/lit/ - Literature

>>17270906
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

It's full of lies, but don't let me tell you, let this nerd tear it apart for 2 and a half hours.

>>17270906
It's an extraordinarily good introduction to IQ. As someone who read it cover to cover I guarantee you that everything secondhand you've heard about it is wrong. It does not fixate on race, nor does it overlook the many arguments against IQ as a metric or for IQ tests being biased, but rather it tackles them all directly. Read it, then never tell any normies that you did.

>>17270921
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

lol

>>17270906
Putting aside whether the Bell Curve specifically is totally accurate, I don't understand the mindset of people who don't think there is a distribution of intelligence, with most people average, a few dumb, a few smart, and that this obviously impacts your success in life to some degree. How do these people make sense of the world?

>>17270906
It's not eye opening, it's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

Any other books that are Race-pilling?

>>17270906
Do we really not have a newer, not racist book about IQ?

>>17270998
They use different kinds of thinking depending on the situational frame. In most frames they have no problem calling people dumb or smart. But in certain frames which relate to politics, in which they refer to the public opinion communicated to them by media and educational institutions, they must reject it because that's what they've been socialized to do in that context. They dont recognize the contradiction because they dont reflect on their behavior across frames, they simply live in the moment and do what feels most comfortable and convenient.

>>17270906
It was literally debunked one year later. By the way, the research is funded by the Pioneer Fund, known for being white supremacist in nature and has an obvious agenda, so take it as you may.

>>17271009
>racist book

sounds based

>>17270906
Whole book is invalidated by the fact that IQ isn't valid

>>17270998
They have an elaborate system of delusions that prevents them from putting two and two together. They're the delicate sorts of being for whom, if something seems terrible, then they declare that it can't possibly be true simply because it is terrible.

I'm not sure why people agree that evolutionary pressures affect the somatic development of all organisms but that this stops short of affecting intelligence, and only in humans. Then again, these are the same people who believe that a man who chops his dick off is magically a woman, so perhaps it's not supposed to make any sense.

>>17271009
>>17271018
Dont be fooled by all the secondhand bullshit you hear, almost none of this book has anything to do with race. It's mentioned in only a single chapter, and in the context of the book it actually argues for restructuring society so that blacks can be more included, rather than excluded and left to shit outcomes by the cognitive elite.

>>17270921
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Z5CHFUvn1U/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0s47gWHMBK0/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fSaWH0SESs/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ex5wZBH-uQw/

>>17271037
>Alternative hypothesis

>>17271037
>bitchute

When will you nazis learn noone wants to hear your schizo world view?

>>17270998
Because the idea of what is more intelligent or not is generally arbitrary. Not to mention that there is a whole nurture v. nature discussion to have about it. It is not so much that people don't believe that there is a distribution of "intelligence" (however it may be), but that it is basically irrelevant to any discussion about politics or sociology.

>>17271017
>>17270921

I hear a lot of shit saying it's been debunked, but what has been debunked? Be specific. What does this book say and why is it wrong?

Also why can no one invent an IQ test that doesn't show results where all races score the same? Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

>>17271075
>It is not so much that people don't believe that there is a distribution of "intelligence" (however it may be), but that it is basically irrelevant to any discussion about politics or sociology.
Yeah, this is the situational framing effect. They believe in intelligence when they're hiring someone to do a job or deciding who can date their kids, but they dont believe in intelligence when talking about politics. Society conditions them as to which frames are acceptable and which not.

>>17271084
It exists to validate a worldview. It is in effect biased and therefor not "scientific" at all. I could go into detail on why it's biased but that would take time, just listen to the video while you play vidya or something.

Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity. Even if it did exist it would need to be ignored to maintain a truly free people.

>>17271075
>Because the idea of what is more intelligent or not is generally arbitrary.
You honestly don't think there are dumb or smart people?

>>17271047
What? Are you not aware of the term
>>17271074
It's not an uncommon opinion that YouTube is too restricting and that it would be good if a reliable large alternative was built.

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity. Even if it did exist it would need to be ignored to maintain a truly free people.
Can you please just read the fucking book instead of listening to ecelebs trying to deboonk it? The whole argument in the book is that to achieve equal opportunity and maintain a truly free people we need to do something about the cognitive stratification leaving a small few elites all the resources and best outcomes.

>>17271087
>They believe in intelligence when they're hiring someone to do a job or deciding who can date their kids
Do you not realize how even in this situations "intelligence" is still arbitrary? In a job intelligence may mean that you are creative, good at socializing, or very effective at doing X task. In a relationship, it may mean you are good at managing money, or that you speak about "intelligent" topics like philosophy.

We use the word "intelligent" for so many things colloquially. If you want to apply it to politics then formalize it.

>>17271104
Do you not know how to read?

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity. Even if it did exist it would need to be ignored to maintain a truly free people.

It does exist. And I completely disagree with your whole premise. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can treat other differently under the law because they are low IQ or stupid.

>>17271108
>What? Are you not aware of the term
I'm laughing at the person

>>17271115
>Do you not know how to read?
I want you to straight up state there are no dumb or smart people, only people with different sorts of intelligence

>>17271115
It's not arbitrary, it's performance correlated. Businesses cannot hire based on IQ tests so they use alternative metrics to approximate it. The military, which is exempt, does use IQ in personnel decisions via the ASVAB. In the case of who your kid dates, various other performance proxies are used, such as what school they got into. There's nothing arbitrary in this stuff.

>>17271127
I don't need to do that because I never stated nor implied that; I do want you however to go back and read my post, because apparently you are too dumb at reading comprehension.

>>17271117
>I'm laughing at the person
What's so funny about him? "Loser"? "Fringe"? "Autistic"?

>>17271148
>Because the idea of what is more intelligent or not is generally arbitrary.
From this it would follow that the idea of smart and dumb are arbitrary, so there are no actually dumb or smart people

I have never encountered a critic of this book who is aware of its actual contents.

>>17271149
All those unironically

It's wrong because it says that jews are smarter than whites and doesn't take into account the lies that they tell.

IQ is an evil, reprehensible, racist concept. If a person believes in IQ I instantly know they are morally bankrupt

>>17271145
>IQ tests
My impulse to dismiss your whole argument is huge at this point. Not only have you failed at providing a coherent definition of intelligence, but you are using an IQ test as an accurate metric of it. So what does it measure? Does it measure creativity? Does it measure effectiveness at socializing? Does it measure anything besides pattern recognition (like mosts of the IQ tests are formed of)?

What is performance anyway? What is it exactly related to?

>>17271103
Low IQ post

>>17271176
Maybe you should read the fucking book? See >>17271167

>>17271186
And you should read >>17271017 then, because apparently you are not aware of the criticisms either.

>>17271192
You dont even understand what IQ refers to, as per your last post. Nobody really cares what you think, sorry. Get informed.

>>17271207
IQ was basically found to be a proxy of the socioeconomic background of the person in question as per the analysis made in >>17271017 which basically debunks whatever bullshit you take IQ to measure.

>>17271218
IQ tests predict outcomes in every society.

