Why is an extreme opposite to what's predicted never statistically significant in one tail-test?

[psych.meout]

I am sure there is a wealth of empirical evidence to support that claim.

I'm sure there are Wikipedia entries about it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

 

[Acronym1]

that this board is full of neuropsychologists who give and interpret tests for a living, and that there is always more nuance than appears in textbooks.

What does them being neuropsychologists have to do with a discussion on variance in IQ?

 

[Acronym1]

I'm sure there are Wikipedia entries about it.

I did not cite Wikipedia as a source, I cited sources given in Wikipedia. If your IQ is high enough, you would tell the difference.

 

[psych.meout]

I did not cite Wikipedia as a source, I cited sources given in Wikipedia. If your IQ is high enough, you would tell the difference.

Wrong.

Really?

Some studies have concluded that there is larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.[17][18] Additionally, there are differences in the capacity of males and females in performing certain tasks, such as rotation of object in space, often categorized as spatial ability.

The most culturally neutral IQ measures are spatial tests, and women are consistently outperformed by men there. But I wouldn't claim women are fundamentally less intelligent. I have attracted a Mensa girl a few years ago and known a few others too. They are in a minority, though.

 

[smalltownpsych]

What does them being neuropsychologists have to do with a discussion on variance in IQ?

Measuring cognitive abilities is what they do for a living. Some of them just might even know what they are talking about.

Edit to add: I wanted to preempt the appeal to authority argument by saying that I am not implying blind faith in what they say by any means. I personally take the neuro folks advice as a helpful starting point and then for clinically relevant questions I go straight to the scientific literature to draw my own conclusions.

 

[Rick4001s]

There is no nuance. Women as a group have lower fluid intelligence than men. Fluid intelligence is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems independent of any knowledge from the past. No argument from authority will save you from that fact.

Data indicate that you are wrong, although because Kaufman is an authority on measuring crystallized and fluid intelligence, you might write that off as "argument from authority"; e.g., read this article (not just the abstract):

http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/153.short

To keep this on topic, your statement that "Women as a group have lower fluid intelligence than men" is a directional statement that would merit a one-tailed test, because you'd prefer to devote your power to examine differences in the hypothesized direction. However, if you look at the F values in Table 1 and the group statistics in Table 2, you'll notice that in this case it wouldn't make an iota of difference....there are no gender differences in either Gf or Gc, although there are some in achievement areas. Hence, your hypothesis is not confirmed.

 

[Acronym1]

Measuring cognitive abilities is what they do for a living. .

I am sorry to say that you are terribly misinformed. Neuropsychology is the study of the brain as it relates to functions and potential impacts on certain regions. It does not study the matter of intelligence (beyond basic operations). Saying neuropsychologists study IQ is a bit like saying that a speech therapist studies linguistics. They do not. They study functions related to language, however, but not linguistics.

 

[erg923]

I am sorry to say that you are terribly missinformed. Neuropsychology is the study of the brain as it relates to functions and potential impacts on certain regions. It does not study the matter of intelligence (beyond basic operations). Saying neuropsychologists studies IQ is a bit like saying that a speech therapist studies linguistics. They do not. They study functions related to language, however, but not linguistics.

I will relay to my hospitals neuropsychologists that they are largely WAISting there time then....

In all seriousness, "G", as well as it subcomponents are often beneficial and necessary to understand in relations to the various neurodegenerative disorders and psychiatric conditions. There are also many well known neuropsychologists who study aspects of intelligence and its assessment. You should look them up and tell them that they do NOT actually do this though.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am sorry to say that you are terribly misinformed. Neuropsychology is the study of the brain as it relates to functions and potential impacts on certain regions. It does not study the matter of intelligence (beyond basic operations). Saying neuropsychologists study IQ is a bit like saying that a speech therapist studies linguistics. They do not. They study functions related to language, however, but not linguistics.

I am misinformed? The first thing I did in my neuropsych rotation at a major university-based hospital supervised by a board-certified neuropsychologist was administer an intelligence test. I guess I was just WAISting my time too. That was a good one erg.

 

[Acronym1]

I will relay to my hospitals neuropsychologists that they are largely WAISting there time then....

