Nobel Prize-winning physicist Stephen Hawking died early Wednesday morning. Hawking, who wrote several influential books including "A Brief History of Time," was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 1962.
The family did not disclose the cause of death, but said he “died peacefully” at his home in Cambridge, England.
“We are deeply saddened that our beloved father passed away today. He was a great scientist and an extraordinary man whose work and legacy will live on for many years," the family said in a statement.
"His courage and persistence with his brilliance and humor inspired people across the world. He once said, ‘It would not be much of a universe if it wasn’t home to the people you love.’ We will miss him forever,” it added.
He leaves behind a wife, Lucy, and two sons, Robert and Tim.
hawking never received a nobel prize
ReplyDeleteBBC has a daughter listed named Lucy and 2 sons. I don't think he remarried after his last divorce.
ReplyDeleteFaker than fake.
ReplyDeleteHe died on Pi Day, a Boss to the end :)
ReplyDeleteI’ll be raising a slice to him, myself.
DeleteDidn't the real Hawking die ages ago?
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteSuch a kind man with a beautiful mind. I chatted with him once on social media and I treasure the time he took for a subpar brain like mine.
ReplyDeleteRIP.
As motor neuron disease can cause dementia (as can ALS) I mourn with the UK's MND community today.
ReplyDeleteWhat a cool guy! And living with ALS for 50 years, holyshit. Amazing!
ReplyDeleteAnd now he's free of that wretched disease. I do believe tho, that he's going to be wholly disappointed in his theory of "There is no Afterlife"
Oh well. What a wonderful surprise for him!
RIP Steven Hawking
That was really nice, Rosie. When my dad was dying of bone marrow cancer, I was so sad when he told me he believed there was nothing after death. I thought the same when he died: "He's getting a wonderful surprise right now."
DeleteThe only man with ALS in human history to live until ripe old age, and to get younger looking the older he got. /sarc
ReplyDeleteHe's been dead for decades.
ReplyDeleteUh-oh, look at all us Russian troll bots down on the farm question the official narrative!
ReplyDelete"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." —Boethius
DeleteOnly mindless, brainwashed, order following morons believe the official narrative. Nothing Russian or trollish about me. Thankfully I still have the common sense to use my brain. Not many of us left, that's why the world is in the sorry state that it's in. Just research 'Hawking's Teeth' and you will learn that there were many actors who played the role of SH over the years.
DeleteRIP. Brillant man. No more suffering. ALS is one of the most tragic diseases I have ever seen. Hope stem cell research will find a cure someday.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately he was a devout atheist so his suffering has just gotten significantly worse. Such a shame
DeleteLucy is his daughter
ReplyDeleteDead for decades.
ReplyDeleteI’m out of the loop, people think he’s been dead for decades? Why would that be something one would fake?
ReplyDelete@MrsAmiss I’m wondering that too. Completely baffled.
DeleteDoes dark matter even exist?
ReplyDeleteWhy is the big bang theory so dogmatic and propagandized via sitcom?
All of you should make sense of his pictures before mourning a fake individual.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/CxAw3Lp9nmY/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JMHc13R.jpg
Hawking was perpetuated after his death as an invaluable, essentially unquestionable oracle to science. Probably a CIA asset. People believed his impossibility because his job was to make us all feel smart and accept the inevitability of a science-ruled world.
Nobody survives ALS 50 years. Only the alleged Hawking did - all around the world and since this illness has been identified. Let that sink in.
Well, he was pictured at Christmas time at an event. Wishful thinking troll. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
DeleteHawking died and was replaced decades ago. Never figured out why, either.
ReplyDeletehttp://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf
Actual scientists have interesting things to say about him, but every generation needs their "smart guy."
ReplyDelete"Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. However difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don't just give up." -- Stephen Hawking
ReplyDelete@Glue +1
DeleteHe leaves behind a lot of eloquent, and often humorous, words as well as his contributions to Physics.
One of my favorites: I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.
