( https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/06/08/richard-feynman-caltech-cargo-cult-science/ )

Cargo Cult Science - 1974 by Richard P. Feynman
Commencement speech at The California Institute of Technology

The speech is important and readable. It explains the difference between mimicking the language and process of science compared to the real thing. It explains what "cargo cult" means applied to our present lives. [edited excerpts]

=== ===
I often talked to the people in the psychology department at Cornell. One of the students wanted to do an experiment. Others had found that under certain circumstances X, rats did something A. If she changed the circumstances to Y, would they still do A?

I explained that she should first repeat the experiment of the other person. Create condition X to see if she would also get result A. Then change to Y and see if A changed. She would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She proposed this to her professor. He replied no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947. It seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

[Later, Feynman tells about the studies done by Mr. Young which determined how perceptive rats really are when trying to test their behavior]

Young did an A-number-one experiment from a scientific standpoint. His research made maze running experiments sensible, because it uncovered the clues that the rat is really using, not what you think it's using. And that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or of being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young.

His papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
=== ===

What is the similarity between our government and some superstitious Pacific islanders during World War II?
( easyopinions dot blogspot dot com/2009/03/cargo-cult-economics.html
Cargo Cult Economics

This is interesting to me. I'm at a school with about 18% African American students. This sub-group of students under-performs the school as a whole. Since African American students sit right alongside other students with the same teacher and the same information, but are not as successful so our administration sought answers. Our administration blamed the difference on our expectations and told us that there would be no arguing. If we wanted to talk about it, we could do so at another time.

I met with administration with a study in hand that could go a long way towards explaining some differences. It compared book ownership between Aftican Americans and Anglos. The highest quartile of African American families have an equal number of books as the lowest quartile of Anglo families. This cultural difference could have far-reaching ramifications. Children who don't read don't develop the same vocabulary and sentence structure as those who do read. Thus, they start school behind and may never catch up. To one administrators credit, she surveyed a few students to find out the number of books at home and was surprised to find homes that are book deprived. The first student that she queried knew immediately how many books they had - 5 because she had 5 books and was the only family member any books at all. I can't imagine that she grew up in a literature-rich environment.

Many of my students (middle school) struggle to understand what I'm saying when I am being conversational never mind the academic content. My preschool children had deeper conversations with me. Our typical student reads in a third grade level with as many non-readers as grade level readers.

College classes were interesting to say the least. We took classes meant to counteract racism and stereotypes. Ironically, it taught me those very things. I was taught that all people are really the same inside. We didn't hang around people that said cheap Jew, acting like wild Indians, or the "n" word. In college we were taught that more than 50% of Hispanic families had sexual abuse and incest and African American students were loud and wouldn't learn from you unless they liked you. We also learned that all white peopke are racist. I'm glad I went to school so I could learn all that!

Ummm, let's see: our government pours boatloads of money into such "science", and poor Pacific islanders do not?

I'm actually surprised that the last iteration of the DSM didn't describe conservatism and/or libertarianism as mental illnesses.

I R A, give them a little time, first up is pass laws to make any mental illness in family grounds for no guns allowed. Then they will declare those and others like wanting a gun to be mental illnesses.

Ars Technica has an interesting review of a paper that shows poverty affects IQ tests only in the US.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/poverty-stunts-iq-in-the-us-but-not-in-other-developed-countries/

I know that the commenters over there aren't all sociologists (they are mostly in IT). But it shows the same level of group think and ideological blinders. Honestly, even the abstract from the paper does too.

From what I gather the paper clearly shows there is no causal link between poverty and IQ. And then they go on to try and explain why there is a causal link and none of their findings are true.

Lefty Bias In Social Psychology

The bulk of academia is just ripe with lefty bias. That's one reason so many non-lefty people in college flock to the so-called "Hard" sciences that have actual right and wrong answers.

Interesting article, Ben. The researchers base their interpretation of the findings and their conclusions on the presumption that the Scar-Rowe hypothesis is a fact (i.e. genetic influences on intelligence and academic achievement are suppressed under conditions of socioeconomic privation and more fully realized under conditions of socioeconomic advantage)

The one possible variable that they cannot allow to even fleetingly cross their minds, because even thinking it would make them pariahs of the PC establishment that provides their paychecks, is race.