In all seriousness, "G", as well as it subcomponents are often beneficial and necessary to understand in relations to the various neurodegenerative disorders and psychiatric conditions. There are also many well know neuropsychologists who study aspects of intelligence and its assessment. You should look them up and tell them that they do NOT actually do this though.

It is not exclusive to neuropsychology. Intelligence (beyond basic operations) is not a primary focus of neuropsychology. I don't think intelligence was mentioned a single time in my course in, that's right, neuropsychology.

 

[erg923]

I don't think intelligence was mentioned a single time in my course in, that's right, neuropsychology.

Your personal (classroom) experience is not an empirical study of the field.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It is not exclusive to neuropsychology. Intelligence (beyond basic operations) is not a primary focus of neuropsychology. I don't think intelligence was mentioned a single time in my course in, that's right, neuropsychology.

You are sort of right, but it seems to me that you are trying to win points in a debate as opposed to trying to learn. The main reason for licensed psychologists to contribute to this forum is to share our perspective and experiences with prospective students. Not to engage in debate with them. I got enough of that frustration when I was teaching undergrad courses.

 

[WisNeuro]

You are sort of right, but it seems to me that you are trying to win points in a debate as opposed to trying to learn. The main reason for licensed psychologists to contribute to this forum is to share our perspective and experiences with prospective students. Not to engage in debate with them. I got enough of that frustration when I was teaching undergrad courses.

Way too much credit in calling this a debate, rather than a series of logical fallacies.

 

[Acronym1]

You are sort of right,.

So why are you arguing? Another user in here wrote me and agreed, yet proceeded anyway to dispute. Is this a woman thing or what on earth is with you people?

You can't accept the premises and yet reject the conclusion. I have background in formal logic, so watch it there---

 

[erg923]

So why are you arguing? Another user in here wrote me and agreed, yet proceeded anyway to dispute. Is this a woman thing or what on earth is with you people?

You can't accept the premises and yet reject the conclusion. I have background in formal logic, so watch it there---

"Woman thing" and "you people" in the same sentence. Classic.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Is this a woman thing or what on earth is with you people?

Excuse me, @Acronym1...but if you want to continue on SDN in a professional manner, than do so without disrespecting half of the users. And if you are a woman, then figure this #$-ing self-depreciating view of yourself. Have some respect...or at least some common decency.

My favorite saying...."Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Word to the wise: Don't be a fool.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Way too much credit in calling this a debate, rather than a series of logical fallacies.

This is to debate what the Browns are to football.

 

[Acronym1]

Anymore misinformation to put forward while we are at it? I already called out your bluff on neuropsychology. Let's stick to the subject.

 

[Acronym1]

"Woman thing" and "you people" in the same sentence. Classic.

I can't resist:

 

[CheetahGirl]

@Acronym1 - you should resist. You are showing a lack of respect and are appearing foolish and sophomoric. If you want to keep going with it, try it out on the Friday thread instead.

Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy may not be the best sources to inform those ever-still-forming internal working models, mmmmkay? Just my opinion, I'm sure they are good people who respect their Mamas...just saying.

Elevate the discourse here, buddy.

Anymore misinformation to put forward while we are at it? I already called out your bluff on neuropsychology. Let's stick to the subject.

Your words...because all else is not going over well for you today, bud.

And second thought, do we know you, here on SDN? Are you one of the old users who has been previously banned from SDN...sporting a new IP address? Your tone is uncharacteristically familiar...

 

[Acronym1]

@Acronym1 - you should resist. You are showing a lack of respect and are appearing foolish and sophomoric. If you want to keep going with it, try it out on the Friday thread instead.

Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy may not be the best sources to inform those ever-still-forming internal working models, mmmmkay? Just my opinion, I'm sure they are good people who respect their Mamas...just saying.

Elevate the discourse here, buddy.



Your words...because all else is not going over well for you today, bud.

And second thought, do we know you, here on SDN? Are you one of the old users who has been previously banned from SDN...sporting a new IP address? Your tone is uncharacteristically familiar...

No, I am not. And you should seriously lighten up (I may not be 100% serious in every single word written). I agree that the level of discourse is subpar. But then again, it takes two to tango.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is not exclusive to neuropsychology. Intelligence (beyond basic operations) is not a primary focus of neuropsychology. I don't think intelligence was mentioned a single time in my course in, that's right, neuropsychology.