>>17271225
According to what? Richard Lynn and "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"? The guy who had to falsify and misinterpret info to fit his own narrative?

Yeah, sure it does.

>>17271239
Instead of asking so many basic questions, you should read the book being discussed. If you'd rather have an uninformed conversation, try /pol/.

>>17271245
And as I said, you should read the response. But as it seems like you won't and you suffer from cognitive dissonance I'd rather let this thread sage into death.

It is OK, you should rather read Human Diversity, it's more up to date.

>>17271267
Ah yes, flail around trying to "no u" me, that's how you'll convince people that you've read a book which you clearly dont understand even the most basic claims of. This is like having a conversation about Blood Meridian with a person who doesnt know what a horse is.

>>17271176
It measures general intelligence, meaning the ability to understand any new information. When scientists gave people numerous intellectual tasks they found that the test scores of people doing well in one type of test would correlate with their test scores in other fields. A tests ability to measure a persons ability on numerous different tests is called the g-loading of the test and the point of IQ tests is to have a high g- loading. The part of the variation in test scores on IQ tests that could be due to the g-factor also seems to correlate with things like brain size and certain structures of the brain.

>>17270930
Notice how you had the best and most proper response and no one gave a fuck, pretty funny

>>17271239
No. Richard Lynn argued that IQ effects the wealth of an entire nation. Not that it predicts the success of individuals within those nations on an individual level.

The fact that you dont seem to understand that your example is refering to something completely different makes me understand why you have so much against the very notion of IQ.

>>17271332
kek

>>17271218
>IQ was basically found to be a proxy of the socioeconomic background of the person in question

It's almost as if being smarter allows you to figure out how to make more money. Weird.

>>17271700
If he'd actually read the Bell Curve, he would know that it goes in-depth on the question of socioeconomic status, showing how IQ is a better outcome predictor nearly every time. But he hasnt read it, and he keeps refusing to, no matter how many times I tell him how obvious his ignorance is. So fuck him, he just gets insults from now on.

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity.

Furthermore the concept of internal bleeding is fundamentally flawed in a society that requires all men to wear seatbelts.

I’ve read it, nothing in there is even remotely shocking. Honestly the book kind of sucks. It’s just statistics vomit

>>17271103
Don't read...just watch youtube videos.

>>17270906
Racist meme. Check out the Mismeasure of Man, debunks each argument in this "book"

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity.
This doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

cope for midwit racist losers
intelligent people have better things to focus on
>inb4 quotes from an autistic chess nerd

>>17271788
What’s a “midwit,” anon?

>>17271788
>cope
Cope
IQ is real
Intelligence is hereditary
YWNBAW

Sam Harris vs. Ezra Klein debate addresses this topic adequately.

>>17271022
The book says a lot about why IQ and the g factor are important. Read the book.

>>17271075
Read the book. It addresses your arguments.

>>17271821
The sum of the naysayers' argument always boils down to "we can't accurately measure intelligence and even if we could and apply that to race why would dare?"

>>17271821
>Harris: Science is science. Facts exist independently.
>Klein: Yeah but history and racism too.

There I saved you two hours.

>>17271829
It’s interesting how people never ever address G.

>>17271218
There is a reciprocal influence. The book tries to account for socioeconomic status, and it is highly probable that IQ is still correlated with social outcomes even accounting for socioeconomic status.

>>17271843
Klein won in the end, Harris would literally gape his big ass for him yelling apologies if they had a rematch.

>>17271836
Applied

In a perfect world we would be able to debate these things without the intrusion of moral mendacity...

>>17271858
Not saying you're wrong, but how so? I listened to their debate but haven't followed anything after.

Lmao @ all the people in this thread who never read the book. Read the book, read the responses, and come to your own conclusions.

>>17271332
>IQ effects the wealth
>The fact that you dont seem to understand that your example is refering to something completely different makes me understand why you have so much against the very notion of IQ.
>effects

Fucking kill yourself dude jesus lmao

>>17271871
But this is not a perfect world, you fascist chubplub shitjerk.
>>17271873
I don’t follow Sam Harris because I don’t have a head wound, but it seems like he’s running screaming into the fold of liberal acceptability lately. Intellectual Dark Web got a little too hot and heavy.

>>17271875
There are many worldviews that can be held by an author that cause someone to doubt the validity of their arguments. And there are many ideas commonly known in society that have been put forward in books that don't require the book to debunk.

>>17271894
You follow him enough to know that he's supposedly begging for liberal acceptance. I'm unaware of this.

>>17271074

"I only accept opinions from official narrative confirming sources that reinforce my biases" the post.

>>17271906
That doesn't require following Sam, I know a lot about Dave Rubin's career for instance not because I follow him but because he's used as a punching bag or punchline in a lot of material I do follow.

>>17271103
>>17271904
Don't understand this "exists to validate a worldview" objection. Would you reject 'Sexing the Body' by Anne-Fausto Sterling in the same way because the author is open about her feminist worldview? What about Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote the Mismeasure of Man as a critique of The Bell Curve, who is quoted saying:
>I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. Scholars are often wary of citing such commitments. … [but] it is dangerous for a scholar even to imagine that he might attain complete neutrality, for then one stops being vigilant about personal preferences and their influences—and then one truly falls victim to the dictates of prejudice. Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference.
Do we have to throw his critiques out the window then, because they might be tampered with bias?

>>17271906
I don’t, but I get a lot of stuff from osmosis.
Just checked his twitter, and I didn’t realize he was a sophomore at a state university: https://mobile.twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1347298170586296320

>>17271938
No, we throw Murray’s ideas out and make an exception for Gould because we’re on his side.

>>17271798
doesn't change the fact that the polcels who "read" this book are less successful in career and life than countless black gentlemen and women

>>17271035
>if something seems terrible, then they declare that it can't possibly be true simply because it is terrible.
The black pill of religion and all political movements: the world is just shit.

>>17271938
sorry I should say several chapters critiquing the belll curve in a reprint of the mismeasure of man

>>17271954
poor bait

>>17271035
It’s Yankee-Doodle Egalitarianism taken to its morbid extreme, and all the world is worse for its existence.

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity. Even if it did exist it would need to be ignored to maintain a truly free people.
>Inequality between persons is obvious, so let's pretend it doesn't exist because it would harm the American Idea. HITLER.
One of these days we will move on from reactionary post-war leftism, but today is not that day.

>>17271103
Free? You want freedom? Go sit in the mountains staring at a wall all day, like the monks.

>>17271982
Really starting to think that at the end of the day, speaking as an American, that American ideology is just a fucking blight on the earth.

>>17271904
You're literally retarded. You're too lazy and complacent to actually look at your opponents' arguments, so you make straw men and then knock them down with "common knowledge."

Learn how to think critically and scientifically instead of being a bigot (using the actual meaning of the term here, not the overused lefty meme version).

As is typical of /pol/ spillage we have some pretty bad arguments here

>>17271116
"All men are created equal"

>>17271113
How is forcing someone into a specific career field, that is garunteed to be lower payed, based on a birth stat free?

>>17271769
Cute, but this doesn't even warrant a response.