In most other countries such studies comparing the poor to the not-poor would be comparing groups mostly similar in race. In the U.S. they would be comparing mostly African Americans and Hispanics to mostly Whites and Asians. That is something they must never, never, never even notice, let alone actually consider.

The delusional thinking and denial is even worse with the issue of affirmative action admissions to elite colleges and universities. There they openly admit that they're unable to find proportionate numbers African Americans whose academic qualifications are competitive with Whites and Asians, and they even make substantial race-based adjustments and accommodations to even out the numbers. But they would crucify anyone who even asked if there might be a correlation between intelligence or academic potential and ethnicity or race.

They'll never even begin to solve the problems of poverty because of the wall of separation between close-minded, progressive, politically correct ideology and objective reality.

Honestly Ken I don't buy the race answer. For me it comes down to values. European nations are fairly uniform. Same race as you note, but also same culture and values. The US is different. There are huge variations in culture/religion/values across the US.

Values have a huge impact on economic success. If you don't show up for work because you didn't feel like showing up you probably won't get far. The same is true for education. The same is also true for wealth. In the end values determine behavior.

I accept there is a strong correlation between IQ, income, and race. But there is also a strong correlation between race and values. In my opinion it all stems from those values.

The wealth correlation (or lack there of) is key for me. There is close to nil correlation between IQ and wealth. In fact being in the top of your class works against you. But there is a strong correlation between wealth and ancestry. Descendants of Scots are the most likely to become millionaires in the US. Not whites or any other generic term. People who have ancestors that emigrated from Scotland. Next most likely are Russians. The key feature you see in US millionaires is an ancestral history of government enforced privation. The habits and values required to survive that privation are the same ones needed to build great wealth.

I see the same dynamic with education. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. But at that point I'm a cultural imperialist for noting some value systems are superior to others.

"I met with administration with a study in hand that could go a long way towards explaining some differences. It compared book ownership between Aftican Americans and Anglos. The highest quartile of African American families have an equal number of books as the lowest quartile of Anglo families. This cultural difference could have far-reaching ramifications. Children who don't read don't develop the same vocabulary and sentence structure as those who do read. Thus, they start school behind and may never catch up. To one administrators credit, she surveyed a few students to find out the number of books at home and was surprised to find homes that are book deprived. The first student that she queried knew immediately how many books they had - 5 because she had 5 books and was the only family member any books at all. I can't imagine that she grew up in a literature-rich environment."

Doing a survey about how many *books* are in the home, is like doing a survey about how many tennis rackets or basketballs are in a home, and relating it to interest in athletics.

Guess what comes first?

You have an undiagnosed causation assumption here that doesn't pass any kind of scientific standard.

First you have to have the interest in reading and then the books, magazines, newspapers, and yes pixels follow.

Want to know how to increase reading and literacy? Get rid of the fucking TV, and the cell phones, and have enough parental discipline in the home to make sure your kids are at home every evening, with their feet planted under the dinner table.

The Asians tend to be really really good at this......

Even then, there are many children, black, white, Hispanic or Asian who for cultural or intellectual reasons will not have much interest in reading or academic pursuits.

I.R.A.: "I'm actually surprised that the last iteration of the DSM didn't describe conservatism and/or libertarianism as mental illnesses."

Joe j: "...first up is pass laws to make any mental illness in family grounds for no guns allowed. Then they will declare those and others like wanting a gun to be mental illnesses."

This may not be officially defined in references, literature or law, but it's already a reality in practice, and has been for the past couple of decades.

Progressive, politically correct social justice warriors and zealots are over represented in the mental health care professions. Objective thinking or recognizing and setting aside their own biases is not their forte.

Of course there are good reasons to restrict a seriously mentally ill person's access to guns. But some politically correct clinical therapists, counselors, case managers and psychologists have no qualm about consciously incorporating their own progressive/liberal biases and PC beliefs into their patient assessments, judgments, treatment plans, interventions, progress notes and discharge plans. Access to guns is evaluated and documented in every discharge plan.

