/lit/ - Literature

142. IQ doesnt mean anything, im retarded and people I met when trying Mensa are even more stupid.
At least if you score well at IQ test here in France they allow you to skip a year at school, it's neat I could get into adulthood early. Some people from my local chess club skipped 2 or 3 years thanks to it

You only need a soul to appreciate literature ; it's what's at the end of your gaze that will be beautiful, whetever distance your gaze reaches does not matter

>>23170361
Pretty low. I test at around 110-130 or something, and I was (cringe I know) throwing off some answers so that I could feel better about myself if it was low. I was tested in a psychiatric clinic.

I think it's critically important to understanding literature, but I also think anyone no matter their IQ can get stuck in faulty ideas, and those with higher IQs will just be able to construct far more elaborate and difficult to contradict arguments for those faulty ideas.

>>23170361
5
dfhgaraq

>>23170361
How does matching little puzzle pieces indicate how well you can appreciate literature?

>>23170387
It's just supposed to determine how well you can solve problems. Solving puzzle pieces, mathematical puzzles, and what sort of ideas are being conveyed by a text are really similar.

IQ is perpetuated to demoralize niche autists and little else. Darwin was the anti-Christ.

>>23170390
Is there a test originated by the post-1859 world to determine how well I screwed your fat hog of a mother?

>>23170402
IQ also tracks specific intellectual spheres like spatial and verbal IQ, so it's possible for someone to be a genius in one area but literally retarded in others. The big "IQ" number is just an average of the specifics, and you can pretty easily guess that autist is not plainly retarded if they have a 90 IQ average but 160 Spatial and 140 Recall etc.

120 is the sexiest and the most creative and I got it

I got tested when I was 5
>performantial IQ 82
>verbal IQ 128

Online tests place me around 145. I attended the PSEO program in high school for all my classes under the guidance of three teachers. I also flunked out of college due to sleeping in the parking lot during the second semester.
I've worked numerous jobs, from selling building materials to software engineering in the medical field. All without a degree.
I've also been homeless, and it seems I might be homeless again soon.
I have countless personal projects to work on (most are programs/libraries to write, some are papers, and some are physical projects I need more money to work on). I have EXTREME difficulty in maintaining efforts on a singular project for a sustained duration of time---this is especially the case when it comes to work I do not consider important (which turns out to be most work).
I have zero friends, but have had many. I tend to get infatuated with people, and then discard of them once they become boring to me. Most people at this point are boring to me. Many people do not work on novel things, and if your work is not novel, then it probably won't take me too long to "grasp" you.
I also have a mental disorder of some sort. I have tics (blinking and pacing small spaces while holding a pencil near my eye). When I pace with my pencil, I daydream in my head about whatever I want at that moment. It can be war, fashion, machinery, or whatever else I want. I can do this for hours.
I'm also combating alcoholism.

>>23170448
I read that physical ones are quite extensive and span multiple domains or categories

>>23170387
Picking up on patterns an author used that might be subtle.

>>23170423
>90 IQ average but 160 Spatial and 140 Recall etc.
It's practically impossible to get that. It would be more like 130 IQ average with 120 mathematical and 145 English/clerical

>>23170361
huh duh IQ is flawed, it doesn't measure literacy

>>23170475
I wrote a dramatic example.

>>23170361
The thing that makes me most sceptical of IQ isn't that it doesn't measure literacy, or anything else for that matter, but that it seems completely dependent upon performance. So, if you sick or fatigued, you would obviously perform worse than if you were feeling sharp.
To put it another way, if you were to take the Mensa test multiple times isn't it highly probable that you would score differently each time?

>>23170361
I did a WAIS-IV, and scored 148 verbal IQ. I did this while being at my phenotypical minimum. (I was sick, sleep deprived, and physically in rehab.

>>23170361
62, i only brows here for memes

>>23170592
Why did you incorrectly use the word "phenotypical"?

>>23170605
>incorrectly
read it again midwit

>>23170380
I also scored high when tested as a kid. 140something, I skipped grade 3. What you say about soul is true.
I think IQ is a pretty worthless metric. If it measures anything at all, it measures intellect but neglects wisdom. True intelligence is the marriage of these 2 things. Intellect by itself is incomplete if not dangerous. If I had to choose one or the other I would choose wisdom.

>>23170361
>>
>>Inb4 huh duh IQ is flawed, it doesn't measure literacy
IQ measures how dumb you are not how smart you are

And only murifats care about IQ because they love to pretend they are scientist

>>23170618
It actually indicates that you don't understand the nuance behind the word. I don't even care, I just thought it was funny that you were misusing an uncommon word while boasting about a high verbal IQ.
But to make it clear for you, phenotype isn't just a word you throw around to describe an organism's state. It entails a lot more than just that, generally the expression of its genes in relation to a genotype. These are examples of how absurd your use of the word is:
>Damn, look at what my arrow did to that deer! It must be at the phenotypical minimum for this whole forest.
>Vgh... I'm in a bad phenotypical state right now...
There's a lot more going on with the word "phenotype" than that.

Most folks who got their IQ test done did it at a public "school", or a "doctor"'s office, or an online buzzfeed quiz. Is it not deliciously ironic that in order to "measure" one's IQ it already needs be low enough to qualify one as a midwit? I would posit that nobody itt could even break into middle management with their "juicy IQ power".

I got a 92. Posting here makes me nervous because everyone on 4chan is in the 130-150 range.

>>23170626
>If I had to choose one or the other I would choose wisdom
Correct. The intellect is just a means to an end; that end being wisdom.

>>23170361
It's not important. Intelligence larps are embarrassing

>>23170782
Denying IQ in 2024 says a lot

>>23170797
>It says a lot ashley

>>23170380
>it's what's at the end of your gaze that will be beautiful, whetever distance your gaze reaches does not matter
This incoherent and unclear sentence, written by someone with an alleged IQ of 142, is proof IQ is a meme.

>>23170768
you're just as smart as those bozos

>>23170810
This is why scientists will always mog literaries

>>23170361
i believe high IQ helps you appreciate rhythms and patterns in text, particularly poetry
there are so many poems that don't resonate with me just because they don't have regular meter or rhyme scheme, which makes it sound awkward

>>>/sci/

>>23170824
>there are so many poems that don't resonate with me just because they don't have regular meter or rhyme scheme, which makes it sound awkward
It's called free verse, and it's creation was a mistake. It made poetry accessible because now people don't need to study poetry before they try it out, they just write any old shit and say it's poetry. There is some good free verse, but most contemporary poetry is shite.

>>23170824
>what is free verse
This is why IQ is bs.

>what is taste

Someone who scorers a 100 probably can enjoy literature as much as anyone. As long as there is not some sort of disability a person has, what matters more is interest. The people who are the most well read likely are all extremely interested in whatever they choose to read.

>>23170797
Based on what? The research on iq seems to be the same since the 70s. You can look at Richard Lynn and he’s talking about the same stuff Charles Murray and Jared Taylor talk about today. It’s an odd thing how the people who are most likely to criticize the social sciences are also the ones to put the most faith in iq research.

>>23170852
>Jared Taylor
This guy gives me an evil vibe. I can see it in his eyes.

>>23170852
Simply because IQ is one of the only decent things that came out of social sciences. It isn't some psychological or sociological projection faggotery and the correlations that exist between a lot of variables and IQ are genuinely undeniable. Even pozzed universities are backtracking on removing standardized testing because of how effective it actually is and sites like vox.com have decent articles on it despite being hopeless leftist rat holes.

>>23170361
Verbal is 160 because I aced the quiz. It was a spelling test and each word got progressively more difficult. The final word was “pusillanimity.” The verbal Iq test doesn’t even measure your understanding of these words but whether you can spell them or not which I found to be a flawed measurement of linguistic skill.

