pardon in '69, either at Leavenworth or Springfield, MO. Don't doubt it but never saw documents (other than the pardon). ² Find I can only ATM document 140 (SAT, the basis of the Mensa admission) for myself. Plan to take MAT if I do 2012, will update per same. Think it will be closer to 4 σ for a number of reasons, intrinsics as well as the particulars of Millers which Pearson vends today with practice tests over the web and some disadvantages I had 36 years ago in taking the SAT that I don't have now. Took the pre-SAT and that score was "college level" which would have been 2X my then age. If I got 5 sigma on Millers I would still think it was 4, because that's the kind of thing I would naturally do well at. I would have been 200 points higher, with most of that in math, if I'd had a favorable home background for it (which would have made it 156 then, 1600 on the old SAT is supposed to be 168). Grady Towers talked about a 2 σ "communication range" so I feel more connected to the masses with a possibly lower figure.72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess my position is that with a basis in Jungian types MBTI can't be a thoroughly scientific tool for personality assessment. OTOH, compared to astrology or the like and given it's basis it is relatively objective and I have found it personally repeatable. YMMV. If it correlates at all well with other assessments this is probably the best that can be gotten at the current stage of development and so is the best tool available for this important facet of human being. Lycurgus 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I, at least partially, retract the statement about Jungian types, since as I understand it attempts to empirically go beyond them have resulted in analyses which then recovered the same basic four types. Lycurgus 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much completely deprecate MBTI by now in favor of Big 5. Positive Disintegration isn't a type theory but it's impactful here also. Lycurgus (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Check, aggravated I suppose since I actually think I am displaying avoidance wrt what would appear to be a grandiose actual importance .
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Check, and furthermore love of self, except not fantasies, achievable goals that action could bring.
believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
Check on first part, not second.
requires excessive admiration
No.
strong sense of entitlement
No.
takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Definitely no.
lacks empathy
No.
is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
No.
arrogant behavior
Well ...
the judgment of arrogance, where one is not imposing one's will on others is essentially a matter of the creation, maintenance and imposition of power relations and I think I've made myself pretty clear on that.
A similiar value judgement is applicable I think to other elements of DSM Cluster B generally unlike A and C (except avoidant). Moreover, the very notion of having a perfect mental health profile where one never met sufficient of the criteria of any DSM disorder for diagnosis would appear to itself be an instance of No. 2 above. But I do, based upon current evaluation, endorse that notion. WRT to the B cluster, I will refer to the famous quote of Jiddu Krishnamurti:
“
It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
”
There is no better substantiation for the above than the current ¶ 2 of Psychopathy.
Lycurgus 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a burning interest in social justice and as smoove as possible of a transition to a rational basis for society generally from it's current absurd basis on the enrichment of the few². Wikipedia is a move in the right direction (at least as it is in April 2007 XE) as a community created and non-commercial multi-lingual and thus multi-cultural encyclopedia.
As I have stated elsewhere, it's my belief that these are correctly conceived as Hegelian partners in any correct social order, rather than the simple minded view of them as immiscible oppposites. In other words, the two concepts which are in tension in this Abstract-Negative-Concrete/Immediate-Mediated-Concrete/XYZ triad with X as an abstraction for society, Y one for the individual, and Z the effective social order are society as a whole and the individual. Socialism I define as the position that the correct social order is one in which private ownership of that which belongs to the commons is retracted and scientific management of said resources is established based on democratically determined goals. Capitalism¹ I define as an economic discipline based on free markets in which individuals participate freely not as slaves of those who have managed to amass wealth in prior cycles of production but as peers of the commonwealth and each other.
Obviously no state has risen to the level of socialism so defined as all have quickly degenerated into a rule of party elites without any apparent program other than the retention of power. Objectively this can be attributed to the relative newness of the socialist approach as well the fact that technology that could make direct democracy a reality has only recently become available. But it is no less clear that Capitalism as so defined has yet to appear. The "capitalism" that dominates the current state of the world system has more in common with production regimes ancien and in particular the typical corporate private tyranny has more in common with them than it does with the presumptive ideal. Besides the lie that wage laborers are free in finance/oligarchial capitalism a major fallacy is that conflating profit with productivity². It is massively unproductive at the largest scale and the subordination of all social values to the extraction of profit has finally become evident as the disastrous contradiction and historical dead-end that it is.