For example, adolescent patients who are home schooled are almost automatically suspected of being abused, and often reported to CPS based on nothing more than being home schooled. To many PC warriors home school = abuse (educational neglect) Christian patients who read the Bible, pray or openly express religious beliefs, the way many religious people do during a crisis, are often labelled with terms like "religiosity", "religiously preoccupied", or "religious delusions".

I've never once seen such terms applied to practicing Muslims or to Native Americans. There is something like a special PC deference for Native American and Muslim cultures (though not necessarily for the individual patients) PC staff will often object to allowing Christian patients deemed to be "religiously preoccupied" to have visits from their pastors, chaplains, priests or mentors. But they never object to Muslims being visited by imams or Muslim counselors, or to Native Americans being visited by shamans or witch doctors.

Ben: "There is close to nil correlation between IQ and wealth... For me it comes down to values."

Values vs IQ. In my opinion, either one can make or break you. When it comes to wealth, the correlation to IQ may not be as great as to values if we're talking about a difference in IQ of 110 vs 130. But IQ might carry a lot more weight if we're comparing 85 to 105.

Ben: "I accept there is a strong correlation between IQ, income, and race. But there is also a strong correlation between race and values. In my opinion it all stems from those values."

That may be right. I certainly believe that a person can end up in poverty, in spite of high intelligence, because of low values. I also think a person with low intelligence is more likely to be poor even with high values (Forest Gump notwithstanding)

Ben: "In the end values determine behavior."

I believe that neurophysiology determines values, behavior and IQ, and that a significant deficiency of one or more of those, because of some anomaly or characteristic of the neurophysiology, genetic or otherwise, can cause poverty.

As far as a correlation between intelligence and race, we'll probably never know, because even suggesting that any scientific inquiry be made is politically taboo. You'd think that if the liberal-progressive establishment is so sure that there's no such correlation they'd be eager to conduct the research and prove it once and for all. They seem like they're afraid they'll find out something they don't want to know.

As far as a correlation between intelligence and race, we'll probably never know, because even suggesting that any scientific inquiry be made is politically taboo. You'd think that if the liberal-progressive establishment is so sure that there's no such correlation they'd be eager to conduct the research and prove it once and for all. They seem like they're afraid they'll find out something they don't want to know.

Posted by: Ken R at December 24, 2015 12:21 AM

It has already been done. Ages ago. And like mankinds extremely close genetic relationship to Chimpanzees, it was hushed up for political reasons.

When they find links between IQ and race it confirms that IQ tests have a racial bias because if the test was not biased, every race would be equally represented.

We have been told that we are under-diagnosing Anglo students with learning and intellectual disabilities while over-diagnosing African Anerican students because the numbers don't match the populations.

I personally attribute it to culture and values: i.e. To dearth of books (actually the interest in books and reading) and different ways of interacting with children (talking at them such as telling them what to do rather than talking with them such as asking them what they think.)

I understand that there is also a strong link between the ability to get a deferred reward and success. My children and their friends could take turns and play board games at a preschool age. I learned that I often have to teach impoverished middle school kids how to decide who goes first and to take turns. At first, I had to hover over students and prevent fights even when just two kids were playing. They had to learn to wait that minute. I can't imagine these impatient students doing well in a long test.

"Values vs IQ. In my opinion, either one can make or break you. When it comes to wealth, the correlation to IQ may not be as great as to values if we're talking about a difference in IQ of 110 vs 130. But IQ might carry a lot more weight if we're comparing 85 to 105."

I'm afraid you are wrong here Ken. The grades most likely to become millionaires is C up to B-. Getting straight As in school really works against you. The vast majority of millionaires in the US are self made. And a major unifying theme is a history of privation. The 'I was unemployable so I made a job' story is very common. People with high IQ and high grades typically have little trouble finding and keeping a job. They then end up with little motivation to risk things with entrepreneurship. They also have little reason to save since more money will always be there. So they often lack the capital to start a business.

There are a lot of myths about millionaires out there. Almost anything you see on TV is false. Lawyers and accountants are some of the least likely to join the millionaire club. Auctioneers are the most likely.

