/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8895639
I know you're probably trolling, but people here believe this so I'll post a helpful image as well.

>>8869059
>t. brainlet

inb4 "nuh uh I gots 150"

Everyone knows IQ has tremendous predictive power.

Indeed, IQ becomes MORE predictive of success at the high end, not LESS.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf

IQ is the most studied phenomenon in social science, with over a century of results, some of the longest and most careful studies, huge n's, etc.

People just hate the idea that wanting something badly enough doesn't mean you'll get it lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxTRCPKFltE

>>8098716
This really isn't true, unfortunately, at least for mathematical ability. One of the most interesting ongoing studies of the last 40 years is the the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which has found differences in professional, financial, and career outcomes even amongst people ranging from the 99th to 99.99th percentile of performance on an early administration of the SAT math section at age 13. Obviously, scores on this test correlate very highly with IQ.

Also, assuming intelligence is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100 (this is a common convention for modern tests such as the WAIS), the likelihood of having an IQ 150 or greater is about 4.3 in 10,000. Assuming the population of this planet is about 7.125 billion, that means about 3.06 million people currently alive have an intelligence in excess of 150. That is equivalent to the current population size of Mongolia. I'd hardly say that's trivial. Maybe rare in relative terms, but certainly not trivial.

>>7996443
See pic.

Before 1995, SAT scores WERE IQ scores, in that they correlated almost as much with a person's IQ score as two scores taken on the same IQ test by one person (.93 correlation).

Here were the odds of certain achievements in Terman's Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.

>>7605482
>don't make it a left or right thing

He didn't make it ideological. It already was.

The left is in denial about the science here, just as parts of the right are in denial about climate change and even evolution.

They are on a losing horse here as the genes responsible for intelligence are being rapidly mapped. (there are many such genes, each of which usually has a fairly small effect on its own).

We know IQ is highly heritable and we know that, within very wide bounds, IQ (and personality) are not much influenced by environment. This is why intervention experiments have been such a resounding failure.

IQ strongly predicts many important outcomes in life, particularly performance in cognitively demanding tasks and occupations.