To the "he's been dead for decades" chanters: so was this a "Weekend At Bernie's" situation or do you think they found an actor to sit in a wheelchair for decades pretending to be him? Seriously, I'm curious. I have never heard that he died (until now).
ReplyDeleteApparently, the going (conspiracy) theory is that the OG Stephen Hawking dies back in '85, during that severe bout of pneumonia when he had already suffered a couple decades plus with motor neuron disease and magically recovered after a tracheotomy.
ReplyDeleteThe bad guys (CIA? Some sort of powerful cabal overlording the scientific community establishment pushing flawed, bullshit physics/science? Read that pdf linked above and it's a bit all over the place and a bit of everything) sourced a younger, fresher, mostly-kind-of-looks-like-him doppelganger that shall be dubbed Stephen Faux-king (TM Itttt, 2018). Faux-king just had to shut up and his handlers would output lectures/comments/questions etc. via Mr. Roboto system.
None of the above is my opinion, although how DOES one survive 50 plus years of such a debilitating disease, those 50 years being an order of magnitude over what would be considered a very long survival period (5 years is beyond the norm)...where the longest other known survivor lasted 20 years? Even considering being afforded the greatest medical treatments available at the time, we are talking about surviving 5 decades beginning in the early to mid 60's until yesterday. A disease that almost always kills within 1-2 years of diagnosis, 5 years top...particularly back then.
@Itttt Thanks for filling us in on the going conspiracy theory. I do appreciate you taking the time.
DeleteAs for the last paragraph, I wonder, too. I recall reading some medically sound speculation that some day, we will discover that Hawking had something very similar to ALS (or a rare variant) that differs in some way substantial enough to account for his longevity.
If so, it wouldn’t be the first post-Mortem change of diagnosis. I’ll be waiting curiously to find out if the autopsy (I hope there is one planned, for science) answers that question.
I still don't really understand the ultimate point of such an elaborate conspiracy. I think Hawking thought one of the reasons he survived so long was that he was so young when stricken, decades younger than average. It makes sense to me that maybe it was something very rare and clinically so similar to A.L.S. as to be indistinguishable.
Delete@Liz
DeletePower and control
Very few people "have what it takes" so there's a limited pool of "actors"
Easier that way
@hothotheat An actor/stand-in. (Prob not an actor-actor.) Likely someone who was a quad already who was given an opportunity to be well paid, well treated (medically) and gets fame to boot.
ReplyDeleteNot a bad deal for the stand-in.
Yes, I actually just found an additional article effectively attempting to explain the how and why that he could live as long as he did. To summarize, there are variants to the various neurological/muscle control diseases including one that usually strikes at teen to young adult ages, however progresses very slowly. Dr. quoted noted many patients he sees with it that live into their 30s 40s and 50s.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-als/
@Itttt! You found the article!
DeleteI just reread it, and it’s still a good read. I hope an autopsy gives us greater understanding.
I suspect he also got lucky, in a strange way, with that trach in the 80s, giving him a better shot with respiration and doctors already keeping a close eye on issues with swallowing. Early issues with the two could easily have led to that pneumonia.
And for the people who will I evitably call me a shill again, neither Hawking nor other scientists, portrayed him as unquestionable.
It’s hard to be a physicist without accepting that you’re going to be wrong, partly wrong, or eventually a bit wrong far more often than you’re right.
That’s what’s exciting about physics. Seriously, even if you’re not of a scientific bent, read some of the Feynman books (“Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman” is a good place to start) for the thought process and some good laughs, if nothing else.
Lifelong Republicans and Democrats and Independents have all enjoyed that one.
Was he the abusive one or his formwr wife? I forget.
ReplyDelete@Count Eh, column A, column B...
DeleteCount, glad to see you're still alive! That shoots down my "Count Jerkula is actually Stephen Hawkins" theory.
ReplyDeleteLOL haywood.