When talking race and values America is an odd place and rapidly changing place. Just looking at single parent rates by race over a few decades will be a values shocker. Also I recommend Thomas sowell talks on the subject and on success differences between just arrived Africans and African Americans, which shows the worst racism isn't white on black but black on black, ala 'don't read/study that's acting white'

Fred Reed: Maybe Some Things Aren't Somebody Else's Fault

"On every known test of intellectual capacity, blacks score about a standard deviation below whites. While they can't be blamed for this, as neither can whites, in a technoindustrial society those fifteen IQ points are a killer, absolute death. The difference is altogether enough to account for the inability of blacks to progress despite almost frantic efforts by whites to jump-start them."

Note that this is not all blacks, as the slave trade didn't bring America representatives of every part of Africa, but what we have here is called a root problem.

And until we start acting on individuals, and discard the idea of one-size-fits-all entitlement programs, the problem will NOT go away.

"I'm afraid you are wrong here Ken. The grades most likely to become millionaires is C up to B-. Getting straight As in school really works against you."

Apples to oranges. Grades don't correspond very well to IQ.

Pretending that they do is another progressive trick to try and disguise real differences In ability.

While IQ alone is a poor measure of future success, grades are even worse.

Hope you are not meaning to imply that because someone like Bill Gates dropped out of college that He is only of average intelligence.

"When they find links between IQ and race it confirms that IQ tests have a racial bias because if the test was not biased, every race would be equally represented."

It has long been known that Asians on average score one standard deviation above Caucasians on those same IQ tests.

So is the selection criteria for NBA players racially biased?

Race is a tricky concept at best. And every legitimate study of intelligence has concluded that it has a large genetic component,

Why is it, that no one tries to fudge the data on the significant racial advantage blacks have in the NBA?

Maybe because that data conforms to the narrative?

The fundamental problem is that we are using the word "science" to describe these activities, when in fact it is no such thing. "Guesswork" would be a better descriptor, especially as it relates to Psychology. And if there is a greater concentration of socialists than in Sociology (outside the Politburo), I haven't seen it.

Isab,

Do you have something to refute what I said? Both IQ and grades are not significantly correlated with wealth. What correlation there is shows that people in the middle of the curve have a much higher chance of building great wealth than those at either end of the curve. People with very high grades are very unlikely to become millionaires. People with very high IQ scores are equally unlikely to become millionaires. Are there exceptions, yes. But one or two events does not disprove anything I said.

Ben: "I'm afraid you are wrong here Ken. The grades most likely to become millionaires is C up to B-. Getting straight As in school really works against you."

Though IQ correlates with academic performance, I think grades also reflect a student's interest and motivation. IQ is more a measure of ability. The higher a student's IQ, the easier it is for him to score higher grades (Of course if he has no motivation to do so, he won't) If someone doesn't have enough IQ he won't score high grades no matter how much effort he makes (assuming that the grading is objective)

As far as income, higher IQ corresponds with better outcomes in pretty much all occupations. However, as IQ increases the marginal value of higher IQ decreases. Having enough IQ is very important, but beyond a certain level, having significantly higher IQ won't get you that much more.

For occupations with a high level of qualifications - medicine, research, management, engineering - a low IQ is pretty much a barrier. For low-skilled jobs that require manual strength, speed, coordination, stamina, IQ is less important but still makes a measurable difference.

So what I said above: "When it comes to wealth, the correlation to IQ may not be as great as to values if we're talking about a difference in IQ of 110 vs 130. But IQ might carry a lot more weight if we're comparing 85 to 105" is exactly right.

A population with a median IQ of 85 will have a lot less success academically and economically than a population with a median IQ of 110, assuming similar values and motivation. As far as academic and economic ability, an IQ of 100 compared to 85 will make a much greater difference than an IQ of 125 compared to 110.

Ben: "People with very high grades are very unlikely to become millionaires. People with very high IQ scores are equally unlikely to become millionaires. Are there exceptions, yes. But one or two events does not disprove anything I said."

Ben, the millionaires and billionaires you're talking about are the rare exceptions, and the few of them that there are don't disprove anything I've said.