>>17271782
A quirky youtube video is easier to digest than a 845 page piece of racist propaganda

>>17271915
Strawman, the argument. "Narrative" is the hot /pol/ topic of today, but the "narrative" that all men are created equal has been around since the conception of the United States

>>17271938
You can't trust results of a "study" done by racists that just so happens to reaffirm racist views. There have been multiple studies done by third parties that proove the africa IQ tests incorrect.

>>17271982
I never said anything about Hitler, once again you're strawmanning me. Learn to expand your worldview and argumentative abilities.

>>17271985
While a peaceful life of meditation and nature does sound appealing, history has proven that those types don't last very long. Thankfully a free society was created in 1776 called the United States of America, where all men are created equal.

>>17272141
>You can't trust results of a "study" done by racists that just so happens to reaffirm racist views.
You can't trust results of a "study" done by anti-racists that just so happens to reaffirm anti-racist views.
>While a peaceful life of meditation and nature does sound appealing, history has proven that those types don't last very long.
What? Many monastic institutions are unfathomably old.

Just read the current affairs article on him which goes into detail about his other book which is more obviously just racist lies.

>>17270998
A lot of people take offence at it because they assume (a long with a lot of people that support the idea, such as racial supremacists) that it implies inferiority or superiority. A lot of people say that there is more to being capable in the world than what an IQ test measures and they're absolutely right.

However they use that statement to imply that IQ tests are bunk, or that poor performance on an IQ test means nothing, and they're very wrong about that.

>>17272167
Those that were picked up by conquering states to placate the populace yes, true pacifism is a great excuse to get yourself raided and killed. Maybe not anymore though, might be worth a thought if I wasn't balls deep in reaping the benefits of being a skilled STEM nerd in capitalist america. As for the argument that the racists are being completely unbiased in their IQ tests of Africans that couldn't even speak English, I'm not going to spoonfeed you. The effort will be wasted.

>>17272141
*Downs voice* That’s a stwawman, that’s wacist.
Every mainstream liberal I know maxes their IQ out at about 115, and you’re living, breathing proof. “All men are created equal” is not in the constitution. It’s “paid,” not “payed,” you fucking 12 year old. A “study” is just as much of a study as any study, don’t bitch because your epistemology got confused with a method. Go work at a box factory or die in the Middle East, you pig American fuck.

>>17272214
IQ tests dont require literacy you actual retard

>>17271997
I wouldn't take it too seriously, the US pivoted from deciding that Eugenics was a form of Progress to thinking that it was dangerous within like 10 years. At the moment "the American Ideology' is just reacting to Nazism.

>>17270921
>It's full of lies,
>posts a skull shawn the pseud video
dear god, Alt Hype tore this fucker apart as did a handful of others, he never even talked about the evidence presented by Murray just some grandstanding and handwaving away shit

>>17270930
good response similar to my own take though I was already somewhat familiar with the field

>>17272214
Would* be wasted, you caved-in-head dumbass Yankee.
>>17272227
Difference between eugenics and dysgenics. Americans just wanted to fry the Fallopian tubes of their social and perceived moral inferiors, there was never a eugenic project.

>>17272141
Where there is equality, there is no freedom.

>>17272214
>As for the argument that the racists are being completely unbiased in their IQ tests of Africans that couldn't even speak English
I didn't make that argument, I made the argument that if bias invalidates a study or argument, then every study ever is invalidated

>>17272246
The US had a whole swath of eugenics societies pre-WW2. They certainly thought they were doing eugenics...

>>17270906
the guy is a conservative think tank. stuff like this is propaganda to destroy social programs.

>>17272246
>Americans just wanted to fry the Fallopian tubes of their social and perceived moral inferiors, there was never a eugenic project.
what?? that is eugenics. that is positive eugenics.

>>17272265
I guess I’m just splitting hairs. The point you’re making is right, but Americans were much more enthusiastic about sterilizing the retarded than breeding up towards something better, as far as I know.

>>17272141
>I take "all men are created equal" literally
t. Halfwit

>>17271170
Yet he' was right and skullfaggot was wrong, what are you going to do about it?

>>17272277
No, that’s the exact opposite of positive eugenics, you silly goose.

How do you guys cope with the fact that an IQ test can be studied? also why do you guys equate IQ with human value and character?

>>17272141

> A quirky youtube video is easier to digest than a 845 page piece of racist propaganda


Just because you find reading hard, does not mean the rest of us do. Some of us in here actually read, which means we will always prefer a text over audio, because texts can be skimmed, which means their value, and the time you should spend on them, can be ascertained incrementally. Start by skimming, looking for overall quality. Then if it seems good, you start looking more into it. If it is really good, you might end up reading all of it, perhaps even in-depth. You cannot do this with audiovideo like the anglo-cuck you linked. You're forced to listen to him drone on about random bullshit, tolerating his self-satisfied sneers and leftist fart-sniffing snark.
If you read, if you understood what reading a lot means, the techniques used, you'd understand why we will always prefer a text, especially when we have to value the worth of some random critique of a classic work. In short, fuck off back to r*ddit and kys

>>17272299
>why do you guys equate IQ with human value and character?
Because the results of it happen to align with their worldviews on the topic

>>17272299
the degree to which an IQ test can be studied also follows a genetically predisposed bell curve distribution

>>17272274
>when IQ research show that "schooling" is vastly overvalued giving a pretext to bust the public schoolteachers' union
It's beautiful.

>>17272318
What are those “worldviews on the topic”? Remember, no strawmanning allowed!

>>17272323
I raised my iq number by a huge margin by doing a bunch of practice tests. /sci/ say that studying the test is cheating.

ok then, if IQ is not real and the bell curve is a scam then why are black people so dumb?

>>17272348
Because white people speak magic words that make them weak.

>>17272349
/sci/ will also tell you that those IQ test gains tend not to be persistent and you will still reach a difficulty limit that someone with a higher G will surpass

>>17272335
schooling isn't overvalued it's just that schools in burgerland are complete trash

>>17272377
same studies in other countries

>>17272349
It does not matter for statistical validity that you can cheat on tests by practicing for them, as long as there is no significant amount of cheating that is also correlated with race.

Test grades in subjects like math are also pretty good proxy variables, as long as they are blind tests. They also destroy the leftist lie of instrumental racism, because they show that niggers score even worse when their race is unknown.

>>17272348

>>17272377
Schools are fine, most students are fine, one segment isn’t.

>>17271961
maybe posted with intention of yous but it's still factual
chuds on biz cry about niggers being stupid in crypto but whiteboi keeps losing his money to the black ceo of the largest volume bitcoin derivatives and futures exchange

>>17272383
so, IQ test can only work if it is blind?

>>17272336
If someone researches IQ tests, finds out the statistics and use them as justification for the total inferiority or superiority of a group (i.e. not being greater or lesser in a specific area but being greater or lesser in every manner) then it's likely confirmation bias

>>17272395
it is fun how Nigeria steals a bunch of money from /biz/. they should add flags to help them out.

>>17272397
Who’s someone here? What are you talking about? Are you okay?