DeleteSome background about SH. I knew of his name long before he became media famous. In a previous life I almost wrote a doctorate in this particular area, starting late '1970's. Last time I checked the subject in question was still open forty years later. Its a very knotty problem and a lot of important peoples big papers would go poof even if I was only half right..
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the SH story is just that, a story. Sounds great but with little substance. Back in the day when I knew the relevant scientific literature pretty well, which is when SH did almost all his important work, I'd reckon he was maybe top 30 but definitely not top 10 of the people working in what is still a very small very specialized field. He was not one of the top people. His work was not that important. Secondary and subsidiary rather than primary level scholarship. He was however very good at academic politics and career advancement. And self publicity. As someone at the the time of his first high profile media coverage said, it he was nt a cripple no one would have heard of him. Which I think is a fair assessment of his scientific merits.
So the story of a great mind trapped inside a wracked body is only half true. It was a reasonably good mind, by peer standards, trapped inside a wracked body. As for the other conspiracy theory stuff, all rubbish. People who believe this crap obviously dont know how academia works. Even worse for back stabbing gossip than even the media business. Zero chance of keeping any conspiracy secrets in such an environment.
The fact that someone lived decades beyond the expected span with a serious disease is fairly common in my experience. I have two good friends who were told they had at most a year or two to live. Decades ago. And I have know several others who were told they would never walk again who just got up and walked again out of sheer bloody mindedness.
The universe is like that.
+1 MusicDSPGuy
DeleteScience, unlike conspiracy, tends not to deal in absolutes.
A large part of Hawking’s contribution to Physics isn’t necessarily his contributions WITHIN the scientific community so much as outside of it.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a tricky discipline even from the inside and notorious for turning off people on the outside. He did a lot of work to make people INTERESTED in the subject. Also to make quantum physics just a little more accessible to non-scientists.
Much like Bill Nye in that way.*
When superstition and conspiracy by minds unable to grasp science** are allowed to supersede important scientific discoveries, we get things like measles outbreaks at Disneyland in the era of vaccines, doctors bleeding their dying patients to “save” them, pretty radioactive*** green wallpaper in sitting rooms, religious nuts praying over their sick kids instead of taking them to the doctor, mothers shoving crucifixes down their daughter’s throat to “exorcise” them, cults kidnapping crazy members from the hospital and locking them up until they die of dehydration, and idiots directing funding away from clean energy in favor of petrochemicals.****
Was Stephen Hawking THE greatest mind who ever lived? No.*****
*Bill Nye gets a lot of flack for “he’s just a high school teacher with name recognition!” But he turned an entire generation on to scientific thought, and that’s a big wonderful contribution to humanity.
**Not saying that’s the root of all conspiracy, of course
***Literally. Look it up. It was a Victorian thing.
****Okay, that one is a little political. I couldn’t resist.
*****Statistically, the greatest mind who ever lived probably lived a long time ago and/or was born female before women were encouraged into the sciences even a little bit, or was born into such abject poverty, he or she never got to make anything of it.
I don't like how Bill Nye goes out of his way to bully people for their beliefs, though. For a "high school teacher", he sure sets a bad example of what's considered acceptable "bullying" (he picks fights with creationists and astrologers—you don't even need to prompt him to say something mean/bigoted).
DeleteI am 100% evolutionists and I believe the Earth is round but i would never go out of my way to "convert" Flat-Earthers/Creationists into believing what I believe in. It's a basic human right to believe what you do. I do think it's cute that the "Flat Earth" model makes it look like we live on. Petri dish (but if I chuckle, it's not a condescending/mean chuckle—I just think it's cute). It's NEVER okay to persecute people for their beliefs. Ever. That's how WWII started, FFS.
Give peace a chance! 🗻🌺👩🏻🥗🍂✌🏼
Also, I wouldn't consider Bill Nye a "scientific thinker" (dude doesn't do his homework—doesn't try to do research/experiment, just patronises people for believing what they do). It's embarrassing.
Delete@Scandi
DeleteBill Nye is probably more properly categorized as an entertainment figure specializing in science than as a “scientific thinker.”
