/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4626143
>Firstly IQ is derieved in such a way that 100 is allways mean IQ no matter what.

Only within a population. There are differences between populations even tho one can standardize a test so that the mean of any given population = 100.

>Secondly the principle of "evolving" as in: smarter people having smarter kids is proven only to the extent that more educated people tell their kids to be more educated.

This is just wrong. Intelligence is very heritable. Smarter parents have smarter kids becus the genes for intelligence are passed on. This is common knowledge among experts in the field (psychometricians). These social constructivist theories are almost always wrong.

>>4626137
>OP might kinda have a point, but we'd be living in some totally fucked up nazi state if the government is allowed to just force people to be made infertile against their will.

This is just wrong. In fact eugenic laws were popular in pre-WW2 industrial countries. They were used to force sterilization of <70 IQ people. Generally, this is a good outcome (that they don't have children) since such children are a burden to society. First, the parents will probably not be able to raise them properly (typically, it is a sole female). Second, since intelligence is very heritable, the children will likely also be <70 IQ and thus probably not be able to even get a job. They will have to live of others and pretty much not add anything good to the world.

Perhaps it is worth the trade off. I very much dislike giving a state such power since politicians are known to be dishonest or stupid or both. But the question is whether the alternative is worse.

This result is rather well known. It has been this way for perhaps as much as 150 years. See Richard Lynn's books on the subject: Dysgenics, and Eugenics.

Also: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

There is no such thing as the scientific method. The many varieties of science (fields) use different methods. That's a good thing. Different methods are necessary to study different things, in general.

>>4621626
Perhaps, but as it turns out, this is not the entire explanation. Pretty much no amount of creative social engineering will remove the discrepancy between US blacks and whites. Sorry.

>>4621563
There is a pretty good response to that:

More realism, less moralizing.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/J.-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-R.-Jensen-WANTED-MORE-RACE
-REALISM-LESS-MORALISTIC-FALLACY.pdf

The data are pretty clear in regards to IQ and crime. It is pretty much perfectly predicted with regards to population mean IQ as shown in the Gordon paper I linked to.

>>4621557
This is true, but does not apply to asians in other countries. There, they do rather well.

Yes, it is a function of lower intelligence.

See the paper mentioned and quoted here: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=2752

I'm going to make a t-shirt with the pic in OP's post. Thanks.

>>4621342
This guy read the paper by SJ Gould. Anyone intrested in zebras and speciation shud read it too.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/SJ-Gould-What-if-anything-is-a-zebra.pdf

>>4621156
>My physics teach told me that evolution was impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics and I really didn't know enough to prove him wrong.

Wtf. U live in USA? :<

No, it is just an application of base rate reasoning i.e., avoiding the base rate fallacy. In other words, learn probability theory:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/baserate.html

>>4621158
They can only recommend a book if they have read 3 books on approx. the same subject. So, ur description is lacking.

Anyway, even tho this method is somewhat flawed, do u have a better method for finding the best textbook on a given subject? I usually check LW and check Amazon scores and read the reviews.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gu/the_best_textbooks_on_every_subject/

They haven't, but jews and east asians are just superior when it comes to intelligence. That's genetic.

www.iqtest.dk is a pretty good test, also used for Mensa and other places. also culture-neutral.

U can safely ignore people like>>4620601
>>4620963, they don't know how to into science about intelligence. Intelligence matters alot.

l2wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu

No, they are technically not Americans.

>>4618232
It's a Raven's test. Those are pretty good, among the best.

There is no survival after death. Go read something like http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html if in doubt.

>>4617911
Not lying. Altho my local Mensa has switched to a new test. It is mostly the same as the old one. The new one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_Reasoning_Test

I know becus a friend of mine just went there and got tested. U can try urself on an online version http://www.psychometric-success.com/practice-papers/Psychometric%20Success%20Abstract%20Reasoning%20
-%20Practice%20Test%201.pdf

It's called "flow". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

I'm sure u can find some psychology books that helps u attain that. There is a well-known psychology who focuses on helping people attain flow.

>>4618167
Extremely unlikely for there to be two females getting the exact same vote if we surveyed the entire population of the Earth.

>>4618094
>the agreement is not perfect. i'd give it a spearman's of maybe 0.7

Something like that, yeah.