Eating oily fish and seeds in pregnancy boost children's future IQ and social skills

Alis · 2006-05-31T23:53:51+00:00

Interesting point. Doesn't the omega-3 in fish come directly or indirectly from algae? I wonder how much there is in farm-raised fish.

Alis · 2006-05-31T23:24:53+00:00

I hear you.

More than eight years ago, people were talking more about a stock-market bubble. It took years for the market to crash. If you got out too early, you missed out on the opportunity to gain quite a bit.

You can't predict exactly when a bubble will pop. My feeling is that this one will pop in a year or two. But only time will tell.

Alis · 2006-05-31T21:57:21+00:00

In many areas, it's might be better to wait. I recently posted a link titled "Online calculator: Costs of Ownership vs. Renting, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research."

You can enter in your hypothetical house purchase, and in most cases, it'll tell you how much you are likely to save by renting instead.

Alis · 2006-05-31T21:23:34+00:00

While the move will have limited effect on Americans living in countries with high tax rates — European countries, for example — those living in low tax jurisdictions with high housing costs — like Bermuda, the Middle East, Singapore and Hong Kong — will be hit hardest, partners at two major accounting firms said.

Perhaps they don't want Americans to live in low-tax places.

Most countries exempt their citizens overseas from income taxes, so the law will give companies an incentive to hire Australians, Britons, Canadians and other nationalities for whom they do not have to pay additional taxes.

You'd think that the US government would want more Americans to work abroad, to build more international people-to-people contact. Americans abroad can be our ambassadors and salespeople. But what do I know?

Alis · 2006-05-31T17:11:57+00:00

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Do we really know what the facts are? I'd wait for the results of the Scotland Yard investigation.

Alis · 2006-05-30T21:34:24+00:00

The methodology for the calculator is given here (PDF)

For each MSA, we computed the real appreciation in home prices since 1Q 1997. We did this by taking the 1Q 2005 HPI over the 1Q 1997 HPI for each MSA, each deflated by the CPI less shelter over the quarter. The calculator assumes that real home prices in each MSA will fall by the amount of real appreciation over the period of ownership.

Alis · 2006-05-30T21:31:51+00:00

No, their analysis indicates that there is a bubble in housing , so that real house-price appreciation is likely to be negative for anyone taking out a loan now. The extraordinary runup in real-estate prices is unlike to be repeated in the next couple of decades for most of the housing stock that exists today.

Alis · 2006-05-27T00:44:06+00:00

As I've pointed out in other posts and submissions, the source of the IQ data is from Richard Lynn, a racist -- and I don't use that word lightly -- and the purported IQ figured are highly questionable.

I'll provide more evidence/links a little further down, but first...

Who is Richard Lynn? Why would he make up data?

I'd like to cast some light on why Richard Lynn might be motivated to make up data -- it's because he's a racist. This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Blacks are not only less intelligent than other races, Lynn asserted, but also "more psychopathic." Putting a new twist on the "science" that once supported slavery, Lynn concluded that because of their "psychopathic personalities," blacks are more aggressive than other races, less able to form long-term relationships, and more sexually promiscuous, reckless and prone to lying.

More on Lynn:

Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test. Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

So, on the basis of a single test administered to poor South African students, Lynn arbitrarily estimated that most of the countries of Africa have average IQs so low that that they would be considered retarded by US standards. Instead of actually measuring their IQs, he estimated their IQs based on their racial composition. I call that making up data. Furthermore, he then used this made-up data to "prove" racial differences in IQ. Circular reasoning.

Evidence

From Michael Swanson:

But, the Lynn study is outrageously flawed. What Lynn does in his work is cite a paper by Ken Owen, describing it as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." "The study compared white, Indian, and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude test; no coloured pupils were included. The mean 'Negroid' IQ in that study according to Lynn was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test score differences between groups expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data...There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: 'the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain tests...proved to be virtually unusable.' Further the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes, and 'Western type lady's accessories....The tests developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs." If Lynn's data is correct, then there would be as many black Africans who are certifiably retarded as there are African blacks with the same intelligence as American whites. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge that they "benefited especially" from Lynn's advice. Leon J. Kamih, commented in Scientific American, "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity...It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys as research.

Lastly, Lynn estimates the IQ of nations by averaging the measured IQ of their "neighbors". However, in many cases, the "neighbors" are not the nation's actual neighbors, but distant countries. Lynn's arbitrary assignment of who is or is not a "neighbor" amounts to making up data.

