Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fredi

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Brain Dominance


  • Location
  • Occupation
    PhD student in cognitive neuroscience
  • Interests
    Science and philosophy
  • Gender
  1. I am no expert on the topic by any means. From what I can tell it seems like both the distinction and debate between equity and gender feminism is internal among feminists, from that I am not sure how I should interpret anti-feminist rhetoric? I have not read the book "Who Stole feminism?" probably the two usages and their goals etc is explained thoroughly there. I agree that questioning social conventions is never wrong, but eliminating traditional gender roles is not necessary. What I mean is that if a women wants to be career focused and not have a traditional role she should have the opportunity to do so, but the same should go for a women who wants a more traditional stay at home role. I see no reason for such women to have to be feel ashamed, weak or whatever. I think gender feminism has the reputation of taking things too far. Gender feminism from what I can tell seems to accurately describe a certain academic group that are quite radical in their beliefs, most annoyingly to me is their disregard for biological and psychological sciences. The latter part is just me comparing what little I read of gender feminism and my personal experience with said academic group.
  2. My guess it that it stems from a failure to distinguish between equity feminism (the moral doctrine about equal treatment) and gender feminism (an absurd doctrine with among others the assumption that men and women are biologically identical*, and all differences are strictly socially induced). Equity feminists (i.e., most people, no matter if they think of themselves as feminists or not) wants equal treatment, while gender feminists seems more bent on reducing the social difference and thus making both sexes the same (since they assume that is the biological default). However, gender feminists, though probably a minority, are the ones who scream the loudest, thus making most people associate feminism with gender feminism, and furthermore makes people who really are equity feminists (without realizing it) claiming that they are not feminists at all. Edit: *except the obviously visible parts...
  3. I meant your objection towards me, not Kanazawa. I never discussed him or his arguments nor your arguments against him. I initially supplied you with data in answer to your question "how stable are intelligence scores over the course of a lifetime?", to which you objected. That is where I see our main disagreement, your objection about the data I supplied.
  4. It really was not. Then you are disagreeing with pretty much the entire research field, please provide some good arguments for your position other than your belief. Because that is rather bleak in comparison to the amount of empirical data that has been accumulated the last 100 years that says otherwise. You should read the articles I referenced in the previous posts, they are from top researchers in the field and was published in good journals. You do not think we have minds? We have brains, these brains perform differently on different cognitive tests, but in general, people tend to perform somewhat equally on a range of different cognitive tests, this has been attributed to general intelligence. That is, someone with high general intelligence tends to score relatively high on many different cognitive tests, there can still be strengths and weaknesses within one individual, such that someone is better at e.g. visuospatial tasks than verbal tasks. Unclear what you mean here. Are you saying people cannot be intelligent or cannot conceive of the construct intelligence without a mind? People have brains, the brains are more or less efficient at a wide range of tasks, which makes them more or less intelligent. I have referenced data that show that intelligence is relatively stable over life. No, that the correlation study was based on a group of people is not a valid objection. Studies indicate that intelligence rank of children predicts their mental and physical health in older age, as well as how long they will live. That is, children with higher intelligence are more likely to have better mental and physical health when they grow older, and are also more likely to live longer than children with lower intelligence. If you do not believe that go read the actual scientific articles, and then come with valid critique against them. What you believe, without empirical data to support your position, or even a valid argument, is irrelevant. I never entered a debate about the definition of mind with you, which is one example of why I question if you understood much of what I wrote, or even the link you provided, or the text you quoted.
  5. You are not making any sense, I have no idea what you are going on about, or what you think we are arguing about. However, it seems clear that you have failed to grasp much of what I have tried to convey. Unless you can reformulate your questions and/or objections in a coherent and concise manner I am done.
