/lit/ - Literature

>>16067009
Aaron clarey is a boomer who thinks fighting for israel is good

No. IQ is not an accurate predictor for intelligence, although it's a good predictor of being a midwit, as only they care about IQ.

>>16067037
>t. low iq and mad

>>16067037
cope

>>16067037
Cope

>>16067663
retard
>>16067674
retard

>>16067037
Its not a good indicator of very smart people, as there are many ways to be very smart, all of which result in different IQ scores. Being a retard like you however, is only done one way, and that is through being incompetant and bad at everything.

>>16067009
>>16067036
>>16067045
>>16067663
>>16067674
Taleb BTFO IQ.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>16067690
IQ is a fraud. It cannot be called science.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>16067037
Aww, did your post modernist artistic sensibilities not get you any extra points on an iq test?
The only people so vehemently opposed to intelligence being measurable are those who’s intelligence does not measure exceptionally but feels like it should.

>>16067694
>>16067714
>>16067690
Taleb is just a charlatan either ignorant of statistics or intentionally lying. He assumes the very argument he’s trying to make. Highly correlated activities are apparently, in his words, useless traits for losers. Meanwhile the things he values should be part of intelligence and don’t correlate well. He generally seems to be completely unaware of anything but linear association and unaware of linearization. He doesn’t even seem to understand the basic fundamentals of statistics and the implications of the use of Gaussian measures. There’s a crap load of mistakes here but that a general overview of what he’s usually doing.

>>16067720
Intelligence quite literally can't be measured. Every measurement that claims to measure something extra physical like IQ is a fraud. IQ tests only measure the property of IQ, not the property of intelligence. And no, you cannot use IQ to prove that IQ measures intelligence because that would be circular.
>>16067839
What a load of nonsense. Read this before you go inventing a new form of mathematics.
https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Fooled_by_Correlation_Common_Misinterpretations_in_Social_Science_

>>16067839
you cant post statistics in mass media unless they fail those tests. he is only stating what will result in paying for his house

>>16067714
Le meme Arab dead lifter. Hey asshole NICE FORM BALD BITCH

>>16067927
The reason people think IQ measures(or correlates with) intelligence is because a group with high average IQ will also generally be good at things like math, physics, chess, as well as other disciplines like law. It correlates with ability in a bunch of activities that are generally thought to require intelligence is the point.

It's far from perfect, and there is clearly more to the story than just IQ.

>>16067984
holy fuck.. how will taleb ever recover

>>16067998
I fear le Arab meme mans intellect... I do not fear his old body or his gay mixed grip

>>16067009
Is this the book all low IQ retards flock to?

>>16067037
Based

>>16067045
>>16067663
>>16067674
>>16067690
>>16067720
Cringe

>>16067009
Me on the left

>>16067927
No thank you. I spent enough time looking at his IQ page to know he’s not worth listening to. Again, he’s not even aware of the basic fundamentals of statistics, citing a non-issue, non existent incompatibility with a Gaussian measure and a non-gaussian distributed phenomenon. I say this with zero exaggeration for dramatic effect, it is literally intro to statistics level knowledge that he’s missing. Given the type of tricks he’s trying to pull, I can only assume he’s doing this purposely but I’m not sure which is worse. I don’t care too much either. What’s really interesting is how many times I’ve seen this cited here by people completely unable to articulate the points he’s actually making. You seem to be content with being able to link something supposedly proving your point despite being unable to prove it yourself. It’s almost as if you people don’t REALLY care if it’s true, only that it agrees with you.

>>16067997
Just because IQ can rank people in an order (which is a point of contention anyways because there is so much statistical fraud here as Taleb showed) proves nothing. I can rank people by surnames or telephone numbers; what does this prove? Nothing. In other words, ranking people in an order doesn't prove that IQ actually measures something. So you still need to answer what it is that IQ measures and prove that it is actually measuring it (you can't).

>>16068070
Come back when you invent a new form of mathematics, which still hasn't been done.

>>16068105
Articulate WHY I need to invent a new form of mathematics. Articulate why YOU think statistics is flawed. You’re regurgitating talking points without even knowing why. I asks this out of honest curiosity, how do you do this? How can you do ardently believe something you can’t even prove to yourself?

>>16068159
I've already linked Taleb's paper that you straight up refused to read. So watch this 5 minute video instead. Maybe your small brain will at least partially understand why you'll need to invent a form of mathematics.
https://youtu.be/szXf0VLuQLg

>>16068185
>AHHHH HELP ME TALEB I NEED YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK!
*taleb is doing mixed-grip deadlifts while chucking at the fact that everyone alive is stupider(not that Iq matters) than him*

>>16068204
Yup. You're a retard. Well done.