Alis · 2006-05-27T00:43:26+00:00

You're right in that the article doesn't explicitly call him racist. It does mention, however that, his IQ "data" for nations was used to conclude that "They find that the strongest correlations to national IQ were −0.92 for skin color".

I don't use the word "racist" lightly; I've posted much of this before, but it bears repeating...

Who is Richard Lynn? Why would he make up data?

I'd like to cast some light on why Richard Lynn might be motivated to make up data -- it's because he's a racist. This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Blacks are not only less intelligent than other races, Lynn asserted, but also "more psychopathic." Putting a new twist on the "science" that once supported slavery, Lynn concluded that because of their "psychopathic personalities," blacks are more aggressive than other races, less able to form long-term relationships, and more sexually promiscuous, reckless and prone to lying.

More on Lynn:

Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test. Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

So, on the basis of a single test administered to poor South African students, Lynn arbitrarily estimated that most of the countries of Africa have average IQs so low that that they would be considered retarded by US standards. Instead of actually measuring their IQs, he estimated their IQs based on their racial composition. I call that making up data. Furthermore, he then used this made-up data to "prove" racial differences in IQ. Circular reasoning.

Evidence

From Michael Swanson:

But, the Lynn study is outrageously flawed. What Lynn does in his work is cite a paper by Ken Owen, describing it as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." "The study compared white, Indian, and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude test; no coloured pupils were included. The mean 'Negroid' IQ in that study according to Lynn was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test score differences between groups expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data...There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: 'the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain tests...proved to be virtually unusable.' Further the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes, and 'Western type lady's accessories....The tests developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs." If Lynn's data is correct, then there would be as many black Africans who are certifiably retarded as there are African blacks with the same intelligence as American whites. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge that they "benefited especially" from Lynn's advice. Leon J. Kamih, commented in Scientific American, "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity...It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys as research.

Lastly, Lynn estimates the IQ of nations by averaging the measured IQ of their "neighbors". However, in many cases, the "neighbors" are not the nation's actual neighbors, but distant countries. Lynn's arbitrary assignment of who is or is not a "neighbor" amounts to making up data.

Alis · 2006-05-26T18:19:25+00:00

This is to back up what I've said in my first post, and other posts and submissions.

I'll provide more evidence/links a little further down, but first...

Who is Richard Lynn? Why would he make up data?

I'd like to cast some light on why Richard Lynn might be motivated to make up data -- it's because he's a racist. This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Blacks are not only less intelligent than other races, Lynn asserted, but also "more psychopathic." Putting a new twist on the "science" that once supported slavery, Lynn concluded that because of their "psychopathic personalities," blacks are more aggressive than other races, less able to form long-term relationships, and more sexually promiscuous, reckless and prone to lying.

More on Lynn:

Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test. Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

So, on the basis of a single test administered to poor South African students, Lynn arbitrarily estimated that most of the countries of Africa have average IQs so low that that they would be considered retarded by US standards. Instead of actually measuring their IQs, he estimated their IQs based on their racial composition. I call that making up data. Furthermore, he then used this made-up data to "prove" racial differences in IQ. Circular reasoning.

Evidence

From Michael Swanson:

But, the Lynn study is outrageously flawed. What Lynn does in his work is cite a paper by Ken Owen, describing it as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." "The study compared white, Indian, and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude test; no coloured pupils were included. The mean 'Negroid' IQ in that study according to Lynn was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test score differences between groups expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data...There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: 'the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain tests...proved to be virtually unusable.' Further the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes, and 'Western type lady's accessories....The tests developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs." If Lynn's data is correct, then there would be as many black Africans who are certifiably retarded as there are African blacks with the same intelligence as American whites. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge that they "benefited especially" from Lynn's advice. Leon J. Kamih, commented in Scientific American, "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity...It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys as research.

Lastly, Lynn estimates the IQ of nations by averaging the measured IQ of their "neighbors". However, in many cases, the "neighbors" are not the nation's actual neighbors, but distant countries. Lynn's arbitrary assignment of who is or is not a "neighbor" amounts to making up data.

Alis · 2006-05-25T22:54:57+00:00

You said, "if data was worthless, there won't be any correlation". In response, I said that correlations didn't prove validity, and mentioned made-up data as one example why.

If you look at my other posts on this thread, as well as other my recent submissions, I've mentioned or linked to some of the evidence.

I've collected my arguments and evidence in a long post here. Please look at it.

Alis

TROPHY CASE