>>23170881
how would that even measure your iq? it just measures your memory/how much you read. and if that would be tested in a phonetic language it wouldnt mean anything

>>23170894
That is the exact reason why people criticize Iq tests as culturally relative.

IQ as a concept is profoundly stupid

>>23170361
Why should I tell you that, fuck face?

>>23171054
nta, you're such an attention whore, just ignore the thread you dumb mf

>>23170878
IQ seems to be pretty similar to other social sciences for being pretty inaccurate. Gary kasporav got a 130 when he took the test. Yet he’s the longest running chess champion ever. If iq were accurate you’d expect hed score well over 160. Some people cope that chess isn’t related that much with g. But then what’s next? Will math and physics also be not related to g? Richard Feynman scored 127 on his test. But then that one guy Chris Langan apparently has the highest iq ever. It seems to me that iq tests are not doing all that much. People who are used to using their minds well can score above average but it doesn’t seem to get at this idea that it is showing how much intellect you posses.

Many say that third world countries in Africa have averages in the 60s. But this is clearly false. People from those countries if raised in a first world country would have dramatically higher scores than the average from their own country.

>>23170380
>>23170626
>>23170361
The best way to determine wisdom is by having a list of a person's top 5-10 books, films, aspirations in life, and other metrics. This is the best indicator of wisdom moreso than IQ. Taste solidifies around the age of 33.
People who list a bunch of shallow entertainment and other garbage at the age of 33 should be publicly executed.
Interpersonal interaction is obsolete and people should carry a portfolio full of such lists. Rather than say, "Hello," people could simply share lists and then others determine compatibility for friendship.
In fact, chipping people with these lists and scanning it with an smartphone seems the best way to make friends.
Castes should also be rigidly defined by the AI.
I am not joking.

>>23171069
Excellent post, IQ is hogwash

Minds are incredibly subtle and powerful, with all sorts of hidden abilities, and no two ever thunk alike

>>23171092
But lists are not! Taste is not entirely subjective. One can gauge level of contemplative depth based on such lists. Someone who watches a lot of art-house films rather than Blockbuster tripe most likely has a richer weltanschauung than the rabble.

>>23171092
UnIronically I would agree.

>>23171078
>>23171092
>>23171123
Weak arguments cosigned by midwits. Feynman has produced nothing that would make us believe he should have had an outlier high IQ. On the contrary, he was known for being very good at outreach which is a sign of someone being somewhat close to the average student. He also hated modern mathematics which he considered... too abstract. Just lol at using him as a counter example. Also, being successful or producing influencial works or even being recognized by your peers during your lifetime doesn't depend exclusively on IQ. It is definitely correlated, but there isn't a causal relationship there. You guys need to stop coping so hard.

>>23171069
>>23171092
>>23171123
Weak arguments cosigned by midwits. Feynman has produced nothing that would make us believe he should have had an outlier high IQ. On the contrary, he was known for being very good at outreach which is a sign of someone being somewhat close to the average student and acting as a bridge between the big brains and the layman. He also hated modern mathematics which he considered... too abstract. Just lol at using him as a counter example. Also, being successful or producing influencial works or even being recognized by your peers during your lifetime doesn't depend exclusively on IQ. It is definitely correlated, but there isn't a causal relationship there. You guys need to stop coping so hard. Counter examples only work for logical reasoning. When we talk about correlation, things are much more subtle and IQ just happens to be extremely meaningful whether you like it or not. Leftists have tried extremely hard in the past decades to eliminate it because of its implications on the idea of "equality" yet it keeps coming back because it simply is there.

>>23170797
I dont care to compete with a bunch of urbanite STEMfags on this board. It's clear most people here are younger than me and never worked an honest day of hard labor in their life. Must be nice to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth because you're "gifted"

>>23170361
95 for really no cap, don't care if its was 80 because TV at doesn't determine a humans worth.

>>23171066
How about you eat my shit, you projecting cumsack? I'll do whatever the jolly fuck I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

>>23170361

I tested 155 on Wechsler, twice, which is as high as it goes.
Having a high IQ is like being tall. Perhaps it helps, perhaps it doesn't, and what you do with it could be beneficial, or not.
From a literature perspective, IQ would perhaps help you make certain types of connections faster, but not necessarily more of them. You may be able to quickly and more accurately predict outcomes set up by the author via foreshadowing etc, but that's no indication of a deeper understanding of the work.

>>23171312
You have a tiny imagination. It is also very clear you identify with intelligence. It's part of your brand it seems. Maybe you should wear your IQ on your sleeve.

>>23170361
IQ is important for picking up the meaning of works quickly, but it is not the only factor. Diversity of experience, thought, and knowledge all constitute major aspects of being able to parse literary works.

If you have a low IQ, I would guess you wouldn’t be able to understand Ulysses or War and Peace, but some high IQ people miss the point of those works entirely and can even damage them for themselves by their misinterpretation. So it is *an* important factor, but only a fraction of a much wider concatenation of proclivities and aspects of a reader.

>>23170361
Verbal is 198, math is 72.

>>23171645
ur a smart guy

>>23171312
What’s your explanation of Gary kasporav?

>>23171755
I don't have to explain everything. the mere assumption that being good at chess is an accurate reflexion of IQ is dubious.

my iq is 115 i am bright but not especially so

>>23171814
Mine is actually around that level but only because the abysmal math score brought down the entire thing. I’m basically this guy >>23171670 but for real.

>>23171665
>miss the point of those works entirely and can even damage them for themselves by their misinterpretation.
>There's a "right" interpretation of literature
I'd agree with you, if you emphasized that there are better interpretations than others. Claiming one "correct" interpretation is ivory tower gatekeeping by people trying to justify 20+ years in academia.

>>23171107
you can just say "worldview"

>>23171801
>the mere assumption that being good at chess is an accurate reflexion of IQ is dubious.
It’s the assumption that being good at chess is an accurate relaxation of intelligence. If iq means something it should correlate to chess ability. It would be very weird to think chess ability is unimportant to innate intelligence. Is that your point? That chess ability and innate intelligence which iq tests supposedly test, does not make sense to think are correlated? Chess is a very complex game of the mind. It used to be thought that not even artificial intelligence would be able to beat a human at chess it is so complicated.

>>23171890
>it should correlate to chess ability
NTA but it does. 130 is outlier high IQ, reflecting a working brain. It would be a strange anomaly if he had 90 IQ but not impossible.

>>23171877
I'm an intellectual, peasant. Know your place in the divine hierarchy.

>>23171890
It must correlate I agree with you, but it shouldn't correlate that strongly. Ive rarely heard of a chess master having made discoveries in science or arts, so it looks like a more specialized task more similar to a sport. It's a very simple game and the rules never change. It doesn't use spacial ability, nor language so I don't see it being that strongly correlated with G, even though it probably is to some extent.

>>23171670
>ur a smart guy
for you

>>23171636
>How about you eat my shit, you projecting cumsack? I'll do whatever the jolly fuck
Oh, my bad didn't know I know I was talking to Jake Speare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsCCmM0E9Fg
This BBC pop docu actually covers it. Rigid, proven science doesn't have a full grasp on the subject but I do, of course, I am a random anonymous faggot after all so you should expect no less.
The IQ specialist has a surprisingly small brain, he has trained thick specialized networks to solve the kind of pattern recognition questions IQ tests. This can be more widely applied but his IQ is not really representative of his general ability.
The smartest guy is the physicist despite having the second highest IQ. He has a huge brain and a million tricks stored in that huge brain to apply to practical problems. He uses formal steps over intuition so he doesn't need strong bulks of connections, just sort of indexes of information he can consciously work through.
Despite not being very smart or big brained the artist still has clear advantages over both of them in some situations, she's intuitive and scatter brained. She relies on neither a huge list of information nor pre-trained connections, she uses the biologically evolved aesthetic relationship with the senses themselves, more like an animal.