>>17272407
>nigerians
/biz/ has pajeet shills not Nigerians.

>>17272396
>>17272371
>>17272349
The reason why it's "cheating" is they're meant to measure your natural performance in these cognitive areas.

>>17272414
Is English your second language or are you just a teenager

>>17272423
The first question, at least, is extremely straightforward, but the second and third might take introspection. Don’t want any lip from you, either.

>>17272417
sounds like a shit test.
A higher score on a mcat or lsat mean you are a better nurse or lawyer. higher score on IQ test means you probably cheated by studying.

>>17270906

All I remember about it is that the authors made sure to tell me multiple times that I was smart for reading it, so it's a good book in my book.

>>17271103
>IQ is fundamentally flawed
How so? It's a pretty damn good measurement of intelligence, ability to handle cognitive load, and success in life. Way better than parental income or literally any other predictor.

It's just weird that people, because of their racial propaganda, can't accept that different peoples might have evolved for different specializations. Perhaps a people where accounting was more important than hunting might have evolved to be better accountants, no?

Also, I bet this poster will no doubt sing the praises of the Ashkenazi Jews and how brilliant they are due to their genetically high IQ.

>>17272380
Here's a study from Denmark:

https://dk.ramboll.com/medier/rdk/~/media/DCB01463CD8343808D7E327008062344.ashx

n=13000 kids

Differences in linguistic, socioemotional, and mathematical aptitude already present in at ages 0-3, and carry over into adulthood.

This does not mean that schooling is overvalued, it just means that relative aptitude is genetically predetermined.

>>17272456
Unless you got a higher score on the mcat or lsat by cheating lol

>>17270921
I watched like the first hour of this once and, oh boy, it debunks nothing. A bunch of corralled disingenuous first-seeming considering thoughts, then disproving qua (as) disproving, strawmen set up and easily bulldozed and an overall casual feeling of rightness that only assures of being right.

>>17272516
Imo the best way to look at genetics, education and IQ is genetics predetermines your range of possible scores and education helps determine where in that range you end up sitting

The study of genetics are proving IQ tests to be surprising accurate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16848017/
Dr. Lahn creates a genetic based intelligence test and it indicates differences among races.

https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/genome-wide-association-study-identifies-74-loci-associated-with-

sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001087
Genes correlated with high IQ found in certain countries more than others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29335645/

The study of genetics is going to cause a significant controversy. Expect some type of Lysenkoism by the left. They are already trying to prevent research on the MAOA genes since it appears in certain races more frequently than others.

>>17272560
Disgusting!
ADL should put NIH on it's hate-group list.

>>17272560
It’ll be taboo here; scientific journals won’t touch it, and China will carry the ball forward.
Shit-talk Lysenko, I guess it’s earned, but the commies are gonna run circles around burgers once this is done.

>>17272516
This study is not cohorte and cannot show that aptitude carries over into adulthood. All it shows it that differences are present in childhood, not that the same children that have high aptitude in childhood have high aptitude in adulthood.

>>17272560
Are you implying that correlation between genes and IQ test results verifies the accuracy of interpretations of IQ test results? Because if you are that's a baseless claim

>>17271713
They literally says that they say it in the book he posts in responde to the bell curve holy shit how fucking dumb are you seriously

>>17272588
I’d say it’s based in the correlation between genes and IQ, actually.

>>17272588
Read
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29335645/

Its by Education level.

Because ‘years of education’ is obtained as a demographic marker in nearly every GWAS, it was possible to accumulate sample sizes with the necessary power to detect very small effect sizes26. Its relevance to intelligence is that years of education is highly correlated phenotypically (0.50) and genetically (0.65) with intelligence27.

>>17272611
What is based in the correlation?

>>17272560
>They are already trying to prevent research on the MAOA genes since it appears in certain races more frequently than others.

What really fucks me up about this is how it also explains violent crime within races not just between races.
To avoid making whites feel bad about treating blacks differently, they (libs) are condemning ALL people to having higher rates of violent crime, while also making the black community disproportionately suffer.
Luckily the Chinese won't have any such hangup when they take America's spot as the global hegemon

>>17271008
>

>>17272634
The claim.

>>17272582
>>17272649
Read
technologyreview.com/2019/02/21/137309/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/

China is way ahead of us in the matter of genetics.

>>17272682
Yes but what is the claim, I'm not sure what you're claiming

>>17272688
Read your own fucking post, dude.

>>17272662
> amongst

>>17272692
Alright well then a correlation between genetics and test results implies anything other than there is a correlation between those two variables then you're very mistaken

>>17272649
It may shock you but crime is in a all time low, especially compare to the past few decade. Look at any stats on how people die. Talk to an adult and see what they care about. You have a higher chance of dying or experiencing harm from a car crash, suicide or health problems.
honestly it is sad how your brain revolves around niggers.

>>17271145
>ASVAB
Specifically doesn’t test for IQ, used to test prior education.

>>17272703
A correlation between variables is the basis of the whole of science, nitwit.

>>17272708
The USA is not the entire world.

>>17272708
Don’t say the n-word, it’s EXTREMELY racist.

>>17272703
Honestly, are you a scientist? Or are you a liberal arts guy who watches Youtubers that pretend to be scientifically literate because science has a kind of cachet nowadays?
Stay in your lane, dude, for your own good. I love you but stick to whatever else.

>>17272731
>>17272715
The two of you really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
This is the original comment>>17272560
>The study of genetics are proving IQ tests to be surprising accurate.
>Surprisingly accurate

Accurate at predicting those genes in people? Yes
Accurate at anything else? No, you're making a logic leap

>>17272719
Health problems, car crash and suicide is worldwide.

>>17271218
Sounds like putting the cart before the horse anon.

>>17272736
The point is the correlation between IQ and the presence or absence of discrete nucleic acid sequences within those exhibiting different IQ scores. As I’ve said.
And I’ll say this again: lane, stay inside it.

>>17271894
>i don't follow sam harris because i don't have a head wound
Lmao

>>17272750
>Telling me to stay in my lane
>Clearly didn't see or understand my original question properly >>17272611

Arrogance isn't a good look on you buddy

>>17272750
>>17272761
Also it's pretty ironic to be going around asking whether other are a "scientist" whatever that means when you sure as shit haven't received a university education

>>17272761
>>17272767
When you can trace a behavior to the presence or absence of a DNA sequence in the body, that means that aforementioned behavior is rooted in a discrete, identifiable, and concrete trait, which means something. It’s not a fucking direct ethical through-line to moral weight, or whatever you’re looking for, but it’s a building block, and it’s the kind of building block with which the inadequate but useful temple of empirically-derived knowledge is constructed from, so what the fuck else do you want?
Now answer me, what do you do for a living and have you or have you not undergone any education in the sciences?

>>17272786
Man there's a lot that you don't get.

First and foremost I feel I'm stating what should be obvious, but correlation is not causation. The research shown, though heavily implies that these genes affect IQ (and I believe that though do), technically does not actually prove it.

Secondly, and more importantly, I never said once that there isn't a connection between genetics and IQ, what I'm saying is that taking that research that shows that connection and using it to falsify or prove anything other than the existence of that connection is logically flawed.

