RN: Many decades (even a century) ago, serious
neurophysiologists were very busy measuring
"chronaxie" and "rheobase" for a large
number of different kinds of excitable tissue. Who is
those ideas today? Who even knows what they
GS: Also consider that the conceptual morass that
constitutes non-behavioral psychology may be of
exactly the same form. The failure of non-
behavioristic psychology to encourage and develop
sound conceptual analyses constitutes, IMO,
everything that is wrong with behavioral
neurobiology. My impression is that behavioral
neurobiologists have no sense of the history of
science. They are likely to poke fun at abanoned
concepts, but they do not appreciate that what they
have inherited from cognitive "science" may be made
of just so much phlogiston.
"Richard Norman" <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:TY%_6.6306$8O2.104566 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> "Andrew T. Austin." <aausti13 at NOSPAMford.com> wrote in message
> news:9hhhp2$fkn4 at eccws12.dearborn.ford.com...> >
> > jim horsman <jhorsman at jovanet.com> wrote in message
> > news:%lT_6.315$Y2.556608 at newt.tstonramp.com...> > > i am looking for a reference that has estimated the following equation
> > > child's iq= a*mom's iq +b* dad's iq
> > > a related problem
> > > suppose a kid has an iq of 130, what is the distribution of his mom's
> > > seems like an interesting and important question.
> > >
> > > any name or citation would be appreciated.
> > >
> > .....and which measuring tool would you be using to arrive at an
> > of IQ?
>> And what does IQ really mean? Is it something worthwhile to
>> Many decades (even a century) ago, serious neurophysiologists
> were very busy measuring "chronaxie" and "rheobase" for a large
> number of different kinds of excitable tissue. Who is interested in
> those ideas today? Who even knows what they mean?