>>23170380
was tested 144 at age 12. I had skipped CE1, then got a TB baccalauréat and a license. I still consider myself pretty damn stupid each time I study Aristotle for an hour. Been struggling to get a master's degree. Overall I'm relatively happy, hope you're doing ok mate.

>>23170361
Not very. Empathy, intuition, and a perceptive mind are all more important

>>23172000
>The IQ specialist has a surprisingly small brain, he has trained thick specialized networks to solve the kind of pattern recognition questions IQ tests. This can be more widely applied but his IQ is not really representative of his general ability.
>The smartest guy is the physicist despite having the second highest IQ. He has a huge brain and a million tricks stored in that huge brain to apply to practical problems.

There is no correlation between brain size and IQ.

>>23172055
0.3-0.4 correlation and in the BBC example we can see an example of the kind of cases that significantly lower that number, his brain is shrunk through pruning to be more specialized and fast but how much brain matter he started with in the first place will affect how well that pruning process works. If brain size wasn't important there would be no evolutionary pressure to grow them or fold them. More space can encode more information.

>>23170361
137-142 depending on the test and my mood

>>23171953
>Ive rarely heard of a chess master having made discoveries in science or arts,
Why would they? To do something exceptional means to specialize. Someone who is an amazing chess player like Bobby Fischer has to devote his entirety to that endeavor. It is like asking why there are not many world renowned concert pianists who also have mathematics fields medals

Took wechsler in the middle of the day and got 140. Took another at around midnight, administered by some russian over a discord call, and got 133 SBV (in SD15).

IQ does matter, but not as much as the people of /sci/ believe. I believe it does measure the common denominator of human intelligence, but there do exist factors beyond it. I was aware from a young age that I was higher in pure cognitive ability, but I also had blind spots in problem-solving not shared by others. Some of this was due to my upbringing, some due to my personality, which is likely genetic in large part. As for literature, I think having a relatively high IQ is necessary but not sufficient. Reading and writing should always be an intellectual activity. Critical thinking skills are required to explore possible interpretations of a work, and truly thinking critically requires a certain amount of intelligence*. I'm not going to put a number on this imaginary threshold, but it is there in a very fuzzy way.

* - This, by the way, is why I'm largely against introducing 'critical thinking skills' into schools. The techniques now taught to schoolchildren as in picrel are only useful to minds of a certain processing-power. Giving children a set of mental paradigms to think in is not teaching them much useful, because truly deep thought is different every time it is done. Critical thinking is, by definition, thinking outside of a system, and can therefore never be taught as a part of a system. Such systems do not create thinkers; they create redditors. For this reason, there has never existed in human history, nor is there likely to exist, a 'critically thinking public'.

>>23171953
>It doesn't use spacial ability, nor language so I don't see it being that strongly correlated with G, even though it probably is to some extent.
It’s very unusual to just discard chess like that. Chess is very much about pattern recognition, memory and thinking many steps ahead. It is almost like with your argument you could say anything is not that related to G. Being good even at pure mathematics would be too specialized maybe to you.

>>23172055
>generalizing based on 2 examples

Hey anon, have you considered killing yourself?

>>23172136
>Chess is very much about pattern recognition
I've read often that chess is more about memorisation than anything that's why I'm taking tbat stance. I just don't know much on the topic and find it weird that chess players never stand out in anything other than chess, when people with high iq are generally good at pretty much anything.

>>23172139

Here's a third example:
>A 1999 study by a research team at the Faculty of Health Sciences at McMaster University, actually showed that Einstein's brain was smaller than average. While smaller overall, there were, however, certain areas of his brain that were above average.
https://www.criver.com/eureka/whats-so-special-about-einsteins-brain

But what would you know, you're a small brained mammal with a brain only the quarter the size of an elephant's.

>>23170570
Yes, but you would probably score within the same range if you (usually as per the proctor's instructions) decided not to stay up the night before, or do crack etc. Every IQ test gives you a range of possible scores (usually about 7-10 points) in which you have a 95% chance of scoring again if you retook the test.

>>23171069
>People from those countries if raised in a first world country would have dramatically higher scores than the average from their own country.

OK? this doesn't contradict the argument you're trying to refute though. Nobody claims it's entirely genetic.

I never have had my IQ tested as an adult, but my parents were concerned I was autistic and had me tested in middle school. my IQ was perfectly in the Average range.

>>23172148
Why should I care at all about 3 highly irregular examples?

>>23172170
Well how much is genetic? Theres almost what is now considered the god of the gaps for hereditarianism. Charles Murray in the bell curve wrote that the iq of black Americans was 84. In his latest book he has claimed the iq is 90. And in the decades past with richard Lynn it was well lower than 84 from what was stated. So what is the gap? Will there still be these claims that nothing can change even when the gap is 4 points? It is very much like the climate change arguments of it being too late to stop. I think for hereditarians they should actually state what is the genetic aspect and that if the iq gaps gets narrower than a certain amount that the hereditarian argument then is probably wrong.

>>23172178
What are you talking about retard? If your model doesn't account for the exceptions then it is wrong. The irregular examples can falsify your theory or force you to adjust it.

>>23172141
>find it weird that chess players never stand out in anything other than chess,
What are theoretical physicists also good at? Or mathematicians? I think what makes more sense is just that people have to specialize. There are very few people who are exceptional at multiple things at a world class level. Like is there a federal judge who also is a leader in chemistry?

>>23172201
>I think what makes more sense is just that people have to specialize.
This is literally contradicted by data and the reason why even became a thing in the first place.

>>23172210
Social science data. People can find data for anything.

>>23172197
Probably a significant amount, given that pircel shows that placing blacks in middle-class white homes does not close the gap. If the gap was still environmental, it would be expected to get smaller between 7 and 17, not larger or stay the same.
>>23172189
Google what a correlation is you retarded fucking nigger.

>>23172250
>Google what a correlation is you retarded fucking nigger.
Are you actually this retarded or just dishonest?

>>23172263
wrong reply sorry

first was for >>23172189
second was for>>23172197

>>23170361
75. I just like the pictures books put in my head. Never been one for all that "Symbolism" crap.

>>23172279
Obviously retard, almost as obvious as the fact that blacks are retarded.

>>23172238
Not social science data, just school exams data. The idea that intelligence seems to be general more than it is specialized has been observed by educators first, not social scientists. And it was a surprise, because everyone used to think like you before reality blackpilled them about IQ and intelligence. You need to stop coping.

>>23172189
The fact that you ask "how much is genetic" shows a profound lack of understanding of statistics and how we actually know what we know.
I'm not gonna regurgitate a whole textbook on genetics, but the gist of it is that we don't ask "how much of it is genetic" or "how much of it is the environment" (those questions are not even wrong, they are simply non-sensical), but rather "how much of the difference is due to a difference in genetics / environment".
To give an easy example, identical twins (which share 99%+++ of their dna) growing up reared apart (different environment) are very similar to each other in just about any aspect. On IQ tests, for example, they score about as similar to each other on multiple tests as they do to themselves. Two adopted siblings that don't share any parent growing up together, on the other hand, will score as similarly on IQ tests as two totally random people.
But, I could take a gun and shoot one of the twins to reduce that twins IQ to zero. That would be 100% an environmental effect. So, is IQ now environmental or genetic? As said before, the question is not even truth apt. Within our societies, in the overwhelming amount of studies that have been done on IQ especially looking at long-term development and not just young children, it seems to be true that systematic environment barely has any explanatory power when it comes to differences in IQ between people.
The average IQ of black people in the US is about 85 btw, one standard deviation below whites. It's higher than for proper bantu in Africa because of some admixture with the white population. The gap between white and black people in the US hasn't changed at all since we have started properly measuring it (so at least since the first world war, long before the civil rights act btw).