>>17270998
this book doesn't just claim there's a distribution, which no one denies, but claims the distribution occurs by race

>>17272818
This’ll settle it, then: how is a hypothesis “proven”? How is causation established? Gimme a step by step.
And for the third motherfucking time, what’s your job and degree? Because I’m reading shit that undergrads spout after they fail to interpret their first research paper.
> what I'm saying is that taking that research that shows that connection and using it to falsify or prove anything other than the existence of that connection is logically flawed
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I POSTED A FOUR MINUTES AGO, MONGOLOID

>>17272845
>THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I POSTED A FOUR MINUTES AGO, MONGOLOID
Fantastic champion, once again it was my point the entire time so congratulations on finally understanding my point.

>>17271015
>>17271035
This. The beauty of unresolved cognitive dissonance is that they can convince themselves they're good people even as they do contradictory behavior. This is why they can unironically do shit like suggest certain people on the right side of the political spectrum be sent to concentration camps while simultaneously crying about the rise of nazis.

By compartmentalizing their values, they never have to critically analyze why they believe what they believe. Because if you do, you'd have to accept the entire empire was built upon lies and you have been contributing to it this whole time (making you not a good person). Such people avoid thinking they are bad people at all costs because, in their minds, they are doing all the right things that society is telling them to, how could they be bad?

On a side note, the Zimbardo experiment proves truer and truer with every passing year in this chaotic political landscape.

>>17272856
Then what was your initial gripe? The original post made no moral claims, only an association between IQ and genes, and you came in with some 95-IQ argument about correlation and causation.
Attempt numero four: job and education?

>>17272856
Job and education?

>>17272872
See >>17272588
>Are you implying that correlation between genes and IQ test results verifies the accuracy of interpretations of IQ test results?
I.e. using genetic research as proof that some races are more intelligent that others is logically incoherent.
Why?
Because these genes aren't exclusive to any particular racial group

>>17272894
Holy shit, dude, sixth time, degree and job.
Do you know what a gene is? Don’t expect an answer, it’s rhetorical at this point. Just throw some random shit out there.

>>17272894
Know what an SNP is? No cheating!

>>17272909
I don't need to tell you at all about my personal background dummy
At the very least if you go around demanding others personal information give your own first

>Do you know what a gene is
And what does that have to do with my "original gripe" as you called it

>>17272925
Getting a doctorate in something biological, conducting research. Easy. Your turn.
And by the way, cunt, follow the argument. You talked about genes being exclusive to groups, so I asked what a gene is. Absurdly easy to answer if you know anything about what we’re discussing.

>>17272940
>I have to answer your inane questions
Get over yourself lmao
Tell me what any of this has to do with my original question
>Inb4 your original question is inane
Well then why have you spent all this time sperging about it?

>>17272925
By the way, what in the world is that darned SNP?

>>17272947
What’s a gene?

>>17271103
>Furthermore the concept of IQ itself is fundamentally flawed in an American society that guarantees all men equal opportunity. Even if it did exist it would need to be ignored to maintain a truly free people.
you're literally asking for a set piece of Brave New World to exist lmao

>>17272947
What degree did you get?

>>17272947
You know what it’s like to deal with know-it-all retards every day? Because I do. Every fucking cursed day.
Guy sashays in with an obvious case of Down syndrome, calls himself Bill Nye the Science Guy, screams at you that correlation doesn’t equal causation for nineteen hours.
And the thing about Bill is that he can’t be dissuaded. He’ll keep shouting NO MATTER WHAT.
And the world is fucking filled with Bills! And they all hate the idea of IQ! And can you guess why?

>>17272947
Can you guess why, Bill?

>>17272947
Tell me what a gene is, I’ll place a Skittle onto your big retard tongue.

>>17270921
The way he speaks is so artificial you just know he would never be able to dominate a conversation irl. The internet was a mistake, people like that should be getting talked over and pushed to the side not preaching to the unwashed masses. Makes me wanna puke

>>17270921
this guy is a pedo btw

>>17272948
>>17272951
>>17272959
>>17272973
>>17272977
>>17272983
Jesus christ bud go for a walk or talk to a professional, you're off your rocker

>>17273038
>I’m not scientifically illiterate, you’re insane!
All you had to do was answer something a reasonably intelligent ninth grader could, and you failed.

>>17270906
>is it eye opening
If you're operating on 40 years out-of-date knowledge, it might be if you have absolutely no education on intelligence research at all.
>it is just a meme
No, it's definitely not. What it is, is a demonstration in how not to do science. Murray is a career politician, who uses science as his authority to push for conservative political action. He has a demonstrated history through more than a dozen works specifically attempting to denounce the idea that the government should be concerned with helping the least fortunate in society. That's fine and all, as a political statement, but it isn't science.
None of that addresses the actual bad science of much of Murray's work, which is largely predicated upon suppositions of meanings and personal interpretations of data. Murray wrote The Bell Curve nearly 30 years before we knew that reverse-feedback testing could raise IQs in autistic people from below 85 all the way up to 100, for instance. Herrnstein and Murray make a number of assumptions about intelligence which are not commonly held by anyone performing intelligence research, whether it be 30 years ago or today. There's also substantial issues with the statistical methodology that Herrnstein and Murray used that demonstrate a clear bias towards proving their assertions more than proving anything close to a truth about intellect.
The reality of the situation is that Herrnstein and Murray both attempted something worthwhile - investigating individual ability and where intelligence plays into that - but that was, at best, a secondary goal to pushing a personal political agenda. Had they presented their work as what it was actually intended to be - a philosophical evaluation of the ethics of a no-one-left-behind mentality in the world of fewer resources, overpopulation, and economic instability - they still would have been lambasted by the public, but likely more supported by academia. Since they instead attempted to use piss-poor science to support their personal agendas, they've been largely lambasted for nearly 30 years, exactly as they should have been.

>>17272241
>>17271326
>Yes, your middle of the road take that disagrees with the common consensus in either direction is obviously the best interpretation!
Literal pseuds.

>>17273054
>[Charles Murray] attempting to denounce the idea that the government should be concerned with helping the least fortunate in society
You don’t even know what the supposed “”agenda”” they’re pushing even is. You placed a Reagan caricature there. How old are you?
At some point, America saw the sheer effectiveness of Russian human wave tactics and thought “why can’t this be applied to ideas?” And so they went and made THIS. YOU!

>>17270930
>nor does it overlook the many arguments against IQ as a metric or for IQ tests being biased, but rather it tackles them all directly
What's the gist? I hope he BTFOs all of them, especially IQ being "biased".

Why do so many people say IQ is fake? Its such a simple mathematical concept, all that's required for it to exist is for people to have different levels of intelligence. Unless you want to argue everyone is exactly equally smart, there will be a distribution of intelligence and the concept of IQ will be applicable

>>17273150
Resentment.