>>16068235
Le refers to YouTube video man
Good job bro you really showed that guy

>>16068185
Like I said, I already took the time to read his IQ sophistry. The fact that your only response to criticism was another link leads me to believe that any further effort would only lead to more hyperlinks, but more importantly that the sophistry you’re regurgitating doesn’t even make sense to YOU.

>>16068090
Did you not read my post? It correlates with ability in other activities thought to require intelligence.

If you pick a group with average IQ 100, and one with average IQ 140, the second group is going to be better on average at pretty much every activity that requires intelligence, given similar amounts of training.

>>16067037
>it's a good predictor of being a midwit, as only they care about IQ
This.

>>16067997
>>16068257

>>16068253
>>16068255
>No arguments
>>16068257
>It correlates with ability in other activities thought to require intelligence.
There are countless series of tasks that can be correlated to another series of tasks. And just because you can rank people doesn't prove that something real is actually measured, as ranking people by surnames doesn't actually measure something real. Nowhere does any of this show that anything is being measured. You can try to prove it, but you will fail.

>>16068255
based

>>16068324
That's literally the point though, the activities which require intelligence are going to correlate with each other. IQ is an attempt to isolate that ability, imperfect, but it does predict for ability so it is measuring something.
>>16068323
idk what the point of this is. There is no consensus in science for one thing, there is just whether your models predict for things consistently, and IQ has done that for decades. Nobody is trying to make it out to be the final judgment on intelligence.

>>16068324
Ranking by surname isn’t going to give you a strong statistical correlation with job performance. What a ridiculous comparison.

>>16068255
Based
>>16068324
Holy shit it’s Steven bonnel the 2nd

>>16068348
>>16068375
Statistical correlation is beyond the point. The point is, having a statistical correlation or order ranking doesn't prove that some real property is being measured. As I've said earlier, it's just as useless as ranking people by surnames - nothing is actually being measured; it's just an order. There's no actual way to prove that IQ is ranking people by a PROPERTY IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATES, not ranking merely by performance (which is already a point of contention, as Mr. Taleb has already shown).

>>16068185
In response to a likely student’s elementary suggestion about normalizing the data
>why can’t we just log transform the income distribution to make it light tailed
His response is
>why don’t you log transform someone falling from a building so he doesn’t get hurt
This guy can’t even stand up to the lightest scrutiny. How can people follow such an unapologetic liar?

>>16067009
The curse is in fact real. I cannot really interact with anybody below a 120 IQ. And interacting with women in any way is pretty much impossible since 90 % of them are hovering around IQ 100. My ex was a 110 IQ and even on her I hit the jackpot, and she was an incomprehensible idiot.

>>16068455
Correlation is exactly the point though. If you know that your 140IQ group is going to do much better on average at those activities than your 90IQ group, then you know something about the world, you can make predictions with this information, or it can help you explain what you see.

>>16067037
basado y rojo pastillado
pseuds seething

>>16068474
>If you know that your 140IQ group is going to do much better on average at those activities than your 90IQ group, then you know something about the world, you can make predictions with this information,
You still haven't answered my objection. How does this prove that IQ actually measures a real property which is revealed by this "performance"? If you can't prove it measures anything, IQ fails to meet the standards of a measurement and is therefore worthless and circular.

think only arabs on facebook have more of a fixation with iq than people on this website. if you haven't had a test administered by a professional, why do you put so much stock in a number that most likely came from a dubious self-administered test?

>>16068455
>Statistical correlation is beyond the point
The fuck are you talking about? It’s the entire point.
>doesn't prove that some real property is being measured.
If they don’t correlate whatsoever, as is likely with surnames, the. It’s completely disingenuous to compare it to highly correlated tests and assumed related performances.
>There's no actual way to prove that IQ is ranking people by a PROPERTY IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATES
What standard of proof are you using here? If it’s an empirical one, then you’re completely talking out of your ass. If it’s highly correlated to activities we considered to be highly dependent on intelligence, you don’t think that qualifies as proof of correlation to intelligence? On the flip side, what other possible factor do you think it could be measuring that expresses itself so generally and happens to express itself i these pursuits through...random chance? The only even semi-sensible complaint I can see is that our definition of intelligence is wrong, but that’s really more of a you problem and a non scientific one of connotation in any case.

>>16068505
All I care about is that it helps me predict things about the world or explain them. My suspicion is that it's because it imperfectly measures things like pattern recognition, which are central to many activities. But what I care about is not proving that, I just care that the metric is *useful* and IQ definitely is. If you don't take into account the IQ of different groups you are going to get confused about many social issues.

IQ is only interesting when it's a bit on Howard Stern.

