/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10571754
>Is he right?
No
>>10571823
>First of all, we start with the basic foundation of the WAIS test, Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory and Processing Speed. These are combined to produce a single "IQ Score". So the 4 categories are completely unfounded from any scientific basis. Quite literally these 4 things were chosen because the psychologists who came up with these tests thought they "made sense". We are already off the a bad start. We have an abstract quantity called an "IQ Score", and the factors that make up this abstract quantity are basically just appeals to common sense.
>
So this random test someone came up with is supposed to measure "Perceptual Reasoning". Whatever that's supposed to mean. This stuff is literally the same tier as Myers–Briggs personality types. Just random shit some psychologist came up with the fit an unfounded model they came up with.
Wrong
Pic related

How can an "arbitrary" test of intelligence be the greatest predictor your brain's ability to recover from a injury? More so than education btw.

>>10519412
>So its more of a cultural thing has more to do with dedication and what makes sense to achive.
Wrong, plain and simply.

>>10483032
You are wrong, see pic related.