>>23173044
You're a moron, dumber than any hoodlum gangster nignog I've ever talked to. You should off yourself, pseud. Don't talk about things you don't have a decent background. You write worse than any ESL I've ever encountered too.

>>23173044
You're a moron, dumber than any hoodlum gangster nignog I've ever talked to. You should off yourself, pseud. Don't talk about things you don't have a decent background in. You write worse than any ESL I've ever encountered too.

>>23173065
He's still right. There'd a genetic component involved in the racial IQ disparity. Actually, it's worse because "white hispanics" are counted in the numbers for white IQ.

What IQ is "man I don't wanna sit down and do this fucking test"

>>23173068
I accept your concession :^)

>>23173071
No, it's more complex and deeper than what he said.
My issue is he tried to deconstruct the nature/nurture dichotomy, which is still relevant.
Anyways, "intelligence" itself is a *abstract template* that is conditioned during critical period. Its rate of consolidation is determined by how plastic the brain is, which has genetic underpinnings.
What is most important is to determine what genes are correlated with heightened and longer duration of neuroplasticity.
Intelligence, itself, (as templates) does not exist a priori in the brain because there are different forms of logic (unless you take a Platonic approach in this regard).
I would argue nature/nurture is ~30/70. If you teach any child math, formal logic, and programming during *critical period*, then they will become "intelligent". Critical period has genetic basis though, but ultimately, critical period can also become "wasted potential" if one does not drill in "what is intelligent".
If you keep a rat dark reared during a specific post-natal day, during critical period, then their neurons do not wire correctly, and they remain blind the rest of their lives. There is a nuanced environmental-genetic-neuroplastic mediated interaction here that he conveniently ignored.
Ultimately speaking, from an ecological perspective, most forms of "discursive intelligence" can be considered "stupid". It depends on the set of metaphysical assumptions you adopt in this regard.

>>23173082
Even with great genetics, you can still have a messed up brain due to exposure to toxins or other environmental factors . At the end of the day it is the BRAIN that is important here. Moreover, the brain is plastic. Look up "experience dependent plasticity". Life is extremely dynamic and processual.

I would argue the focus should be on the genetics underpinning the duration and/or intensity of neuroplasticity across races. Intelligence itself does not exist a priori in the brain. It is learned by a highly plastic brain.

>>23173086
30/70 is incredibly generous.
I'd say it's closer to something like height, where a good diet, exercise, and lack of any traumatic injuries or major illness will allow someone to reach their potential. If you compare to groups like asians (which I am) or whites, obviously whites will be taller on *average* and no matter the socio-economic condition, because they're predisposed to a greater height.

The extreme overvaluing of nurture is mostly a cope. I grew up without an education, no access to primary school, with a poor family and lots of abuse and neglect, but my intelligence a lot higher than average. The same for my entire family. I know it's just an anecdote, but I think it would be ridiculous to assume that 70% of my intellect (good or bad) can be attributed to my environment. Now, if I had had my skull bashed repeatedly, maybe. I'd say with certainty that genetics is the greatest determining factor, but environmental stress can slightly change IQ.

>>23173109
You're a moron and do not come off as intelligent to me. Just a haughty fool who views himself too highly and repeats memes from his pseudointellectual subculture as if he's conveying something great. Also, most "stats" of IQ averages from various countries are not controlled well or have a representative sample.
I recommend reading more on literature of experience-dependent neuroplasticity and its genetic underpinnings. All brains are plastic, to a certain degree, but others are more plastic than others. It is also heightened during adolescence, making the acquisition of "logical" frameworks or knowledge easier. I remember coming across a study that broke those genes up based on race, but it is still in its nascent stage.
People who tend to overvalue their intelligence tend to be the dumbest people like (you).

>>23173101
Extreme environmental circumstances can have huge impacts, I never said otherwise. In fact, I specifically brought up the example of the "environmental intervention" of shooting someone to show that. Depriving a young kid during critical parts of development can mess them up for the rest of their lives, that is not controversial at all. But the truth of the matter is that, within the range of environmental differences of the societies studied, i.e. mostly "the west" (where most of those large twin studies are conducted), systematic environmental differences barely explain anything at all.
Now, you can go through those studies and criticize whatever they measured to account for "systematic environmental differences". By necessity, many things will be left out, as there is only so much we can measure. And there is no single study that doesn't have something worth criticizing it for. But looking at a large set of studies, at enormous pools of data, the consensus for everything we have done on the topic just seems to be that, well, people are different from each other in many outcomes (in the west) mostly because of different genomes, with random environmental variables taking a second place, and systematic environmental differences taking a distant third place in terms of explanatory power. Those "extreme" environmental factors don't seem to be a real factor on a population level, again, at least not in the populations studied, which means the west.

>>23170387
Pattern recognition, abstract thinking, subtext, hidden meaning, irony. All of these have a minimum threshold to understand, most people will meet it. Recognizing these things without another person pointing them out to you requires a far higher mental ability that most people will not meet.

>>23170824
>>23170841
You're both idiots.

>>23170852
It has moved well beyond the 1970s. If you read more literature you would not need to make vague and untrue generalities on an obscure board.

>>23170954
It is incredibly useful. Failing to realize this is implies a lack of understanding of how it works and how it is used.

>>23173101
I'm not that anon. But exposure to toxins and other environmental factors can indeed influence mental ability. But not in the way you think. Every single ethnic group has had all manner of situations that can decrease brain-function over time, Africans by stark contrast have had the lease, being largely left alone in their mud huts for generations longer than the rest of the world. Outside of Africa we overcame lead, asbestos, mercury, mining and worse.

According to your position Asians and Europeans should be worse off as they have suffered these toxins since before Rome. Sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, has been spared much of these affects because of their completely lack of industry, development and ability. Native Americans too should reflect this, but they do not. Africans and Native/First Peoples are amongst the most lacking in problem-solving and mental abilities.

>>23173123
Nobody is saying the brain can't be nurtured or harmed by the environment, but genetics is obviously extremely important for intellectual potential. People tend to cope by saying genetics is either not important or an extremely small part of intellectual potential, but that is as retarded as saying the biggest factor in being tall is drinking milk, exercising, and staying generally healthy. It will help you reach your potential, but if your genetics don't dictate that you're going to be any taller than 5'8ー tough luck.

You seem very offended by a reasonable post. I assume you're either a starry-eyed, privileged, bourgeoise whitoid or a brazilian macaco that has taken this way too personally. You can be born from two retarded parents and still be a genius. Even the macacos can make geniuses, it's just that the averages will be way lower. That doesn't mean that an individual macaco can't be an exceptional genius.

>>23173129
You don't understand my overall point about how we can't analyze the genes apart from the environment and experience in a dynamical system. Granted, I agreed that genes have a large role in the intensity (and duration of critical period) for neuroplasticity, which can differ across races (but still the research is in its nascent stage). However, even proper diet, such as DHA supplementation, has been shown to induce positive neuroplastic benefits. Furthermore, frequent mindfulness meditation in longitudinal studies has been shown to significantly induce positive neuroplastic benefits too, even increasing grey matter density and fractional anisotropy of white matter tracts.
You don't have to repeat the west a billion times. Your biases are plainly evident, faggot.
It does not make sense for intelligence, itself, to be genetic unless it exists, a priori, in some form, in the brain. Rather, it is more akin to an abstract template that is conditioned by a plastic brain, which is more heightened during adolescence or critical period. After all, there are different forms of logic (e.g., paraconsistent), which would involve manipulation of symbols in a different manner.
Also, since you gloated about your "intelligence", I might as well do too. I was able to predict John O'Keefe would win the Noble Prize years before he did.
Unlike John O'Keefe, you are arrogant garbage, underclass scum who cannot approach matters impartially. Everything must be politicized for you because you are disingenuous scum and should kys.
You are the bottom of the barrel of your race. Cope all you want about it, but you should have been beaten a bit more by your trashy parents.

