/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6176218
>In fact, even in the Bell Curve Richad Lynn and Charles Murray conclude that the increase is dominantly in the lower portions of the spectrum pushing upward rather than the highest portions increasing further.

Richard Lynn did not write the TBC.

>It seems apparent that change in culture, living standards, and lifestyle are sufficient to increase average intelligence of any population by standard deviations.

The Flynn effect is not g loaded. It is not an increase in intelligence.

>>6176322
>Clearly IQ is pseudoscience. Studies have been done showing an unreliability of the test. The validity also comes to question.

You are making things up. IQ tests have the highest validity and reliability (test-retest) is all of psychology. They are in fact the tests that OTHER TESTS try to emulate in their properties!

The reliability of IQ testing is close to that of measuring height. I look up the values Jensen 1980 mentions for WAIS, and it has a 0.97 test-retest reliability.

>>6176350
>IQ is too limited in its ability to measure intelligence.

>making wild claims
>citing no evidence

You do not belong on a science board.

>>6176353
>While they both intelligence and athleticism have biologic basis, the intangible nature of intelligence makes it considerably difficult to accurately quantify.

No. Intelligence is rather easy to measure. Personality factors are more difficult. Finding the genes is however difficult due to their multiplicity and small effect size. We will find them soon enough. Found the first three recently. :)