/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6539171
>IQ tests are vague measurements of intelligence which have never been developed to tease apart the upper end, where the quotient might be meaningless anyway.

>believing in threshold myth

>>6316356
>Intelligence only matters up to a certain point. After that it's about insight, creativity, serendipity, and work ethic.

Ah, the Gladwell myth. It isn't true.

There is no threshold.

>>6264033
You keep doing the not fake not equal sign wrong -.-. It's "=/=" or really, just ≠.

Your post does not make any sense. IQ predicts many things. Predictions work from the entire range of IQ. There is no threshold.

>>6237317
I doubt your IQ is only 105.

>>6152784
There are no thresholds or diminishing returns.

If anything, it seems like it's the other way around. Picture related.

Kasparov was around 122-135.
Tested in '87.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13526693.html

>>6152789
You do know they actually test people in the military? An IQ above 85 is required. It is illegal (USA) to hire anyone below 80. I have not heard of a country that does not use an intelligence test for the draft. Not to do so would be extremely foolish.

>>6152846
Or maybe they, like me, spent a few minutes even reading Wikipedia to see the obvious evidence. Or like me, read thousands of papers and quite a few books about the topic.

>>6152867
>Actually believing that IQ is some sort of inevitable destiny just seems silly which is probably why not many really care.

No expert thinks so.

>Just because they dont care about it doesn't make them a denialist.

People who make wild claims with no good evidence are denialists, for the same reason we use the label for global warming deniers, and AIDS/HIV deniers, and creationists, etc.

No intelligence threshold.

>>6135252
The threshold myth. Again, presented without data. Typical. It is still wrong.

Pic related. I just made that.