>>23173150
Genetics is only important insofar as how it relates to intensity and duration of neuroplasticity as I have repeated multiple times.
Those with less plastic brains simply take longer in learning this or that. Do you understand?

>>23173131
Nothing you're saying relates to my point:

"Genetics is only important insofar as how it relates to intensity and duration of neuroplasticity as I have repeated multiple times.
Those with less plastic brains simply take longer in learning this or that. Do you understand?"

Intelligence does not exist a priori in the brain.

>>23170361
unironically have taken loads of IQ tests online and i fluctuate between 90 and 110

>>23173175
Then definitionally those with poor genetics have a lower potential; If one stimulates the intellect at some constant rate for some duration, the one with the greatest "duration of neuroplasticity" will have the greatest potential for resulting intelligence. This is not meaningfully different from saying some people have a greater potential thab others and amounts to hair-splitting.

>>23173185
>only
Almost definitely not the only factor. Genetic factors that make you predisposed to things like interest in solving problems or disciplined thought in general etc will be relevant. Maybe the Congolese pygmy doesn't like to think about trains as much as the Anglo autist and that's fine but the pygmy is more specialized and has a lower IQ. The train autism translates to more abstract and general thinking.

>>23173166
How do you explain identical twins reared apart being about as similar to each other as they are to themselves on a wide range of traits, especially on cognitive ability?
How do you explain non-blood related adopted siblings reared together being about as similar to each other as they are to random people on the street on those same traits?
Speaking of neuroplasticity, the brains of other animals are also "plastic", especially during development. How much can you teach a monkey? A parrot? A cat?

does the asvab count as an IQ test?

>>23173216
You should read Stefan Grabinski, speaking of trains. I think he was onto something seeing them as demonic or occult.
>>23173196
Taking pride in "intelligence" is the dumbest shit ever since we are dealing with unprecedented problems with Industry 4.0 (e.g., Industrial Internet of Things, smart manufacturing, etc.), which I doubt you pseuds have even researched in-depth. The overvaluation of "discursive reason" is leading to the destruction of the world, including your own communities that used to be homogenous. For what? So everything can be automated and then we can be conveniently disposed of by the global elite? I don't care about your dick measuring contest. True intelligence is something deeper than your petty autistic obsession with number crunching, running obtuse simulations into your mind, and then implementing them in engineering projects that further pave the way to destruction.
I've been stuck in academia so long that I have no patience for pseuds like you anymore. Endless tests, just endless testing, and it's never enough for this depraved society, and now I come across retards like you everywhere who treat this world like a test to prove one's autistic mettle in abstract games. In a just society, all you faggots, who take such pride in your "intelligence" or dick measuring contest on "le nations average IQ battle royale", should be executed. You can take your "intelligence" all the way to hell. Even your notion of "intelligence" is in fact truly retarded. True intelligence is to be self-reliant, which is completely lacking in the modern world, but none of you are truly awake or sentient beings. You are like Ligottian puppets who have no qualia or raw phenomenal experience. Always a competition with you invasive demonic beings. Endless mind games that amount to nothing.
Good for you for building a robot in RAS and C++. It still will never surpass the "intelligence" in nature. It will never surpass the intelligence of the adaptability of a bird or even fish, which we are doing a great job of destroying the biodiversity to our own detriment.

>>23173234
Most people are raised similarly due to cultural norms. They watch the same shit movies or whatever else. Those twins were probably raised similarly enough.
If you give me a nignog baby and a billion dollars, I can turn him into a "genius" easily (based on the definition of this culture). It's not hard. Just hire tutors and force him to learn higher level math and logic at a young age. He would grow up autistic most likely though since he would be barred from shallow entertainment or distractions.

>>23173248
I don't take pride in intelligence, I'm just telling you that genetics is a big part of it. Why are you taking what I'm saying as a call to exterminate everyone with a lower intelligence? This is unironically the reason academia is digging itself into an indefensible grave of cope regarding the heritability of IQ.

>>23170626
Spot on anon, IQ doesn't really measure things of ultimate importance. It cannot measure spotantenous thought genesis, non-linear thinking, creativity etc. Wisdom I.e Self-proximity is of the ultimate importance. The most evil humans in history have always been incredibly intelligent people, but who lacked wisdom

>>23173243
It's not an "IQ test" per se, in the sense that it doesn't transform your result to a number on the IQ scale, but any cognitive task is in a way a mini IQ test. If you administer the asvab with a large group of people and rank their performance, and then "properly" measure everyone's IQ, the rank order will have very large overlaps.
Funnily enough, since the brain does more than just "think" for us, even something like reaction time or color recognition (taking into account gender differences and color blindness) correlates with IQ to some extent, because it still uses the same hardware, i.e. the brain.

>>23170361
Proxies raw intellect, says little non-autistically about holistic Intelligence/Character/Will. After a certain point it may as well be speed running complex legos with symbols, stuff machines are better at anyways.

>>23173266
And that's where we disagree. Let's say we take black twins, you get one and your billion dollars, and the other grows up "normally". Your twin will overperform during early childhood (most likely), but at age 20+, their IQs will be extremely similar to each other, as will be their performance on cognitive tasks.
I recommend working in education for a bit, especially pre-teen education. You will experience yourself very quickly that people are not nearly as malleable as you want them to be.

>>23173274
IQ is not heritable. What is heritable is the degree and duration of neuroplasticity. Now, let's say you're gifted with genes with a highly plastic brain. Is it time better spent memorizing the Koran (like many kids do in that region) or learning how to write math proofs for theorems ?

It does not make sense for IQ to be heritable since intelligence does not exist a priori in the mind.

>>23172135
Although I agree with you that teaching 'critical thinking skills' in school is pointless, I will take it a step above and say that the whole public education system needs a massive overhaul. It is literally designed to dumb all of us down and has frankly, whether it's public, private or college.

>>23173312
Stop splitting hairs.
Height is also not heritable because you can starve the shit out of your child and break their back. We know that there are other factors that contribute to how their genetics are expressed. God I hate arguing with macacos.

>>23173308
The malleability alters due to a confluence of factors including diet. What would be necessary is to raise him according to a strict diet, schedule of studying, etc. Such a study would not be done due to being considered "unethical".

Also, I think we're ultimately discussing general intelligence. I think a more focused intelligence, such as being competent in one's field, is more important nowadays. For example, even with high general intelligence, given the volume of information in this age, you cannot expect everyone to know everything, but perhaps, they would pick up on it more quickly relative to others.

>>23170380
>im retarded and people I met when trying Mensa are even more stupid.

Mensa basically selects for "stupidly smart people" who overvalue intelligence for its own sake but suck at making use of it. High IQ people who are independently confident in their ability to actually do meaningful things have little reason to join high IQ clubs, and would likely be disappointed in them in the same way you were. Steven Hawking was right about these kinds of people.

>>23173328
a-_-'a okkkkk... um.

>>23173319
Genes are not like a computer program. They are always interacting with the environment and have emergent properties. Even exposure to bpa in a pregnant woman can have disastrous epigenetic effects. There are actually a lot of studies on that.

Height is not fully heritable. In fact, it may be due to epigenetics and diet of the pregnant woman as a child is in the womb. That is my hypothesis. I vaguely remember a study hinting a woman who eats a lot of grass fed offal, while bearing a child, will most likely have a taller child.

>>23171312
I took an IQ test at 12 yrs old and scored 130. I went to a math/science academy for secondary and excelled in maths. I was able to study it at university. I went through a depressive episode midway. I took another IQ test in that context. I scored 152. I did not feel any more intelligent except that I was familiar with logical categories like contraposition and proof by counterexample. But I had good spatial and quantitative reasoning from studying graphs/curves and algebra. This gave me significant clarity on analogies and spatial reasoning.