Ken,

You are still wrong. The data shows it. There is a good correlation between income and IQ to a point. But there is no correlation between income and wealth. A high IQ and even high grades lead to high valued labor and hence high income. But you don't become wealthy by selling your labor. A different skill set is required.

Similarly the point where income and IQ no longer correlate is when people make more of their income from assets instead of from labor. As I said, lawyers and accountants (high value labor) don't become millionaires and above. Auctioneers do. The vast majority of millionaires don't have high IQs. A person with an IQ of 90 has a much higher chance of becoming substantially wealthy than a person with an IQ of 120. And yes, that does account for the larger number of people with an IQ of 90. The person with an IQ of 90 most likely has a much lower paying job than the person with an IQ 120, but as I said income and wealth are not correlated.

The miraculous thing about money is no matter how much you make you can still spend it all. All those professions you mentioned benefiting from a high IQ (medicine, research, management, engineering) are very unlikely to become wealthy. You actually end up with a higher percentage of doctors, engineers, and lawyers living paycheck to paycheck than you do bus drivers.

"You are still wrong. The data shows it. There is a good correlation between income and IQ to a point. But there is no correlation between income and wealth. A high IQ and even high grades lead to high valued labor and hence high income. But you don't become wealthy by selling your labor. A different skill set is required."

I agree with Ken (still). The data set on billionaires is too small for any meaningful correlations with either IQ or grades.

On the other hand millionaires are now a dime a dozen, with inflation and all.
If one of your ancestors bought the right kind of business and kept it, or you happened to be in on the initial IPO of Microsoft, you too could be a millionaire on paper. I was, before 2008.
Several of my relatives are. Money makes more money, if you are a halfway decent manager, (or lucky)

I have four cousins who are millionaires. One inherited a ranch. One was a banker. One inherited/owned a restaurant, and the forth was an executive with a tech company.
Not anymore.....:-). N

Then you are wrong with Ken Isab. You admit the dataset on millionaires is large enough to show correlation if one exists. Guess what, it doesn't. I applaud you and your family for making it into the club (for a while for some). You fall into the less than 20% of millionaires who had a significant inheritance.

Then you are wrong with Ken Isab. You admit the dataset on millionaires is large enough to show correlation if one exists. Guess what, it doesn't. I applaud you and your family for making it into the club (for a while for some). You fall into the less than 20% of millionaires who had a significant inheritance.

Posted by: Ben at December 25, 2015 8:38 AM
Citation?
Also,
Define *significant inheritance *

The game has changed a lot in the last fifty years Ben. There is no longer any straight up correlation between ambition and wealth. Instead, it is now mostly about who has enough political clout to be allowed to keep their money.

My cousin the banker quickly sold out to a large banking firm when the cost of FDIC insurance for his small solvent banking chain went from 35k a year in 2007 to over a million dollars in 2009.

Insider trading, graft and regulatory capture. have so changed the game and the huge disparity in taxes and cost of living between states. have made one million dollars in assets a very poor indicator of quality of life or intelligence or industry.

If I were to take a guess I would say that the majority of your stats seem straight out of some Dated Economic cheerleading book like the Millionaire Next Door.
So from now on, please provide a citation to your data. I frankly don't believe it...

Ben: "A person with an IQ of 90 has a much higher chance of becoming substantially wealthy than a person with an IQ of 120."

Are you trying to convince me that some researcher somewhere recruited enough millionaires and billionaires, gave them IQ tests, and came up with what you're saying?

Sorry, not buying it.

Ok Isab. Please post your citations as well. Yes I was mostly quoting from Stanley's work. The guy doesn't understand what he is talking about but his stats are accurate. And they certainly aren't from 50 years ago.

You were most accurate when you said "Money makes more money, if you are a halfway decent manager"

Key being 'a halfway decent manager'. You don't have to be exceptional. Anyone with a basic education and half a brain is capable of building wealth. The key is to live beneath your means and take that money to make more money. But most people don't chose to do that. It just isn't common human nature.

From the census, median net worth excluding the home is more or less stable around $15k. Regional variations largely match regional cost of living. The change in this number from 1980 to today largely matches inflation. The same is true for savings at retirement. The vast majority of people in the US see no reason to save more than 4-5 months of income.