  6. I did notice it, I just failed to see the relevance, and still do. All you have shown is a brief history lesson. Yes the old way of age correcting the raw score was not optimal, and is therefore not used anymore. You quoted the new one that is used, which is valid. The correlation study used the new way for age correcting, so what is you objection? You have not proved that anything is circular. It is almost as if you do not understand the text you have quoted. I do not know where you get your information from (since you have not given any references), for all I know you could be quoting Wikipedia or some other unreliable site. General intelligence or "g" is used professionally by researchers, and is one of the more reliable psychological constructs there is. It is derived from batteries of tests within different cognitive domains (reasoning, spatial ability, memory, processing speed, and vocabulary) all correlating highly with g. The research produced over the last century (large body of data, with few to no contradictions) have shown that it is highly influenced by genetics (up to 80%), is heritable, is strongly predictive of school achievement, occupational attainment, job performance, socioeconomic status, mental and physical health later in life, and mortality. (Deary, Penke, & Johnsson, 2010, Nature Rev.; Dreary, 2012, Annu. Rev. Psychol.; Penke et al., 2012, Molecular Psychiatry) Yes, some of the variance in tests can be attributed to mood or fatigue, which researchers obviously have taken into consideration, a large part is nevertheless always accounted for by g. (Deary, Penke, & Johnsson, 2010, Nature Rev.) Maybe this will shed some light on some of the issue: "An early and seemingly circular definition of intelligence came from the American psychologist E. G. Boring in 1923, when he stated, “Intelligence is what the tests test”105 . Although this definition is often criticized by detractors of IQ (intelligence quotient)-type tests, it was taken out of context. The apparently dismissive comment came after a summary of strong empirical findings — for example, that the tests showed marked individual differences, that the differences were stable over time, that children developed greater intelligence over time but tended to maintain the same rank order. The sentence immediately following the famous quote was that the famously glib definition “is only the point of departure for a rigorous discussion of the tests.” Boring was simply stating that the psychometric data had to be good and then linked to other evidence about the origins and outcomes of intelligence. A broader definition was agreed by 52 prominent researchers on intelligence: “Intelligence is a very general capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—‘catching on’, ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well”106 . Intelligence tests generally consist of either complex tasks that involve different aspects of reasoning, such as the Ravens Progressive Matrices, or batteries of tasks that require different kinds of cognitive performance, such as providing definitions of words or visualizing three-dimensional objects from two-dimensional diagrams. Two properties of these kinds of tests are important. First, all intelligence tests — whether of single, unitary tasks or complex, multi-faceted tasks — are correlated and tend to generate a strong general factor when applied to a large sample of people. Second, whatever our definition, intelligence should be assessed by its construct validity, meaning the accumulated evidence that the tests measure something of relevance: evidence on practical outcomes of intelligence differences, consistency of psychometric structure, and relationships with biological structures and processes. By that criterion, intelligence is a core and valid facet of individual differences among humans. As this article shows, irrespective of definition and test used, data from brain-imaging and genetic studies show strong correlates with results from intelligence tests. This provides validity for psychometric intelligence measures, contrary to criticisms that such test scores (often expressed as IQ) are meaningless numbers." (Deary, Penke, & Johnsson, p.202, 2010, Nature Rev.)
  7. Obviously. Would you have preferred a sample size of one? I fail to see what your other objection is about. You do not think it is possible to calculate the correlation between the age corrected scores at age 11 with the age corrected scores at age 70?
  8. "The past decade has seen the longest follow-up studies of intelligence differences, with follow-up studies of the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947. When the same intelligence test is administered at age 11 years and again to individuals when they are in their late seventies, the correlations are between 0.6 and 0.7 (Deary et al. 2000, 2004b) and are still above 0.5 when the individuals are in their late eighties (Gowet al. 2011).Obviously, these correlations imply that at least one-quarter to one-half of the variance in intelligence is stable across most of the human life course." (Deary, 2012, Annu. Rev. Psychol.)
  9. There is no inherent objective "right to life". Most people are biologically wired to experience and behave as if that was the case. All the different reasons why there supposedly is such an inherent "right to life" is merely post hoc rationalization.
  10. Thanks. Glad you liked it!

  11. Haha, never tried that so I don't really know, but perhaps it is for the best to leave that door closed and just assume that it is healthy enough :)

  12. Yes, but do you enjoy killing prostitutes and work colleagues? If not, it could be healthy. ;)

  13. Definitively a good fit for a nerd like myself. Actually it is a picture of my brain (would have sliced it more interestingly if not for the strict size-ratios), if its healthy or not...wellmmhh...American Psycho-like...something... :P

  14. Now that sounds superbly interesting. Hence your avatar. Is that a photo of a healthy brain?

  15. I recently started a PhD program in cognitive neuroscience (a bit late on account of changing career path from business to science at the finish-line of my business education), it will mostly involve functional brain imaging of healthy subjects in different experimental contexts. The focus is on the neurophysiology of consciousness, and its relationship to other functions like memory and attention, which naturally leads to contrasting it with its subliminal counterparts. I am glad I changed path when I did :)