/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12515765
Verify your mathematics empirically, go on. Observe it.

>>12046669
Ah yes, just like fusion, it's only n+1 years away now! Just n+1 more z-pinch(es) and we'll be there!

>>12027014
Whoa, nice non-argument. I see all of that lack of reasoning, very impressive. How about you take a moment, have a little think and come back, champ?

>>11614686
Called it! Straight away, into:
>It's wrong... because I say so, dammit!
You cannot have read all of that material in the proper depth in that amount of time, you disingenuous fuckhead. Also, no, income correlations aren't "shit" as in completely useless, because a positive correlation does exist. However, there are better metrics without societal influence, some of which I have posted above, and all of which you have just ignored.
Also, IQ has far more grounding than a horoscope, you pretentious gnome, it even has predictive power in terms of neurological structure. But, of course, that's just totally coincidental, despite academic studies.
You have posted no sources, you have posted no solid argumentation, all you have done is offer attempted sophistry, cherrypicking, ad hominem and strawmen. You do not have the foundations to accuse anyone of being "scientifically illiterate", apart from evidently yourself.

>>11085644

>>10573738
>You've probably met people with higher IQs than you

This would made sense if the average in the nation wasn't 84. You see, I usually (and only) interact with the highest socio-economic status people in the region, ergo; I would had knew if I met someone even close to me (intellectually speaking).

>IQ has nothing to do with having meaningful conversations

It does. Interests vary on your ability to grasp concepts. Actually, we naturally tend to gravitste topics that demands us intellectually. You can extrapolate the rest.

>Moving out of the country wouldn't work

I agree on this partially. But, opportunities of interpersonal persuit in a higher average environment are always welcome.

>>10438259

>>10378340
So, if:
>It is currently in its fourth edition (WAIS-IV) released in 2008 by Pearson, and is the most widely used IQ test, for both adults and older adolescents, in the world.
And, if:
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][56] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points[citation needed]. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][57][58] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[59]
Then, it follows that WAIS-R is perfectly acceptable, and you're just a contrarian.

>>10371026
>He can't even watch the Twilight Zone
I don't enjoy "high" science fiction, I prefer hard science fiction.
>Speaking of the neuter state, you've been made an intellectual eunuch.
>Muh evul school system!
Jokes on you, I was autodidactic, and was still largely autodidactic in university, only attending the bare-minimum of lectures, and using the rest of my time for self-directed study.
>Dullards indeed.
Yes, yes you are. Not only don't you have studies, but you aren't knowledgeable (or competent) enough to carry one out yourself and get it published.
So instead of using a rigorous logical framework to PROVE your point, you attempt to use your wanting VIQ to shame (and fear) people into believing you.
Unluckily for you, I'm smarter than you in both PIQ and VIQ, so it doesn't work with me.

>>10370763
That's right, don't you dare type anything. You know it can be falsified either way.

>>10370065
>Moving my goalposts.
Interesting, I knew you were going to be a disingenuous nob-cheese wheel.

>>10289343
The purpose of an argument isn't convince, as the ability to accept new information as valid is fully within the realm of the individual.
Therefore, what I am smug about is pulling the "rabbit out of the hat", as it were. The ability to halt the argument, with a significant enough donation to warrant attention.
That's what I'm smug about.

>>9880737
If IQ is measured in co-authorship? Probably.

>>9876244
>Do you have anything to cite for this observation, besides anecdote?
Ah, okay then, I'll take that as a no. It's almost like you /pol/ spill newfags don't know anything about /sci/, or something.

>>9820102
God is the Higgs field. Prove me wrong.

>>9819448
It'll Finnish the West!

>>9576124
>he thinks 99% of stock market is not bots based on mathematical models