>>17273150
It's not whether intelligence exists, it's whether IQ tests actually measure it accurately, how much they measure it and whether IQ test results actually have real-world implications

>>17271218
MZ twin studies have shown iq scores to be at least 76% heritable which is far higher than most traits. That score is with full environmental and socioeconomic controls

>>17273164
>How much they measure it
How much of it might they not be measuring?
And what in the world would a measure of intelligence have to do with “real-world implications”?

>>17273150
Jealousy. IQ is literally the most important attribute in a human, moreso than kindness, "soul", passion, Etc.
It is impossible to catch up to those with higher IQs than you.

>>17273078
>You placed a Reagan caricature there
And Murray is a member of Reagan's generation. What you call a caricature is just recognition of a social trend extending from the literal beginning of this nation to present day. It's ironic that you'd suggest conservatives have changed very much.
>At some point, America saw the sheer effectiveness of Russian human wave tactics and thought “why can’t this be applied to ideas?” And so they went and made THIS. YOU!
I'm having a really hard time figuring out exactly what you mean by this other than insinuating that my interpretation of Murray's work is the result of some kind of mass, manufactured process. That's neat that you want to interpret a long, well-documented historical process of conservative American politics prioritizing the needs of business owners and the wealthy over those of the the working class and the poor, but that incredibly competitive rugged individualism which exists as a necessary component of American ideology supports the idea wholly separate from historical fact, if you find that history inconvenient for your interpretations.
I know exactly what the "agenda" is, which is to say that it's the political opinion of virtually everyone who is a conservative in America - the government helping people is bad because reasons, unless it's the government helping me maintain an unfair competitive advantage OR hindering my competition in some way, then it's good.

>>17273150
>IQ is fake
No one argues IQ is fake. The argument is whether or not it's a valid measurement of meaningful intelligence, and - especially in the case of The Bell Curve - whether or not policy decisions should be made based on IQ scores.
>It's such a simple mathematical concept
You have no clue what mathematics are, so stop invoking "mathematical" anything.

>>17271017
>This book has been debunked by a panel of independent fact checkers.

>>17273183
And dozens upon dozens of studies have conclusively proven that environmental factors affect IQ, both temporarily and permanently. Autistic retards - people with IQs below 85 - can have their IQs raised to 100 with reversed feedback testing, for fuck's sake.
No current intelligence researcher who isn't doggedly biased supports that idea that intelligence is either wholly nature or wholly nurture. Suggesting it's purely hereditary when there is substantial evidence to disprove that is stupid, at best, disingenuous with a side of agenda pushing at worst.

If you're going to bother to cite research and invoke the cult of Ye Olde Science, then you should bother to find out what the consensus is. Otherwise, you're just pic rel.

>>17273204
>And Murray is a member of Reagan's generation.
He isn’t, but going with your dumb premise, so is the fucking New Left. Murray loves free love and acid. The Bell Curve is about free love because generations.
> insinuating that my interpretation of Murray's work is the result of some kind of mass, manufactured process
Yes.
By the way, are you assuming I’m a conservative? Fuck conservatism and fuck your musty social studies. I’m interested in your age, because you’re arguing points that haven’t been relevant in decades. Murray warned about the emergence of an IQ-based caste system, which seems to be clearly present and more sinister than the machinations of any country club Republican you can conjure.
“Rugged individualism” hasn’t existed in the zeitgeist for a generation. How old are you?

>>17273231
Gimme 48 studies.

Quick question the topic because I don't want to start a new thread.

I am an internet pirate, obviously, but also a professional clinical psychoanalyst-in-training, which is why I say this. But this feat of piracy I offer for y'all was no ordinary storm or capture. I went through all sorts of misadventures digitally and IRL to get these psychometric instruments: including sexually bribing an art collector.

Basically, I have access to virtually every professional IQ test in the world. I also have the MMPI-2 (hosted online, self-scoring, I can interpret for a small donation), the Fuchs parallel series to the standard Rorschach inkblots (a test which requires a living, thinking human to interpret -- there is NO remotely accurate online test, despite the inkblots being in public domain), and the Holtzman Apperceptive Inkblot Technique cards, Series A consisting of 43 symmetrical and assymetrical inkblots; this is an incredibly rare test that was constructed and factored/normed in order to improve the empirical reliability and validity of the Rorschach's basic notions.

***I would gladly distribute any of these tests***, obviously, without any compensation; because I just love psychometrics and find them applicable for my clinical work (even though I am legally not certified specifically as a "psychometrician" and am "not allowed" technically to adminster them ;) ) and want to share.

However, assuming every test was administered -- meaning, 1 of the many, many professional IQ full scale instruments, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), the Rorschach, and the Holtzman -- the end result is a document anywhere from 20-40 pages long with rich and detailed interpretive material that is, honestly, shockingly accurate and individually enlightening; at least my more holistic, analytic interpretations have been described as (by people I knew nothing about except their answers...)

I am good at this because I use this pretty regularly in my part-time clinical training supervised practice (working toward licensure). I've been slinging and reading the rarest inkblots for over seven years lol. But I'm sure the main focus of interest you all will have, will of course, be the incredible database of stolen professional intelligence metric instruments... lol.

If you have an interest in accessing the tests for yourself to interpret-- email me at:
jackbflynn (at) tuta (dot) io.

***If you do not want to / cannot interpret it yourself***, and would be interested in the full scale psychometric evaluation and interpretation, including the MMPI and the inkblots, ALSO email me, and I would genuinely enjoy delivering the 20-40 pages by the end of two weeks (that's the best and most realistic deadline, personally). However, while I would be glad to provide the service of IQ & psychometric eval. purely in charity as I have very often done, I work & study full-time and must ask for "Pay-What-You-Want/Can" through PayPal. Could be $2... Best!

>>17273191
>And what in the world would a measure of intelligence have to do with “real-world implications”?
If a questionnaire designed to measure intelligence doesn't correlate statistically with anything then it's completely useless, this is what I mean by "real-world implications"

>>17270906
/pol/ tier pseudo

live in a black neighborhood for a year and tell me IQ isn't real. go ahead. come to the lower class walmart where I shop and tell me intelligence isn't correlated to descision making, impulse control and behavior. C'mon, it'll be fun right? you do have your concealed carry permit, right? right?

>>17273465
>studies that make me feel badbadnotgood are le pol baddy thoughts! those aren't allowed!

stick to comics

>>17270921
Check his other videos ahahahahah, no thanks

>>17272546
Check his other videos, you could tell what he was going to say just from judging his channel content

>>17272141
>As is typical of /pol/ spillage we have some pretty bad arguments here
Stfu about Pol spillage. There's plenty of faggots here that are clearly from Reddit and I never see complaints

>>17272308
Not to mention the creator 'quirky' YouTube clearly has an axe to grind and is blatantly left wing

Koko the gorilla had an IQ estimated within the range of 70-90

>>17273548
>Believing any of this

>>17273557
IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE

>>17271017
Debooooooooonked

>>17273557
I do wonder what passed through the minds of sheltered (liberal) people sometimes lol

I can't be arsed to type it out but >>17272870 said it well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH_2sw3fNV8

>>17273783
>Anyone I disagree with is a liberal
Cringe, do some real reading on Koko the gorilla you halfwit

>>17272141
you will tell me this book is racist propaganda and biased while telling me to watch a video made by someone who is clearly very left wing

>>17271170
jej

>>17273845
>The gorilla, who was said to have an IQ of between 75 and 95, could understand 2,000 words of spoken English.
>The average IQ for humans on many tests is 100, and most people score somewhere between 85 and 115.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44559261#:~:text=The%20gorilla%2C%20who%20was%20said,somewhere%20between%2085%20and%20115.&text=She%20was%20born%20at%20the%20San%20Francisco%20Zoo%20in%201971.