From this experience I concluded that IQ is essebtiallt a logic/spatial reasoning/vocabulary test which can easily be studied-for like the SAT and other standardized tests.

>>23173319
He literally has no clue about genetics at all. The whole "intelligence does not exist a priori" and neuroplasticity talk was already a red flag, but now he is even bringing up epigenetics.

>>23173359
The issue is you're defining intelligence as "computational capacity". I am saying intelligence is the "dynamic efficiency of consolidation and execution of template models in tandem with the environmental demands".
There is an issue with defining intelligence as "computational capacity" because it treats the brain as being analogous to Von Neumann architecture, which it is not. Regardless, your definition of intelligence is destroying this world because you are not truly intelligent whatsoever.

>>23173359
>>23173366
In other words, your definition of intelligence makes the assumption that life and mechanism are the same order of logic rather than two different orders of logic. That is, you believe everything can be modeled like a cybernetic input/output model.

What I am saying is you are destroying the world as a consequence, including yourselves by making this ontological assumption.

>>23173328
>What would be necessary is to raise him according to a strict diet, schedule of studying, etc.
Do the same to a thousand anglos and a thousand pygmies. The anglos will outperform the pygmies.

I think if you take a single pygmy to a high IQ environment that would have a very significant effect on his IQ despite him not catching completely up to the locals who built that high IQ environment. The environment is all about trains so the social feedback is enough to keep him interested in trains too.
If you take a family of pygmies and move them the change will be much less. The more there are the more they reinforce inherited instincts that aren't conducive to thinking about trains.

Heidegger understood this when he said science and technology are manifestations of Western philosophical tradition or psyche. It is not that this is some kind of "progress", even in a Hegelian sense, but rather, it is based on assumptions that are taken as true such as mechanism and life existing in seamless unity. It is not necessarily the case that physics is the foundation of the sciences; in fact, not even math is necessarily the foundation. One can easily argue that life and mechanism are true different irreconcilable orders of logic.

>>23173308
Nta But what happens after 3 generations, let's say the rich twin and 'normie' twin each marry twin sisters. ND produce 1 son each. The rich son grows up eating healthy, good food, learns plato, aristotle etc. While the normie son eats okay food, the occasional junk food here ND there, gets the same education as us plebs. And they both grow up ND marry their own set of twins and produce one kid as well. Regarding the 2nd generation wouldn't they be a pretty significant difference in iq. One side of the family has been living and eating like a king (healthy food, access to the best thinkers) while the other has been living like an average person (eating from Walmart, doing dumb homework assignments) wouldn't there be a noticeable and significant difference?

>>23173399
O_o

>>23173384
Your "intelligence" has led to nothing but the destruction of the world, including yourselves. It's not truly intelligent in the least. Being a tribal is better than "this". It is paradoxically more intelligent.
Even a regressive Christian theocratic monarchy is better than *this* modernized industrial filth.
There's a reason the Greeks viewed tinkering and building gadgets as useless. They saw it as a lowly endeavor compared to contemplation or the arts.
We are not going to colonize the stars or any of that bullshit. We are going to die in manufactured fake wars as "smart" automation replaces us. Very "intelligent" indeed. The machines will surpass us in that regard.

>>23173419
The virgin western contemplation:
>But Love desires the beautiful; and then arises the question, What does he desire of the beautiful? He desires, of course, the possession of the beautiful;—but what is given by that? For the beautiful let us substitute the good, and we have no difficulty in seeing the possession of the good to be happiness, and Love to be the desire of happiness, although the meaning of the word has been too often confined to one kind of love. And Love desires not only the good, but the everlasting possession of the good. Why then is there all this flutter and excitement about love? Because all men and women at a certain age are desirous of bringing to the birth. And love is not of beauty only, but of birth in beauty; this is the principle of immortality in a mortal creature. When beauty approaches, then the conceiving power is benign and diffuse; when foulness, she is averted and morose.
The chad pygmy contemplation
>Ayo y dem yt man be use boom boom he take wit dem go boom ion geddit no man ion no. me wan eat big chikoon me wan muh dick no use me wan

>>23173399
When it comes to specific influences, I can ultimately only speculate. Looking at children of more affluent parts of society, they still seem to follow general hereditary "rules", i.e. smart people tend to have smart kids, dumb people (even if rich) tend to have dumb kids etc. Generally, my guess would be that, if the "lower class" kid grows up normally, without any significant deprivations ("only" shitty fast food from time to time, not growing up drinking leaded water and breathing in asbestos all day), they will be similar to each other.
I know it's a thought experiment, but you also have to take into account that there is a significant shuffling of genes every generation. Even if twins have kids with another set of twins, their kids will not be exactly the same, but will be about as similar to each other as regular blood related kids from the same parents, and blood related siblings can be surprisingly different from one another.

>>23173427
That quote from Plato does not impress me in the least. You cannot possess the Good. It's found by letting go and not attempting to grasp/cling.

>>23173419
The usefulness of train autism isn't the question. You've been arguing that the differences aren't genetic. Going from that to sour grapes suggests you already have a goal in mind that's not about sincerely finding things out.
>>23173248
>speaking of trains. I think he was onto something seeing them as demonic or occult.
Trains and windmills are built on logic, one thing leads to the next. The abstract demonic systems that control us are the same. Being capable of logic is inherently useful since it gives us power over the world. Using that power to build machines that control us is dumb. The AI panic is extremely dumb considering that since we killed our kings we already completely defer to AI systems, just bad ones. The bureaucrat operates like a logic gate, like a transistor, he has no power and isn't really playing the role of a human. The system that emerges from all the interactions between the bureaucrats controls them all. The emergent system has a sense of self preservation, it's sometimes devious as if it's highly intelligent and sometimes completely retarded.
https://vocaroo.com/19hawCEz0uqY

Anyways, I won this debate. I will give my condensed argument here:

1. Neuroplasticity facilitates the development of intelligence. It is a prerequisite for the development of intelligence.
2. The rate and intensity of neuroplasticity differs across races and individuals (e.g., longer critical period).
3. When the brain is plastic, one can choose to either develop what is culturally considered intelligence or not. Let's say someone has highly plastic brain. He chooses to waste his time with anime and games. He never reads or learns what is societally deemed as important. He becomes what is called "wasted potential".
Neuroplasticity is what gives the potential to develop the intelligence, or consolidate and execute the templates.
Even longitudinal studies of Mindfulness Meditation have shown it can increase grey matter density and fractional anisotropy of white matter tracts leading to improved attentional regulation.
The brain is not like a computer. It is dynamic, plastic complex adaptive system (CAS).

In regards to #2, I vaguely remember seeing one study once that broke down genes associated with increased neuroplasticity, but it did not decompose the "white" races. It was in nascent stages of research.

I am the greatest poster on this cesspool of a site.

>>23173532
Oh, you were just baiting.

>>23170448
you're one interesting critter bro

>>23173532
>He chooses to waste his time with anime and games.
Because he was born a gamer.

>>23173528
>You've been arguing that the differences aren't genetic.
I have not. I said this at least three to four times: "The rate and intensity of neuroplasticity differs across races and individuals (e.g., longer critical period)."

Check my condensed argument here: >>23173532

>>23173528
>Being capable of logic is inherently useful since it gives us power over the world.
Read Metaphysics of Technology by David Skrbina. Increasing technological complexity is more of a net negative, especially past 12th CE levels.

"The more protected we are against the elements, that is, the more elaborate our artificial (i.e. technological) environment becomes, the more thoroughly it conditions our behavior. In the Stone Age, we were at the mercy of the elements; now we are at the mercy of the shield which protects us against these elements." (1969: 82). - Henryk Skolimowski1

You can also check my condensed argument here:
>>/lit/thread/22485704#p22485719

Also, the best form of logic to deal with ontological questions are paraconsistent forms of logic like Julius Bahnsen's realdialektik.