>>16068507
>if you haven't had a test administered by a professional
It’s almost as if people are maintaining a principled position and not one based convenience or self-interest...
These people are attempting to mislead people about a well established scientific correlation, simply because they don’t like what it says. This is in general a very harmful practice and “why do you care” is a completely moronic refutation.

>>16068505
It measures the property of "likelihood to be good at tasks requiring intelligence" which is the same as intelligence. Any non physical measurement of anything is going to be defined as "likelihood to exhibit the properties linked to a large amount of this measurement." You may as well argue we cannot measure how good an AI is at chess, because the only observable data is that they win chess games. Winning arbitrarily many games is not a measurement of skill, but it does correlate with skill quite accurately.

>>16068520
>If they don’t correlate whatsoever, as is likely with surnames, the. It’s completely disingenuous to compare it to highly correlated tests and assumed related performances.
They're both ranked orders. It's not disingenuous.
>If it’s highly correlated to activities we considered to be highly dependent on intelligence, you don’t think that qualifies as proof of correlation to intelligence?
How does this demonstrate the measurement of an actual property? All this shows is the standing of an individual in a ranked order, not an actual measured object revealed by the performance. Try again.
>andom chance?
It's not my job to explain this. It's the IQtards job to show that IQ tests actually measure a real property, not making a ranked order.
>>16068577
>It measures the property of "likelihood to be good at tasks requiring intelligence" which is the same as intelligence
How do you know these tasks correlate with "intelligence"? Because an IQ test told you so? This definition is already circular and therefore worthless.

>>16068618
Read something, for the love of God, read something about what you're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
"Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
"Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
"While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."
"The spread of people along the IQ continuum ... can be represented well by the ... ‘normal curve'."
"Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"
"The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood"
"Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level...The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites."
"The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered"
"IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"
"A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"
"The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life’s settings become more complex"
"Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and complex jobs ... but intelligence is often the most important"
"Certain personality traits, special talents, [etc] are important ... in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or ‘transferability’ across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence"
"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"
"Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence"
"That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment ... IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"
"Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it"
"Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable"
"There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging"

>>16068642
I've already read this. Most, if not all, of this is total BS

>>16068674
You are RETARDED

>>16068469
I don't think you actually know your IQ score, and I highly doubt you have difficulty communicating with the average person within the 115-120 FSIQ range.

>>16068618
>How does this demonstrate the measurement of an actual property?
>It's not my job to explain this
I mean you can play dumb and solipsistic all you want, maybe some it would work in some philosophy circles? But as far as scientific validity goes, it’s unquestionable and it is absolutely your job to explain an ever present correlation when you want to claim some nonsense about rank ordering, given the chance of these correlations being random chance is effectively zero.

>>16068674
Wow great rebuttal. You know what, I’ve actually read every single thing trying to refute IQ and it was all complete bullshit.
See how that works?

>>16068618
>How do you know these tasks correlate with "intelligence"? Because an IQ test told you so? This definition is already circular and therefore worthless.
Because that is the definition of intelligence we are operating under as a society. The literal definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Any task which requires that ability must necessarily correlate with intelligence. IQ correlates with the ability to acquire and apply skills, as measured by performance in such tasks that require acquiring and applying skills.

>>16068681
only midwits can communicate with midwits

>>16068713
>I’ve actually read every single thing trying to refute IQ and it was all complete bullshit.
Then you've been filtered and hard.
>>16068708
>I mean you can play dumb and solipsistic all you want, maybe some it would work in some philosophy circles?
My objection to IQ is philosophical in nature, yes.
>But as far as scientific validity goes, it’s unquestionable
LMAO. IQtards STILL haven't invented the new form of math to suit their needs and they still haven't shown the object of measurement. It's far from scientific.
>>16068722
Sweaty, no. Here's the reality: IQtards THINK that IQ correlates with high degree of performance in certain tasks (they don't understand correlation) and believe that these "correlations" prove that some property is being measured, not simply a ranked ordering like ranking people by telephone number. (What does this demonstrate that is being measured? Nothing!) This is set apart from other measurements which actually have a specified object of measurement (desk) and measured object (length).

>>16068891
Great post, my fellow radical!

>>16067037
lmao at all the seething midwits replying with scathing paragraphs

>>16068891
>not simply a ranked ordering like ranking people by telephone number
We have pointed out to you several times that these orderings like phone numbers don't correlate with the relevant activities. That's the difference.

>>16068891
> My objection to IQ is philosophical in nature, yes.

peak midwit

>>16068891
>IQtards STILL haven't invented the new form of math to suit their needs
And you STILL haven’t proven that it’s necessary to do so. The only assertion you’ve even attempted to make about it is the work of a guy you yourself don’t understand, and who gets triggered at undergrads pointing out very basic errors.