Regardless of his methods, he’s contributing by getting people to THINK about science. Sometimes, getting the subject into public discourse is a contribution in itself.
That’s my point.
LOLing at @Itttt’s Fauxking and @Haywood’s debunked theory.
ReplyDeleteFor those who want an explanation of the "Stephen Hawking Died in the 1980s and was Replaced" theory, I strongly recommend the following link. The evidence is compelling.
ReplyDeletehttp://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf (PDF)
Compare the pictures between 1960s-70s Stephen Hawking and present day Stephen Hawking. They don't look like the same person. And then there's the whole "only known case of surviving ALS for 60 years when the average survival rate is 3 years" bit that doesn't add up.
"The only man with ALS in human history to live until ripe old age, and to get younger looking the older he got. /sarc"
ReplyDeleteNope.
"The fact that someone lived decades beyond the expected span with a serious disease is fairly common in my experience"
Yep.
The issue of people with ALS is whether to be put on a breathing machine or not. Most choose not to and therefore die of pneumonia within 5 years of diagnosis.
Those who opt for the breathing (heart lung) machines have no time limit on how long they can survive. There is a documentary called Gleason about the Saint's player who suffers from ALS. It's a painful movie to watch, the most painful scene being when he and his wife have to decide whether he should have the surgery to breathe artificially. It's explained that afterwards he could live for many decades.
@plot Isn’t science wonderful? It answers so many questions that would otherwise make people so paranoid...
Delete@ltttt
ReplyDeleteWatch the documentary Gleason. It spells out why some ALS sufferers die within a few years and why others live for decades. It's not that complicated - some choose feeding tubes and breathing machines, some don't.
@Han Niam
ReplyDeleteMean old science! What a brute! Takes away so many opportunities for magical thinking! ;P
Statistically, the greatest mind who ever lived probably lived a long time ago and/or was born female before women were encouraged into the sciences even a little bit, or was born into such abject poverty, he or she never got to make anything of it.
ReplyDeleteTwo problems with this, statistically. First, there weren't that many people historically. There are probably more adults alive than adults who have died, and even counting infant/child deaths, the ratio is only 30:1. That ratio doesn't get you into statistical certainty.
The second one is the female part. The distribution curves for men is much, much wider in IQ than females. (This makes sense in an evolutionary sense, in that men are more likely to be smarter OR dumber, because men are relatively expendable, and females are valuable. Females need to be a safe bet, but nature can gamble with males.)
There are lots of smart women, but the long tails on either side of the IQ bell curve are dominated by males. We get the supergeniuses, but we also get the super-stupids.
@Phelps
ReplyDeleteIf we lived in a world of level playing fields, you might have a point about male versus female IQ.
We don't. The IQ tests themselves are somewhat flawed in and of themselves (having been a part of an experiment on this as a kid, evidence that didn't fit with their preconceived notions of IQ was thrown out an anomalies, which I guess is fair but the statistical high end IQs were often ignored especially for girls who showed high abilities in unquantified parameters.)
The intelligence of boys used to be determined on their ability to play complex games...until the 70s...when girls were studied for their abilities to quickly change and acclimate to new rules of games to continue playing as a group (which was considered unintelligent) while boys spent 50% of their playing time arguing about the rules (which made them superior.)
We don't have a good grasp of IQ or how it plays into real intelligence or inventiveness (for instance, Charles Darwin had a mediocre academic life and a pretty average IQ, never spoke a second language, played and instrument, found math impossible but look what he accomplished.) Until we do (which strikes me as an impossible and meaningless task) the theory of women representing the middle of the bell curve while men represent the opposite ends isn't all that valid.
I think Hawking was great and all, but what benefit is actually gained from theorizing about black holes? He was a theoretical physicist, so everything he did was questionable. It seems like it’s as useful as asking if god exists. Answering either way seems futile and ineffectual to me. Just because a white guy stands up, pouts his finger up and say, “I know about black holes,” doesn’t mean it matters. Maybe I’ll have to read his book...