Just one Google search.

It's a good introductory book on IQ as >>17270930 says. That's all there is to it.

>>17271084
>I hear a lot of shit saying it's been debunked, but what has been debunked?
Just say it's been debunked enough and it will be debunked.

>>17272222

you can remove a lot of the sophistry surrounding the IQ discussion by replacing 'IQ' with 'ability to create and innovate technology'
now you can seriously start to consider the ramifications of some groups being in charge of developing all the latest technology, infrastructure and medicines, if you want to take it into the political dimension

>>17270921
This is just another parroting of the Mismeasure of Man, which is a profoundly misguided book.

>>17271022
Expected retarded Gouldish take. You know you’re fucked up when you start arguing things like “intelligence isn’t real”. I genuinely do not care about your metaphysical bullshit, and your inability to understand statistical constructs.

>>17274313
>could understand 2,000 words of spoken English.
Could she????
Perhaps if you do more than one basic Google search and actually read you might find alternative views on the extents of her intelligence.

>>17271176
Intelligence is “g”, the principal factor we derive from a battery of IQ tests.

I do not care what “g” metaphysically is, nor whether it “exists”. It has a causal link with many important factors, hence it is relevant and important.

>>17274657
>It has a causal link with many important factors, hence it is relevant and important.
Does it?
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>17272141
You don’t trust the arguments/papers of racists? Ok, I suppose I won’t trust yours. I guess I have no option but to stand by my views and remain in my echo chamber, which you presumably consider hateful and dangerous. Good job comrade.

>>17274672
Ahahhahaa its the Taleb article. “Non-linearity” jesus christ. Read the comments on the article.

>>17274672
>after realizing Gould is not looking serious, go for the Phoenician
Taleb isn't much better, and he isn't even denying what anon said in his previous post.

>>17274683
There is no comment section
Do you mean other articles written in reply?
I'll get around to reading them but if you want me to actually comment on them now you'll have to summarise for me

>>17274737

>>17274672
once again, read >>17274596
you can't seriously be saying that everyone will be able to build the latest technology, or that the ability to come up with the latest medicine is randomly distributed among all people

as a survival strategy it might be more clever to lure dumb people in with promises of cognitive ability ("everyone can be intelligent, the latest nuclear reactor will surely be designed by you if you just put your heart into it") but it's not true. it probably requires ruthless selection pressures that focuses on cognitive ability for many generations.

in that sense, leftists truly are the "real racists" because they intuitively understand how to keep their clientele in a state of cognitive serfdom. that's also why I don't argue for this stuff in any serious capacity, do I seriously want to create minority populations with the ability to design power plants?

>>17270906
lmao what. Someone wrote a whole book discussing that IQ, like most other phenomena can be represented on a bell curve?

>>17274787
What's actually more interesting is that different racial groups seem to have different distributions
north east asians as a general rule seem to have a slightly higher average than northern europeans but have a narrower variance, at leaast if I'm remembering the studies properly, what this means is asian groups have a lower rate of genius

>>17274844
Yes, then the left went apeshit over it.

>>17272560
oy vey! this is kinda anti-semetic.

>>17274787
>you can't seriously be saying that everyone will be able to build the latest technology, or that the ability to come up with the latest medicine is randomly distributed among all people
I'm not saying that whatsoever.
I agree wholeheartedly that intelligence varies greatly throughout human beings.
However whether IQ tests are an accurate measure of the concept "intelligence" and what portion of this concept it actually measures is what I'm focused on.
>>17274756
I went and read the top few comments.
The first one is by far the largest but essentially all of its criticism are focused at his interpretations and frankly over the top opinions which I do not share.
It's the statistics he discusses which I am far more interested in and don't seem to be addressed in the comments are all.

>>17274844
Gaussian normal functions are not the alpha and omega of statistics.
Although the argument is hardly about the specific distribution (it could have Lorentzian tails for all we care) and more about how the big bad guys even dare tabulate things.

>>17274871
What are the statistics he discusses that interest you and that do not support the “g” hypothesis

>>17274871
>It's the statistics he discusses which I am far more interested in and don't seem to be addressed in the comments are all.
There are breakdown of how Taleb selectively massaged the statistics to fit his narrative, if you're interested in them
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=8028

>>17274855
What were the comments?

Pretty sure it would have been in response to the conclusions the author draws from the bell curve, rather than denial of a bell curve distribution.

>>17271047
Vaush, where's your video where you were supposed to absolutely BTFO Alt-Hype.

I stopped keeping track when you started blocking people for mentioning it.

>>17272141
>Strawman, the argument. "Narrative" is the hot /pol/ topic of today, but the "narrative" that all men are created equal has been around since the conception of the United States
Ok and they were wrong so who cares.

>>17274848
yea I'm not going to pretend to know what's going on in the right end tail of the bell curve but I'd probably advice against an overly mechanistic view of intelligence. reverse engineering intelligence ("oh you just need to select for ability x over this many generations") is also too reductive but it's really another subject, one I feel is even more "dangerous" than talking about policy implications of population stratification
>>17274871
>However whether IQ tests are an accurate measure of the concept "intelligence" and what portion of this concept it actually measures is what I'm focused on.
you have this autistic idea of intelligence, as if it even matters whether you can find a water tight model for this stuff. what matters is that china is buying all of nigeria and they have no qualms about not trusting nigerians to have the cognitive ability to uphold whatever infrastructure they build over there. what matters if how economists think, if they believe that innovations in water supply infrastructure is going to allow for even more growth in south africa

>>17274969
That’s pretty kek

>>17274990
It's equal before god and the law, nothing else, all men are different

>>17274997
Zimbabwe and South Africa could be a model of the future of america and europe
it was undermined by policies that increased the black birth rate, rendering whites a smaller and smaller minority, then helped by chinese and jewis they overthrew them and now are being colonised by them, meanwhile zimbabwe begs for white farmers to come back to do the magic food growing thing...

>>17274903
>>17274889
http://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/

This is one of the graphs I was particularly interested in.
Now Taleb makes the claim that there is no correlation above 45k income and it's true, he's completely full of shit.
However, even Jonathan Pallesen analysis shows an R squared value of only 0.09 which is a small effect size correlation. This means that, given also the large sample size, this correlation really isn't that impressive at all especially when you consider it's over a 10 year period.

I want to reiterate that most (if not all) of what Taleb says I disagree with because he takes data and goes way over the top with his interpretations. However, this doesn't change what the data shows.