>The AI panic is extremely dumb considering that since we killed our kings we already completely defer to AI systems, just bad ones
That's my field *now*, and it's not dumb. Industry 4.0 does threaten us greatly.


>The emergent system has a sense of self preservation, it's sometimes devious as if it's highly intelligent and sometimes completely retarded.
It's moving in the direction of becoming self-evolving and self-perpetuating. Presently it is semi-autonomous. Soon it will achieve complete autonomy.

It is a complex adaptive system, one that is not aligned with Earth.

Moreover, I don't think the sacrifice of further biodiversity is worth the continued existence of this system.

>>23170361
I was told I was an extremely gifted child and now i'm a retard with no job that lives at home with their parents. IQ is bullshit

>>23173528
>You've been arguing that the differences aren't genetic.
To be more precise; I am arguing it both genetic and not. I've been very clear with that.

Also, why do you value intelligence so much? Just read an electrical engineering or computer science book (in C++) and learn it well. There you go! You're intelligent now, according to societal definition, after absorbing that book.

>>23170361
135
Not at all
Yes it's just bullshit for insecure fags

>>23173555
>The rate and intensity of neuroplasticity differs across races and individuals
Nobody cares. It makes difference at all.
X = resulting problem solving skills
R = rate of intellectual stimulation
I = intensity of neuroplasticity
D = Duration of neuroplasticity

Assuming R is constant for all organisms of a phenotype, and the duration D of neuroplasticity is equal to the duration that an individual is intellectually stimulated:
X equals some function of R*I*D, or the rate multiplied by the intensity, multiplied by the duration of learning. So the resulting number X (our measure of intellect) is going to be greater in races with a higher duration or intensity of neuroplasticity across the board.
In your terms, my "neuroplasticity" was such that I could grow up in an abusive household without education, a poor diet, and no schooling and still end up with a higher IQ than a well schooled macaco, whose neuroplasticity managed to make him slightly smarter than a boulder. The end result of your "theory" is meaningless.

>>23173575
>makes no difference at all
I hate phoneposting desu

>>23173555
>>23173575
>The end result of your "theory" is meaningless.
And to specify, it's meaningless because it ends up being no different from saying that genetics is really important but that environmental factors CAN make a big difference, which NOBODY here is denying.
Obviously if a macaco is raised in a crackhouse he's going to be dumber than a macaco raised by two geniuses. However, his racial "neuroplasticity" (according to you) would be shorter and less intense, thus making him never have the potential of someone that is raised in an identical manner with a higher genetic potential UNLESS he is an outlier with lucky genes/gene expression.

>>23173575
>Assuming R is constant for all organisms of a phenotype, and the duration D of neuroplasticity is equal to the duration that an individual is intellectually stimulated:
X equals some function of R*I*D, or the rate multiplied by the intensity, multiplied by the duration of learning. So the resulting number X (our measure of intellect) is going to be greater in races with a higher duration or intensity of neuroplasticity across the board.
This has never been tested across countries though, so we can't make a hierarchy of races at this point. I would agree with this general outline of an experimental study, but it does have room for great refinement. For example, ensuring R is nearly equal is very difficult unless closely controlled. For example, R differs according to cultural values for one thing.
>In your terms, my "neuroplasticity" was such that I could grow up in an abusive household without education, a poor diet, and no schooling and still end up with a higher IQ than a well schooled macaco, whose neuroplasticity managed to make him slightly smarter than a boulder.
I'm not Mexican, and you don't come off as particularly intelligent to me at all. Why do you place so much pride in such a petty thing anyways? Even being a Christcuck or Mudslime is better than being this vain over superficial matters.

Also, Lynn/Vanhanen didn't even do IQ tests in most of the countries, so don't bother sharing the meme diagrams.

>>23173586
The thing is though, the research for those genes for heightened neuroplasticity is at a nascent stage, last I checked. It could be distributed in a manner that is more stratified based on class for example. For example, it is theoretically possible for the higher classes to have higher frequency of genes associated with heightened neuroplasticity more than the underclass on average. This is just a hypothesis..I believe both class and race are equally important.
Anyways, having high neuroplasticity at a faster rate, that's it. Also, neuroplasticity decreased as one ages, so one better hope they were "educated" well when relatively young.

>>23173555
>I have not.
The points you make change, nobody dismissed plasticity as a factor even a little bit, it's not new information to me. You're very defensive about something but about what exactly is unclear. The diet cope and sour grapes seem to be your attempts to make sure there's room for multi-ethnic societies to work or something like that.
>Increasing technological complexity is more of a net negative
Success is a "net-negative" if the goal is consumption and hedonism. An organism that's too successful at overcoming adversity just decays without pressure to keep its adaptations.
No matter what a conscious organism like us has to overcome this threshold somehow and the answer is not to abandon whatever brought us the success. The problem is not specific to technology, logic or any tool like that. It's inherent to success itself.
>That's my field *now*, and it's not dumb
I predicted the rough timeline of AI so far in 2007 and made markov chain based chatbots around 2000.
Of course it's fucking dumb. It's incredibly retarded that you're sitting there telling me the AI system that already controls us is compelling you to improve it and you can't do anything about it. Accepting its authority is a choice. You can just walk away from the computer. The problem is the demon that owns your brain is so deeply embedded that you can't even conceive of listening to a human king over the system. The average person today gets extremely triggered by the idea of a single person with an actual mind having control over them but the same people completely worship the demons and obey them absolutely with no question.
I'm not even saying AI research should be stopped or slowed but as long as we accept the premise that these systems have some kind of natural God given right to control us we're fucked either way and almost everyone today acts as if they do believe that premise.

>>23173563
>Also, why do you value intelligence so much? Just read an electrical engineering or computer science book (in C++) and learn it well. There you go! You're intelligent now, according to societal definition, after absorbing that book.
There you go with the dishonest shit that's not consistent even with what you're saying in that same post.

>>23173598
>high neuroplasticity at a faster rate
high neuroplasticity means learning at a faster rate*

Also, the reason I obsess about neuroplasticity is because this was my research focus when I was younger and working in a neurobiology lab. Having to sacrifice rats was not a pleasant matter though.

>>23173592
I'm not vain over intelligence. I don't care if someone is more or less intelligent. I just don't like the laughably false cope that everyone is equal and all we need is to raise everyone in the same conditions to get identical results. There are consistent variations in average height, predispositions to diseases, various anatomical proportions, etc., between genetic groups and there is no reason at all to deny that there aren't also differences in IQ between genetic groups.
There are variations comparing individual families, to ethnicities, to (very broadly) "races." Putting extra effort into attacking the idea of heritable intelligence is indicative of someone that wants to justify a political or ideological aim.

I have no ulterior motive here, but you keep assuming that I must be trying to justify exterminating midwits or (for some odd reason) you believe that by saying intelligence is heritable, I'm boasting. Really! How is it benefiting me to claim that intelligence is (to some degree) heritable? I am not made better or worse whether intelligence can be inherited or not.

>>23173599
Your humanist hubris disgusts me, and your endless haughty attitude is making me tired.
I am not saying plasticity is merely a factor. I am saying is the FUNDAMENTAL factor, and therefore, we should prioritize cataloging the genes connected to it.
>to make sure there's room for multi-ethnic societies to work or something like that.
It's too late "to go back" without massive bloodshed, so it's better to just "deal with it" at this point. Let the system collapse after I'm gone, Idgaf..mankind could go extinct for all that I care after I live a relatively peaceful life to old age and pass away.
>Success is a "net-negative" if the goal is consumption and hedonism.
That's what the free market is based on..literal camwhores make more money than researchers.
>The problem is not specific to technology, logic or any tool like that.
Organization dependent technologies have their own telos especially in a panpsychist framework.
>markov chain based chatbots
I worked mainly with DL algorithms and CNNs.
>Accepting its authority is a choice
Not really. I think technological determinism is true.
>demons
Seems low IQ to bring up demons randomly. Reminds me of the pseud Steiner.
>natural God given right
God was always a projection of man's hubris. Your true God was always Solid State Intelligence.