ReplyDelete@Shawn Understanding the way black holes change matter and the transmission of matter has pretty impressive implications in a lot of areas.
DeleteYou’ve gotta walk before you can run, and we’re still a ways away from practical understanding.
Plot is a science denier.
ReplyDelete@phelps:
DeleteOur friend @plot has a better grasp of science than you do. Real science is evidence-based, not conclusion-based. It’s always taking in new evidence and evaluating how that evidence may alter, negate, or strengthen our understanding of the world and universe around us. That’s why the most agreed upon likely “correct understandings” in Science are called theories, not facts.
Scientists, especially physicists, don’t like the notion of a “fact” because that implies you can stop trying to learn more about it and reject any advances in knowledge and detection in the future which may change that understanding.
If you like, I’d be happy to ask my incredibly right-wing on-call astrophysicist to write up an explanation for y’all from the horse’s mouth.
You might even learn something.
But then, you guys didn’t even like hearing about dogs yesterday. And I don’t have time for people who don’t have time for talking about dogs.*
*This is me making a joke.
I felt SO FUCKING betrayed when I found out wormholes were hypothetical. The media and celebrity scientists and te science channels were talking about it like it was a fact.
DeleteThey should put up disclaimers about the theoretical stuff and the hypotheses. FFS. 🖤
Points his finger...
ReplyDeleteOmfg conspiracy theorists believe every insane theory or do you pick and choose? Is the earth flat too? I bet we never went to the moon?( we as a species are doomed). Anyways #rip to a beautiful humorous mind and a transcendent soul.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't buy the Hawking one if the photo evidence wasn't so compelling. It just isn't the same human being between 1980 and 1990. The thing about it is that I can't figure out a "why", which is almost always money.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I believe that we went to the moon. It was cheaper to actually go and film it there than it would have been to fake it. I don't doubt (or affirmatively believe -- pure agnostic) that Kubrick was asked to film fake footage as a backup, but the footage we have now is real.
Remember that a lot of "conspiracies" turn out to be true 50-100 years later. The KGB really did infiltrate Hollywood and the Department of State. When the USSR fell and they released the files, it was all there (Project Verona). MK ULTRA was a real program. The Gulf of Tonkin really was a false flag (as is now admitted.) The CIA really did buy off journalists (Project Mockingbird.) James Wilkes Booth did not act alone. The Dali Llama and Gloria Steinem really were (are?) CIA assets.
Stephen: Hawking Microsoft Products
ReplyDeleteI also never understood why he used that grating, disjointed, robotic voice even though the tech vastly improved.
His gimmick. Widely recognizable.
DeleteNo one mentioned the electric universe or plasma cosmology yet
You're not allowed to take those seriously because they may invalidate the big bang
He who writes the grants and all that
Shouldn't ideas be explored and stand on their own merits?
"No. Don't bother, Copernicus, you're wasting your time. Hey everybody, Copernicus is wasting his time and you should ignore him!"
There's some good stories out there. Not many are new.
Here, @Geel let me fix that for you:
Delete“No. Don’t bother, Dr. Dee, you’re wasting your time. Hey everybody, John Dee is wasting his time and we should ignore him!”
Indeed, many good stories are quite old.
+1 anyone who thinks it doesn't happen in the present day isn't paying attention
Delete@Geel, I’m sure it does happen these days.
DeleteBut I’m also pretty sure it happens with evidence-based research, not conclusion-based research. Why? Because CB research has confirmation bias built in and that will always make it suspect.
Even the CB ideas that have turned out to be true (Educated hunches) had to then be examined with evidence-based research by people who understand the difference between evidence, coincidence; and proximity.
John Dee’s alchemy is still wrong, even though Queen Elizabeth I was a strong and educated supporter who threw a lot of money into his research.
And yes, I am agreeing with you here, just maybe thinking of different examples than you might be.
Science IS about keeping an open mind. But also about evaluating the quality, consistency, and reliability of evidence.
