/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6441873
>Feynman had an IQ of 120 or so.

IQ is test specific. Feynmann was certainly not only in the 90th percentile for g.

>>6441879
>I am not denying IQ exists, but its predictive power to any population, is not (like anything with <1 correlation) not directly translatable to predicting an individuals success.

True and uninteresting.

>>6441905
Attached.

>>6441912
No.

>>6441924
Whatever else sociologists try. The reason g works so well is that it is very general. Other predictors sometimes outperform g, but no other is as general, with the only one coming close is C from Big Five models.

>>6442640
It's a Raven's type test. They work well for international comparisons.

>>6442762
Just estimate from your SAT score.

>Citation? Most places seem to offer only estimates of his. And IQ tests are not used in medicine for any purpose outside of psychology (if you consider clinical psych a branch of medicine)

Yes they are. For detecting Alzheimer's and because you need them as controls for epidemiology.

>>6309489

>>6176708
>>6176724
>>6176733
When will you DO ANY RESEARCH? Even a fucking cursory glance at Wiki fucking Pedia will prove you wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Social_outcomes

IQ is well known to predict: longevity, educational attainment, academic achievement, income, atheism, criminality (negative), patents, tenure, fertility (negative), etc. etc. etc.

It is not exactly difficult to open Wikipedia to get an overview.

>>6176751
>If IQ has no validity how can you argue that it has 'predictive' power?

It has.

yay, another IQ thread.

Here's the results from TBC.

>>6135244
>Aside from defining mental retardation IQ is pretty useless.

Science disagrees.

Repeat after me:

Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. (Quote by Andreas Schleicher)

Intelligence research is much misunderstood and is controversial within the general public. Most of the misconceptions that people have are due to them simply never taking the time to read anything about the subject. Not even the base minimum of reading the relevant Wikipedia articles. Below I have listed some papers and books on the subject that I consider introductory. These explain what IQ is, what intelligence is, what the g-factor is, how to measure it, and why it matters with many examples.

-

Very short (10 pages)
Gottfredson, Linda S. “Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.” Intelligence 24.1 (1997): 13-23.

alturl com/i7cwx

-

Longer (54 pages)

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.

alturl com/rq8ur

-

Useful follow-up to the above (21 pages).

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.

alturl com/p5xht

-

More politically correct version of Gottfredson 1997:
Neisser, Ulric, et al. “Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.” American psychologist 51.2 (1996): 77.

alturl com/62d4f

-

Longer and sociologically focused

Robert A. Gordon. (1997) Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, Volume 24, Issue 1, January–February 1997, Pages 203–320.

alturl com/zwxa9

-

Light introduction to basic concepts. Useful for those not strong in math.
Deary, Ian J. Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Intelligence, a very short introduction

alturl com/kwe8s

-

Very long and technical (660 pages)
Jensen, Arthur Robert. The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

alturl com/g6jjh

>>6098883
First one has an error in the bottom. Here is a fixed one.