"Define *significant inheritance *"
$800K and up.

Now please provide citations to refute. And no, your personal experiences don't count. As you say "millionaires are now a dime a dozen". At 7.1 million members (ny post) one or two you know don't make much of a dent.

This is not complicated. Stereotypes are the truest things in the world. All other philosophies are based on imagination and sentiment. Only stereotypes are based on actual observation.

Now please provide citations to refute. And no, your personal experiences don't count. As you say "millionaires are now a dime a dozen". At 7.1 million members (ny post) one or two you know don't make much of a dent.

Posted by: Ben at December 25, 2015 6:25 PM

Citations are not needed to refute. They are only required to support an assertion.

My claim is that your assertions about millionaires are untrue.

You won't admit that you took self reported data from a twenty year old book and tried to use it to substantiate claims about intellectual and educational averages of millionaires after the longest running bull market in history.

If you can do the math, figure out how much even a 200k inheritance will help someone who didn't spend their capital. If you used it to buy a reasonable house, and then put the money into good long term investments, you can be quite easy to end up with a million dollars in assets. Also calculate in that prudent and intelligent people tend to raise prudent intelligent children.

For everyone I know who started out with a decent job and small inheritance, and turned it into a million in assets, I know five more, who inherited a million or more, and blew it all on a lifestyle they could not maintain.

There are times and markets where inflation has so eaten the value of stocks and bonds, that the prudent investment becomes real property. We made that shift in 2009. Did you?

So, you use 5 people you know to try and refute a variety of sources (a book you don't like, the us census, and a newspaper) on a population of millions?

You claim IQ and wealth are correlated, but provide absolutely no proof other than 'Isab knows stuff, damn it!'

Excuse me for saying you haven't a clue. Your claim that "There is no longer any straight up correlation between ambition and wealth." shows you don't know what you are talking about. There never was much correlation between ambition and wealth. If you have proof otherwise please cite it.

"prudent and intelligent people tend to raise prudent intelligent children" That's nice and all. Care to provide any proof that this matters in the context of wealth. After all your next section notices "For everyone I know who started out with a decent job and small inheritance, and turned it into a million in assets, I know five more, who inherited a million or more, and blew it all on a lifestyle they could not maintain." Which matches everything I've said.

"We made that shift in 2009. Did you?" Naw, I chose to increase my invested assets by ~20%/year in the stock market. Real estate around here hasn't increased since 2000. (Seriously? A house you live in is not an investment.)

Ken,

You don't have to buy anything. But at this point if you make a claim you need to provide sources to verify the accuracy of your claim (per Isab).

If you want to claim there is a correlation between IQ and wealth, you need to provide proof of that. Absent proof there is no verified correlation.

Also note, I am talking about wealth not income. The two are not the same.

Ken,

You brought up earlier that IQ has a saturable effect. I agree with you 100%. If you are only going to be a janitor and push a broom it doesn't matter if you are Einstein or count to potato kid. You still push that broom the same. If you are going into law, engineering, brain surgery, ... it definitely makes a different. There is no way potato kid can compete. The key you are missing is wealth building has a very low IQ saturation point. Can you read and write, do basic arithmetic, and use excel. That's it. You've peaked. I agree, potato kid will probably never be a millionaire. But plenty of high school drop outs have all the smarts they need (in my opinion).

For someone else who both agrees and disagrees with me (he puts the IQ saturation point a bit higher):
http://www.ecphorizer.com/EPS/site_page.php?page=12&issue=6

Searching for the line 'If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?' will find you numerous stories on the less intelligent getting rich and the geniuses losing their shirts. As well as associated graphs.

Now, as to why so few with the same capabilities generate large wealth, that is more of an Amy question. Personally I think that saving prodigiously is evolutionarily deselected. If you take the number of millionaire families in the us (~7mil or 5%) and remove primary house equity you end up with only 3mil families or roughly 2% of the population. This is a fairly stable percentage over time. Add in that the median savings is also stable over time it looks to me like there is basic human nature and a few percent of weirdos due to environmental factors.