The problem with science is observation.
DeleteThere are no absolutes outside of previously "observed" patterns.
Observation is tied to perception.
Perception is relative. Individualistic. Subjective
Therefore. Nothing can ever be ABSOLUTELY proven or DISPROVEN scientifically. Even John Dee'S alchemy.
We all are faith based beings. We just differ on what is "A priori"
Even the idea that science is "approaching" truth is logically invalid.
Consciousness is fucking confusing
QUALITY, CONSISTENCY, AND RELIABILITY. Conceptions based on individual experience and depend on personal feelings
"There is no God." - Stephen Hawking
ReplyDelete"There is no Stephen Hawking." - God
Well, not anymore anyway.
DeleteRIP. He must be so smug about dying on Pi Day.
ReplyDeleteI found out about his death right after boarding off my plane from Bali...
I hope he believed in God in the end😇
ReplyDeleteWhen did CDAN become the online meeting place for the tinfoil hat society??
ReplyDeleteWhen did CDAN become the online meeting place for the tinfoil hat society??
ReplyDeletePopular media platforms are banning tons of people, censoring posts, creating echo chambers, shadowbanning etc. It's an ideological war against "wrongthinkers"
This is leading to mass migration to places that still allow freedom of expression.
Blame Youtube, Twitter, & Facebook for these dirty "tinfoil Hat" wearing refugees.
You once had a lily-white, unified society. Now outsiders are coming in from their now-destabilized homes.
So yeah. It's the online equivalent of Forced Mass Migration.
Dare I say....build a Firewall! ;)
Send more tin foil
ReplyDeleteI bit. I looked up Phelps link and uh... I am sort of freaked out now. Never heard the Fauxking theory before but uh...I don't know what to think.
ReplyDeleteHonestly. It does not look like the same person.
Now I can't sleep. Criminy.
Whenever you see ANYONE paraded on the magazine covers, and hyped in mass media, you are seeing either a hollow joke, or a total tool of they power system.
ReplyDeleteNye and Tyson are about as much "scientists" as I am. These are PR hacks people. Please wake up....
The female mind is not equal to the male mind, that is just fact. The male mind doesnt have 5 out of every 28 days where it works like an old tube tv, needing a smack in the side to clear out the snow. Blame estrogen.
ReplyDelete@Han Niam said...
ReplyDeleteOur friend @plot has a better grasp of science than you do. Real science is evidence-based, not conclusion-based.
No. He doesn't. He doesn't accept the basic premises you outline, and he most importantly denies the evidence.
The evidence for general intelligence (g) is overwhelming in psychometry. It is one of the best studied and most reproducible factors in nature. It is on the level of height and weight of humans in how much it has been studied.
Some things in it are simply measured fact, on the same level of "a pint of water weighs one pound at sea level on earth." There are lots of theories on the why, but the facts remain facts.
g is highly heritable. That is why people like plot deny it. That is why psychometry doesn't get any press. That's why the government wants to legislate it out of society. It is like height -- you are born with a certain potential you got from your parents, and you get what you get (barring malnutrition/trauma/illness, which might get you even less.)
We know what the distributions are. Tests like ASVAB, SAT, GRE, etc, are all so heavily g loaded that they are interchangeable with IQ tests. We have millions of results from these tests, all demographically cataloged.
Men have a different distribution than women. (That's biological sex -- psychometry doesn't care how you "identify".) Different races have different distributions. (Bonus fact: European white isn't on top.) The Flynn effect gives industrialized societies a boost -- for a while, and then it stops. Some people are exceptions to their demographic, just like how there are tall Chinese men in the NBA (which doesn't mean that europeans aren't taller than chinese.)
"Men have a different distribution than women."
ReplyDeleteThe basis of which cannot be determined. Genetic or social, no one at this point knows. In fact, if the human male versus female intelligence paradigm were consistent, it would exhibit in all animals or at least mammals, or at least primates. It does not.