Aworld revolution to establish Socialism could at the same time establish, finally, Capitalism as only by such an action can the vast majority of working people put themselves on a par ready for free enterprise, i.e. by overturning the current regime where entrenched power elites monopolize social control or the lack thereof on a global basis. This they can do simply, and with no other immediate change in the current relations of production, by refounding money on their labor, the true source of value.
¹ Which as practiced by some might be more properly called "Creeps and Chumps", "Sharks and Suckers", etc.
² Capitalism vs. Science Lycurgus Δ 21 Prairial, 4712 公元 Thu 15:14:00 EDT
A perfect case in point can be seen in the US bourgeois media's treatment of Cindy Sheehans recent resignation from public life vs. that by the WSWS. The corporate media portrayed the event as a dejected and defeated and slight crazy extremist who has finally done the right thing and returned to the care of her family. Not until the WSWS article which completely focused on her resignation from the Democratic party were the details of her statement about the Congress and such forthcoming.
Could there be a clearer and better example? The corporate media twists the facts around to highlight their world view and aims suppressing details and spinning the facts to show an 'all resistance is futile' situation. The Trots spin it as though it were an element of party politics in which this confused citizen would be able to reorient herself and resume the struggle if only the 'authentic party of working class interests' were there for her.
There is an objective truth here and it doesn't reflect very well on either of these sources though in fairness there is a very clearly greater evil¹,²
FWIW, reportedly Sheehan aired this event in a blog at Daily Kos which is effectively a Democratic Party organ. If so, for reasons that will be apparent if you consult the first ref above, they suppressed it completely.
The notion that a human contributor can lack a POV is I believe specious so that in attempting to achieve the impartiality of observation which is the goal of encyclopædic Q, one must in fact expose one's POV and methods. Only in this light, I reason, which will be inferred anyway if it is not supplied can the content be best judged. My perspectives should be fairly clear but I'll say that I think the problems come in when a value judgement is cast that is not a simple or complex statement of fact. For example that Jerry Falwell died on such and such date and time, the details of his activities before death, and quoted reactions whose sources are attributed are all, however complex, simple statements of fact. An 'assesment' of the event of Jerry Falwells death, or his activities before death, on the other hand, are POV. That Jerry Falwell was good or evil is POV, but that he had this or that affect on this or that thing may be a simple or complex fact and may or may not be proper encyclopædic/historical content. Unfortunately perhaps, the analysis of simple facts to arrive at complex ones, before it becomes public knowledge by publication elsewhere is still not encyclopædic content whatever other value it might have ( e.g.. as pædegogic material). Lycurgus 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I am well aware that the WP policy is 1) at variance with the print Encyclopaedic tradition and 2) with the clear statement of the irrelevance of truth to the NPOV policy strongly at variance with my own personal values. In the print tradition, it has been common for a particular world view to be advanced (eg Diderot and the Philosophes), and it has also been common to restrict authorship to recognized experts (Britannica Macropedia). However this is an online community which is defining it's own local culture(s) and I respect that. Lycurgus 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I will make small changes without comment if I judge none to be needed. I won't contest this with disputatious users and will simply avoid contributing to articles where such users are active. I encourage others to do so as well to optimize your time as long as you exercise appropriate care and conform generally to community norms outside of your user space. Lycurgus 08:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've coined this term as a form of trolling specific to Wikipedia with its explicit commons ownership of mainspace. Since I think this settlement of regions of mainspace firstly temporary, secondly either largely innocuous or pragmatic, I recommend and practice (mostly) tacit tolerance of it. Lycurgus 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
¹ I consider religion (again properly conceived/understood) to be a form of politics.
² The fact that a relatively small number of persons (e.g. professional athletes) appear to have earned their wealth solely thru their own labor, while it might justify that wealth, it is entirely besides the point that maximization of the extraction of surplus value as an objective function for the optimization of society and constricting, directly or indirectly, all of it's activities to this principle of private accumulation is wrong and/or irrational and a literally fatal mistake. Further, it's my contention, the merit or lack thereof of the members of the various classes of society are also irrelevant to this matter of supreme principle. It's taken me a while to get to this point, because I still do believe that class differentiations based on merit and fair acqusition of personal wealth are a good thing and attempts to eliminate them are wrong. For this reason I railed at the usage of the term 'equality', e.g. in the various sections of the Fourth International. Justice, I thought, and not Equality was the issue. I now see that this was wrong and that the only way to have true Justice is to establish real equality of opportunity as the primary social principle.
³ Analects[3].