You're a vain faggot who would benefit in becoming my disciple.

>>23173611
I did not disagree with you entirely. I am simply introducing a higher dimension to the question. We are not at the point where we can definitively create a racial intelligence hierarchy based unbiased, well structured, controlled studies.
Granted, I will agree the research does show blacks are most likely at the bottom in terms of intelligence and neuroplasticity, on average, but we cannot speak much about other races.
Also, height is increasing in certain countries fyi.

I agreed that neuroplasticity is heritable and by extension one can say intelligence can be too. It just makes testing it harder for national averages due to a number of factors...

>>23173625
Okay, then I agree with you if that's what you mean.

>>23173625
>intelligence can be too.
development of intelligence can be too*

>>23173617
>humanist hubris
What the fuck are you talking about retard? Valuing logic over being a dishonest retard?
>It's too late "to go back"
Irrelevant, the point is you're trying to defend some preconception instead of sincerely thinking.
>That's what the free market is based on
No it's what life is based on. I described the underlying universal which you're trying to make specific.
>Organization dependent technologies have their own telos especially in a panpsychist framework.
Completely irrelevant to that point.
>Not really.
You didn't understand a word of the post you're replying to.
>Seems low IQ to bring up demons randomly.
I already fucking established the idea, you even brought it up originally with the connection between trains and the occult. So again it seems like you don't understand any of these subjects, you just parrot words like a language model.
I explained all this in excruciating detail. If you don't understand anything else at least understand that you're dishonest which leads to incoherence. Your constant appeals to ego are also very revealing.
>muh God, HE USED THE WORD GOD MOM!
You can't get any fucking dumber.

>>23173645
>defend some preconception instead of sincerely thinking.
I gave my conclusion here:
>>23173625

Also, you're a naive optimistic faggot.

Mankind is a failed species, and we are all doomed to be replaced by automation or die in some manufactured global war. It is inescapable. We are all going to die painfully as optimistic faggots like you keep giving gay ass sappy rhetoric like "be in control of your destiny, just take a step back from the system." Nope, at this point a fetishistic life denying fatalism is unavoidable. Mankind will go extinct, and I don't give a shit. I am a Buddha. I am beyond humanity. This is just a temporary form I've adopted, my true mind is beyond this present incarnation.

Abandon all intentional thought, let go, see things as they are. There's no point in coveting anything, but granted, I would have preferred being a bird. Maybe a raven during a time without man... A whale isn't bad either. Even gorillas are cooler than this vile species.

Honestly, fuck you, sanctimonious prick. Know your place in the divine hierarchy. Drop your worship in whatever it is you do. Worship me instead. Consider it bhakti. I have better taste in contemplative literature, art-house films, etc. I am based. You... You're a bitch. You're probably into femboys, I bet. Fuck off to /int/ and give peace to the true masculine intellectuals like me. Silence speaks louder than words after all, you stupid motherfucker. I bet you're afraid of solitude...

Just answer me this: were you breast-fed when you were younger?

You should learn common courtesy when speaking to your superiors. Mentally ill faggot.

Anyways, I won the debate. I am the greatest poster here. If you were wise, you would make a cult surrounding me and send me tribute every month.

>>23173645
I gave my conclusion here:
>>23173625

Sorry I am a little bit drunk.

>>23173617
>I am not saying plasticity is merely a factor. I am saying is the FUNDAMENTAL factor, and therefore, we should prioritize cataloging the genes connected to it.
I explained how it's not and you never engaged, just repeated your braindead claims that don't even add anything to the table.
>>23173677
>I gave my conclusion here:
And again you don't even understand what I'm talking about despite being spoonfed it twice. Your conclusion is "plasticity is a factor" which everyone knew but you make long rants to make it seem like it deboonks some random deranged boogeyman about muh racial hierarchies or whatever that you've been brainwashed to get triggered about, like you're triggered by words like "demon" and "God".
>naive
In the sense that I give retards like you way too much credit. I shouldn't have tried to help you. Understanding things fucking works, logic fucking works, they give me power over the world. That's not fucking naivity.
>beyond braindead rant about how much you like to jerk off your ego
That's why you can't think and never will. You're not interested in it, you just pretend to be.

>>23173712
>Understanding things fucking works, logic fucking works, they give me power over the world.
If you use your mind to study reality, you won’t understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you’ll understand both. Those who don’t understand don’t understand understanding. And those who understand, understand not understanding. People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding. The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding.

The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding.
The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding.
The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding.

This is a textbook example of a low IQ pseudo-intellectual btw.

>>23173735
The pseuds are you for believing the universe has a logical structure that can be understood via the discursive mind. Logic is just a learned template that's imposed onto the world, molding it in a way that serves a group's interests. A culture that values poetry, heroes, and landscape is better than one that prioritizes discursive reason in and of itself.
Human beings were meant to live in small-scale racially homogenous groups telling each other folklore and stuff like that, united by tradition.
Things are out of hand now. Not much I can do about it. Everything is doomed.
Not like I enjoy talking to you soulless faggots either. Things are too complex now, and the endless dick measuring contest makes me tired.

>>23170361
BUT MY DICK

>>23170387
You do realize there is a language portion in the test as well

>>23170852
IQ research is very robust compared to the rest of psychology. You can actually measure it

>>23173356
Or, you were 12 when you took the first test. Our brains develop until mid 20. They try to correct for that, but it is obviously not that simple. Kids develop at different paces

>>23172197
Don't worry, you can live a quite satisfying life with an IQ of 100. Just do as a favour and don't vote

>>23173243
Basically yes. Very high correlation to IQ scores, probably very much intentional. Militaries around the world administer tests like that, because they know how important IQ is and they need a way to sort lots of people into different positions

>>23173359
Yes, he is completely clueless.

>>23173419
>There's a reason the Greeks viewed tinkering and building gadgets as useless.
The reason was that they had slaves. Why invent labour saving devices when you could just order your slave to do it.

>>23170387
Typical midwit response. IQ is an indicator of general intelligence just like the size of someone's hand is a pretty good indicator of his general height. That doesn't mean that literally everyone with big hands is also really tall, but there's a strong correlation. IQ and intelligence are analogous to that. If you're good at IQ tests you'll be generally very intelligent. There are other things you could test for, like chess ability, vocabulary, speed of doing math, but IQ is a standardized test that is easily quantified so it's easy to work with. That's all IQ is, it's not everything, but it's also not nothing. It gives a good general impression of someone's total intelligence while also being quantified enough to do statistical work with it.

>>23171069
IQ is more useful at predicting life outcomes for stupid people than for smart people. Around 120 and up, life outcomes differ drastically. In part because our society not only values intelligence but social savvy as well. 125 and charisma will make you rich, 160 and autistic probably not, and they probably won't care for money and social status either.
85 IQ though, you know pretty sure that person isn't going to be rich or successful.

>>23173951
Having a high IQ can be very alienating

188 and I'm smarter than all you and probably the least successful so it means absolutely nothing. My d&d games are superb however. System mastery is off the charts

>>23173951
Smartest guy I know automated his entire IT job and instead of pretending to be busy and doing other times during company time, he just told his boss how he did it, and he was fired as soon as the company implemented his solutions. Yes both parties fucked up here (the company should've found another position for such a smart guy instead of firing him) but he fucked up the most by not recognizing that he had a good thing going and he didn't either coast by and collect free money and neither did he walk up to his execs and offer to sell them his solution for big bucks. Yes it's an anecdote but it does show how being smart won't necessarily make you rich.

>>23173248
love this post.