We have learned, as scientifically interested folks, that our parameters for intelligence are flawed, over and over again. We try to shake our social preconceptions but it is extraordinarily difficult.
@Count Jerkula
"The male mind doesnt have 5 out of every 28 days where it works like an old tube tv"
Some would say that those 5 days, or just before, are moments of clarity when all the frustrations of living with a male interloper are the most glaring. ;P
@Annski
Interesting syntax you've got there. What's your first language?
Plot: Just before, during the 3 days of horny? The orgasms bring the clarity. It is the calm before the storm and why vibes were recommended to treat Hysteria.
DeleteI am kinda sad that my comment only elicited a valid response. Gettin harder and harder to incite people here.
The basis of which cannot be determined. Genetic or social, no one at this point knows.
ReplyDeleteIt's genetic. Separated twin studies have proven it.
In fact, if the human male versus female intelligence paradigm were consistent, it would exhibit in all animals or at least mammals, or at least primates. It does not.
It does. Stop lying about the evidence, science denier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_in_non-humans
We have learned, as scientifically interested folks, that our parameters for intelligence are flawed, over and over again.
No, we have learned the opposite. Our parameters are very precise, and they always end up being based on g. Anything else is psuedoscience malarky from someone who isn't a psychometrist.
From your own link there mate -
ReplyDelete"Most measures of g in humans, including most IQ tests, rely heavily on language and verbal ability, and so they cannot be directly applied to non-human animals"
"A 2012 study identifying individual chimpanzees that consistently performed highly on cognitive tasks found clusters of abilities instead of a general factor of intelligence"
This G Factor of yours was at the height of popularity in the early 1900s and now only applicable when paired down to very few correlations for intelligence. But if you want to dwell in the same era as Phrenology and Seances, that's up to you.
Arguing with plot is like arguing with Charlie:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoSjtNRpSos
Okay, so don't respond to my post. Does that mean you can't?
ReplyDeleteCome on. Jordan Peterson must have all the answers there.
Right, you don't believe in psychology, either. It was at the height of popularity in the early 1900s.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean psychiatry?
ReplyDeletePsychology is actually a GREAT example of the ever changing definitions and theories it asserts based on the prevailing culture.
Q.E.D. Science denier.
ReplyDeleteAh! I see, you don't know the difference between hard and soft sciences.
ReplyDeleteJordan Peterson didn't make that clear to you?
Is that where you make your choices on what to deny, science denier?
ReplyDeletePhelps I'm denying YOU, not science.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to explain yourself rather than getting all salty there, perhaps that would not be the case. I'd happily be contradicted and change if you can posit something of substance that can withstand scrutiny.
rather than getting all salty
ReplyDeleteRule 3: SJWs always project.
Everyone reading that comprehends English has read the substance. I'm just poking you now so we can all keep laughing at you.
So you imagine yourself as a "we"?
ReplyDeleteThe collective you has not been able to state, your collective self, anything beyond a copied google search.
Come on, oh bright boys, write your own justifications for the old school intelligence theories. If it's airtight, it shouldn't be difficult for you all.
I'm sorry that you don't get along with other people. That's not my problem. The justifications for current intelligence theories are peer reviewed papers, which you refer to as "copied google search."
ReplyDeleteLike science deniers always do.
@phelps
DeleteAh, but what people who are really up on science know is that the horizon is constantly shifting along with our understanding.
Here’s a neat text plus test for basic understanding of the text from a Psych 101 class at Carnegie Melon U, with scholarly citations, explaining the basics of our growing understanding of the now-more rejected hypothesis that some genetic difference makes men occupy a greater distribution on the high end of the intelligence spectrum. Low end, yes. High end, no. The text, being 101, should be accessible to the average CDAN reading comprehension.
See, its not necessarily google searches that are questionable. It’s whether the poster understands how to sift them to find a credible source.
I’m with @plot on this one. Both before and after reading the current scientific consensus and doing some light reading over at PubMed.
https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=df3e72a90a0001dc6e7d67f505380615