>>17274997
>you have this autistic idea of intelligence, as if it even matters whether you can find a water tight model for this stuff. what matters is that china is buying all of nigeria and they have no qualms about not trusting nigerians to have the cognitive ability to uphold whatever infrastructure they build over there. what matters if how economists think, if they believe that innovations in water supply infrastructure is going to allow for even more growth in south africa
What does this have to do with IQ tests

>>17275051
for you sir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_rEErqUrI

>>17275051
Thats an ok R^2 for sociology. Also yeah, IQ explains less of the variance at higher levels of IQ. This does mean that there’s less reason to be autistic about IQ when it comes to 100+. Issue is that most of the arguments people care about, like the black white difference, are located more so at the average below average level. The conversation has always been centered there, I suppose.
TLDR you’re right but people generally know this and it’s sort of relevant to the applications, IMO.

>>17275057
the fruit of intelligence is infrastructure and technology, that is why we are interested in it to begin with. it creates the world, it changes our environment and it determines who becomes the leader to some degree

the arguments about IQ tests are mostly for timid academic types, made perfectly clear by the desire to find "loopholes" in some fucking model that measures intelligence in the abstract. the time for models are over, the reality is that you're now reproducing an enormous amount of people who can't uphold the infrastructure that has already been built

>>17275071
Literally clamped
Based.

>>17270906
It's eye-opening if you're the kind of moron liberal who claims to believe in evolution but then also believes that all human beings are identical clones from the Guy Factory. If you're not retarded it's not astounding. Still a good book though.

>>17275071
This video doesn't "debunk" my points on that graph.
>>17275110
It just scraps the bottom of the acceptable correlation range.
I understand your point but if you look at differences between racial IQ scores as actually indicate of one group being on average more intelligent than the other i think you're misled.

>>17275196
Also it's 1 am here and I'm frankly exhausted, I'll reply to any replies if the thread is still up tomorrow.

>>17275196
> but if you look at differences between racial IQ scores as actually indicate of one group being on average more intelligent than the other i think you're misled.
Well I mean ... what other way is there of interpreting this difference? It’s almost certain the tests aren’t culturally biased, and the subtests with larger gaps are the most g-loaded ones. Socioeconomic factors are obviously don’t explain all of it either, so again, how else am I meant to take it?

>>17275196
Oh that wasn't my intent, it was just another rebuttal to Taleb

>>17275122
>the reality is that you're now reproducing an enormous amount of people who can't uphold the infrastructure that has already been built
yes this is our sad state of affairs, our visionary predecessors foresaw as much, even as far back as the late 1800s

>>17275051
You should not prima facie consider R^2 meaningful when using WLS estimation.

> It just scraps the bottom of the acceptable correlation range.

According to who? R^2 says nothing about statistical validity or bias. R^2 is also very sensitive to statistical methodology and often meaningless in applications outside CLM. You should focus on significance levels and validity arguments instead.

>>17275496
*CLRM

>>17273231
So you are of the opinion that environmental factors are not the only ones affecting IQ and that genes matters too ? Welcome to the alt-right. Your thoughts are not allowed on any platform on the web. Unless of course you frame them in a devious way to not trigger the leftists like you did just now by admitting to this forbidden idea but in taking the side of environment (only in appearance however, since nobody is arguing for 100% genetics factors, so you are directly in line with the alt-right)

>>17271332
Genuine question: why did Richatd Lynn manifacture so many sources? Why are virtually all the Lynn sources cited in The Bell Curve manifactured (sloppily too)?

>>17275701
Source for this claim?

>>17275739
Literally check the sources, most of the time Lynn simply takes random numbers in the text he's citing and uses it as a valur for IQ. I can't be bothered to look into it again (I did so maybe 1-2 years ago). A case I kinda remember was the one of Nigeria (maybe it wasnt Nigeria, if you csnt locate it I can look into it again): iirc there were 84 participants, so Lynn decided that the national average IQ for Nigerians was 84.

>>17275770
Lol based, I'll try to find it, but given that wikipedia doesn't criticize him for it it doesn't seem to be true.

>>17275770
Didn't Wicherts try to discredit Lynn with that argument but eventually he was vindicated?

>>17275770
Yeah look I tried to check the nigeria data, and the study Lynn cites has the appendix with the data cut out, so there's your cover up.
Check this out:
https://viewoniq.org/?p=134

>>17271004
This. You don't need tons of statistics and graphs to realize niggers are niggers

>>17270921
Hype tore this bigger to bloody ribbons
HBD is real, there's no getting around it, and expecting equal outcomes between groups on g-loaded tasks is like expecting a donkey to run as fast as a horse.

if you argue on 4chan or any other social media, you cant be that intelligent

>>17270998
Because not everyone being able to code means that the cosmopolitan technocratic capitalist meritocracy is actually a fundamentally immoral system. If everyone DOES have the mental potential to code, that means that you can blame the inadequacy of the plebs on your political enemies, while also feeling good about your status in the technocracy

>>17273054
A "take" that "disagrees with the common consensus" is not "middle of the road," retard. Also, read the book, it will explain why you fail in life.

>>17271009
Blacks have critically underdeveloped frontal and temporal lobes. The skull morphology is essentially indistinguishable from that of the chimp. It is impossible for a black to have the same cognitive potential as a Caucasian. This is an objective fact.

>>17271047
pic related who is this nigger?

>>17271103
> no direct answer

Like fucking usual.

>>17270906
>Eye opening

Maybe for retards it is. Anyone with a single functioning brain cell knows that niggers are sub-animals.

>>17270906
Dwelling on the obvious fact race differences is real is pointless, it is instinctual, why read about something you already now, a bunch of statics wont help you convince people.

Posting in based schizo thread

>>17278001
Cope, you nigger apologist. I dare you to name a single positive that would be lost if niggers were exterminated. Pro tip: You can't.

By the way, even the poorest white people are still better human beings than the richest niggers. Wealth has nothing to do with why niggers are shit.

Fin.

>>17278000
I posted your image on /mu/ like a year ago in a kanye thread. Jannies got me for that.

>>17278058
The jannies are actual trannies. No seriously, they are. There was a temporary shutdown of the site when one of them was doxxed and revealed to be a tranny.

>>17277987
>genital mutilation
>(((USA))) is completely red
Haha

>>17273034
Proof?

>>17270906
If the thread gets deleted, take a moment to reconsider your positions on the subject ;)

>>17270906
This book's single biggest fallacy is in how it completely ignores the correlation between high cognitive ability and susceptibility to mental illness.

>>17272141
>A quirky youtube video is easier to digest than a 845 page piece of racist propaganda

>>17270998
there is no dumb -- there is only the disadvantaged
there is no smart -- there is only the privileged

seriously, I've seen so much justifying intelligence with not only societal, but economic reasons it's unreal. Fucking retard lefties praising evil idiots just because they are working class

This book can be refuted just by considering how fucking mundane, trivial and unintelligent -- yet guarded by institutional nepotism -- many high paying professions are.

>>17271017
(((Resnick)))
(((Fienberg)))

>>17272232
what are you talking about? he goes in depth on the sources of the evidence presented and statistical techniques used? did you just watch the first 5 minutes and give up or something?