You are arguing with professionals about our profession….and being condescending about it to boot.

Please consider that your experience (N=1) may not be representative of the field. If our responses don't fit your pre-conceived ideas, there is a chance that your ideas about the field are wrong and what we are telling you is more accurate….but what do I know, I just work in the field, teach in the field, publish in the field, and provide mentorship in the field. I should probably defer to your one class of experience and re-examine my daily work.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

[smalltownpsych]

@Acronym1 - you should resist. You are showing a lack of respect and are appearing foolish and sophomoric. If you want to keep going with it, try it out on the Friday thread instead.

Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy may not be the best sources to inform those ever-still-forming internal working models, mmmmkay? Just my opinion, I'm sure they are good people who respect their Mamas...just saying.

Elevate the discourse here, buddy.



Your words...because all else is not going over well for you today, bud.

And second thought, do we know you, here on SDN? Are you one of the old users who has been previously banned from SDN...sporting a new IP address? Your tone is uncharacteristically familiar...

If it is not the same person, then it is just a very similar dynamic.

So why are you arguing? Another user in here wrote me and agreed, yet proceeded anyway to dispute. Is this a woman thing or what on earth is with you people?

You can't accept the premises and yet reject the conclusion. I have background in formal logic, so watch it there---

...and with that, I am out.

 

[Acronym1]

"You are arguing with professionals about our profession".

And yet I am right. It's perfectly compatible to apply ones experience in neuropsychology onto different fields, such as the study of intelligence. But to claim that neuropsychology is the study of intelligence is a mischaracterization.

 

[CheetahGirl]

No, I am not. And you should seriously lighten up (I may not be 100% serious in every single word written). I agree that the level of discourse is subpar. But then again, it takes two to tango.

Old Guard in me coming out...

I will not lighten up when you use a term, such as 'woman thing,' to admonish, ridicule, and describe being frivolous in one's argument. You are conforming and contributing to gender stereotypes on a public forum about the field of professional psychology.

Two to tango? Do I need to speak your language to be understood? Man up, then...

 

[smalltownpsych]

:troll:

 

[Acronym1]

Two to tango? Do I need to speak your language to be understood? Man up, then...

Take it like a woman. And stop upholding double standards. Men are just as free to criticize women as women are about men.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Please keep it civil, guys, or we'll have to close this thread.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Take it like a woman. And stop upholding double standards. Men are just as free to criticize women as women are about men.

Note: I did not uphold double standards without the preface "Do I need to speak your language to be understood?" ‎Against my better judgment, I will engage you further on this last point. And then be off...@futureapppsy2.

'Take it like a woman' implies that I (perhaps) should be subservient on‎ the issue. I will not. ‎

"Man up," simply means one needs to possess the characteristics of an adult man (the implication that adult males are mature, respectful, perhaps can decipher information intelligible to produce some forthcoming action/behavior...for instance, like going in the cold, dark woods, and bravely shooting an 8-pt in the head in dawn's early light, first round).

But, why use these gender stereotypes to criticize?‎ There is enough hatred in the world...why subsume it in your rhetoric? Plus, if you look up the word 'sophomoric,' you'll learn it is not a compliment (I didn't use it as criticism) but indicates lack of sophistication, something you may find in an adolescent. (Please pardon me if you are still a teen.) Earn that sophistication.

Individuals in this country are free (or not...you never know these days) to criticize as they wish...but if I'm reading your posts, I'll call you out on this adolescent-type behavior...got it?‎ It is insulting and demeaning.

That is my point. You're welcome.‎
‎

 

[synesthetics]

So why are you arguing? Another user in here wrote me and agreed, yet proceeded anyway to dispute. Is this a woman thing or what on earth is with you people?

You can't accept the premises and yet reject the conclusion. I have background in formal logic, so watch it there---

This is perhaps the least intelligent thing I have read in this forum.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

"You are arguing with professionals about our profession".

And yet I am right. It's perfectly compatible to apply ones experience in neuropsychology onto different fields, such as the study of intelligence. But to claim that neuropsychology is the study of intelligence is a mischaracterization.

I don't think anybody claimed NP is the study of intelligence, but there are studies of intelligence done under that banner of NP. Set theory is hard.