>>16068933
But that's all IQ tests do - make ranked orders. But they can't actually measure anything because there is no object of measurement for IQ and because the concept of intelligence can't be quantified into a metric unit.

>>16068986
They make ranked orders that correlate with ability in other activities which are generally considered to require intelligence. That's why people think IQ is useful, and why they think it probably is at least related to intelligence. We don't know how the brain works yet so it is impossible to pinpoint what is being measured.

>>16068986
>>16068998
We call it g, but we can only measure it indirectly.

>>16069013
>but we can only measure it indirectly.
Lol in what way?

>>16069040
Why don't you scroll up and reread every single post that your interlocutors have been making in this thread? It has already been explained to you in detail.

>>16069045
>IQtard can't even explain his own nonsense like g
Oh NONONONONONONO

>>16067037
Bobby Fischer said this exact thing during a Dick Cavett interview. Guy had an IQ of 180.

>>16069075
I sometimes watch videos of people like Fischer playing chess, that have commentaries showing what they're thinking about, like which possible routes they're mapping in their head, to remind myself of how deeply stupid I am in comparison with the smartest people.

>>16069097
I don't see the point of that. You're better off spending time reading the biographies of such men so you can figure out how they used their innate intelligence to reach the pinnacle of achievement. IQ is useless without proper training and assiduous practice.

>>16069097
i just think its amazing that chess grandmasters can 'see' 10 moves ahead. the number of permutations involved are insane, even if you have two choices per gamestate you're keeping over a hundred gamestates in your mind. beyond comprehension for me

>>16069136
There is no point to it, I just find it fascinating.
>>16069155
What amazes me the most is the combination of intuition and autistic deduction necessary. They have to carry out the boring play by play of a bunch of moves to see if they'll work, they have to do that grunt work no matter what, but they also have to just scan the board and 'feel' which sorts of paths and positions are better, which ideas to test out as possibilities. They have to be amazing at both of these things in conjunction.

130+ IQ here, wassup niggas?

>ITT: people discuss IQ as if anyone here is intelligent or worth talking about
Face it lads, people who are genius have already proven so by 18 years old. You can cope forever, but deep down we all know that we are worthless ant people who will be forgotten within a single generation after we die. Reading philosophy, writing, endless hours of practice, or whatever else will never change anyways.

>>16069235
Why would you come here just to post this garbage? Go away.

>>16069242
I know it hurts, but you have to accept reality lad.

>>16069250
My life is going perfectly fine, you nihilistic bastard. Go back to wherever you came from, please.

>>16069258
>all this cope
You will never be a genius, great, or worth speaking about. Just a gust in the wind that is forgotten before it was even remembered.

>>16067037
Based
IQ is essentially the speed at which you can learn new stuff. Having a high IQ doesn't make you smart, having an average IQ doesn't prevent you from learning.

>>16067037
SPBP

stay mad /lit/

>>16069270
remembrance is temporary

>>16069467
Temporary remembrance of something great is better than non existent remembrance of a pointless life.

>>16069486
Your life is only pointless if you accept that to be the case. More often then not, the greats who are remembered are focused more on finding that purpose and then being remembered. Remembrance shouldn't be a concern to anyone whether they be someone worthy of it or not

>>16069525
>Your life is only pointless if you accept that to be the case
Mental gymnastic. Objectively 99.9% of all lives are pointless, the 0.1% or maybe less are the only people who change or do anything.

>>16067714
if he's diddlying on a tile floor he is not a man i want to listen to

>>16069538
None of us are given any true purpose and anyone can arrive at the conclusion that all current life is pointless, nothing matters, etc. That being said, it isn't mental gymnastics for someone to understand what makes them content and willing to live another day and then ascribing it higher meaning in their life. Purpose is an individual pursuit first and foremost and only you can change your current mental disposition that someone can earn their life an objective purpose. You're not wrong that 99.9% of lives are objectively pointless, but this belief ultimately denies the individual consciousness of each person in that statistic, including yourself.

>>16069235
i will never find hapiness knowing the fact that i am worthless npc who cant change the world even litte bit with his mid iq

>>16069235
Hi I am a "proven" genius
kill yourself retard
and livestream it too.

>>16069627
At least you can face the truth, have solace in that.
>>16069643
>proven
Passing high school doesn't make you a genius no matter what your mother says anon.

>>16069622
>You're not wrong that 99.9% of lives are objectively pointless, but this belief ultimately denies the individual consciousness of each person in that statistic, including yourself.
Yes.

>>16069705
Yes

>>16069707
Si.

>>16068937
kek