/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10246423
Ime it breaks down both ways, but there's more chance that someone is not going to be considered able to be tested because of low IQ than high. People with such low IQs can be competent at a number of tasks.

Intelligent people see the futility in most endeavors. They are beyond "success/failure" mentality and are not motivated by such vanities. Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.
Taleb feels the need to reinforce the idea that people more intelligent than him are "failures" so as to prop up the synthetic social framework that justifies and ensures his own existence. Ultra high IQ people would have taken what was theirs prior to the development of civilization, including clubbing low IQ Arabs to a pulp and taking their lands and resources, and in turn, making much better use of them. Deep down, they fear the intelligent man, and a eugenic society organized on natural order which would deprive people who are biologically unfit and enrich those who are. This is nature's design and weaklings despise it and fear social organization based on it.

>>10246481
>Intelligent people see the futility in most endeavors. They are beyond "success/failure" mentality and are not motivated by such vanities. Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.
i mean Taleb literally argues the opposite on that thread, that high IQ just measures how good you are as a wagecuck (slave) doing meaningless tasks, but doesn't measure how well you actually do at life, as in choosing intelligently what to do

>>10246481
>>10246489
he mentions that the highest correlate of IQ with success in military training, so how good you are at following orders without thinking.

is this true?

>>10246423
>IQ
pseudoscience

>>10248003
>objective measure of cognitive capabilities is not science

But I bet you think that coping with an schizophrenic's delusions is.

>>10248027
>>objective measure of cognitive capabilities is not science
Who are you quoting?

>>10248032
Found the retard.

Take 145 iq Mathematics student who learns his Real Analysis class over break and routinely skips lectures, finishes with a high A while spending finals week playing league of legends and smoking weed all day and night. Now take 120 iq Biochem major, in Calc II class, second time through, straight edge autist shut-in, studies 6 hours a day, desperately attends lectures, study groups, office hours and does lots of practice problems, finally passes Calc II with a solid B+ and is very VERY proud as is his mother.

Who do you think will be more competent in a research setting?

>>10248043
The 120 iq kid because he actually understands hard work

>>10248032
gtfo newfag

>>10248053
outrageous cope

>>10248043

Sorry but this is a retarded example

>>10248060
middling intelligence people behave towards genius level iq people like 7/10 girls behave when in the presence of phenotypic godesses, its almost as cute but you can’t leverage it for pussy.

>>10248058
>>10248062
t. brainlet

How does it feel not being able to grasp concepts instantaneously without any effort? You then grasp helplessly at your little tests as though they mean anything. It is just a a silly puzzle game! Deluding yourself into thinking it means anything.

>>10248027
>objective measure of cognitive capabilities
I thought we were talking about IQ not some theoretical test that doesn't exist.

>>10248058
He's not wrong about the specific scenario you gave. Nobody gives a fuck how smart you are in research and the "smart but lazy" types would never make it. That type is mostly a meme though. There's plenty of geniuses working as hard as a dumb asian with pushy parents and even they will likely not achieve anything significant.

Reminder that IQ testing was originally for assessing children in grade school. Eugenics spergs who weren't even subject matter experts in the field then decided to jerry-rigged it for non grade school assessments on adults.

So yeah it makes sense that it would be best fit for simple verbal testing and special needs. Because that's what the FUCKING RESEARCHERS WHO BUILT THIS TEST WAS TRYING TO DO!

>>10248043
can all the 145 IQs reliably beat all the 120 IQs? or what's the correlation? the guy in OP is saying that IQs lower than 100 perform reliably bad, but IQs higher than 100 don't correlate very well with actual performance

>>10248043
That 145 IQ math guy will fail at biochemistry because it requires memorization which he can't do without studying.

>>10248753
Maybe because he realizes how pointless it is to memorize when you have something called paper and pen (or Tools With similar atribute)?

>>10248814
In today's research you need to have a fuckton of knowledge to come up with new stuff. Even the recent "quasi self-thaught" geniuses like Ramanujann and Grothendieck has to read extensive literature before coming up with something new. Today it's even harder, even child prodigies like Tao have to dive each year into shitton of papers, else they would get to comfortable in a certain area of math, and wouldn't be able to come up with new stuff. A "smart but lazy" type of person would never make it in academia, and I doubt he'd have a successful career elsewhere unless he had some sort of social skills.

>>10246423
pic related's filesize/8000 is NOT nine mes.

>>10248835
what

>>10246494
>so how good you are at following orders without thinking
That's not the major component of that, as that's a given. It's the amount of control of yourself and thought you can give within a task. High IQ people are also good at sports, if they do it, because of the very same reason.

>>10248062
The girl example doesn't work, ugly women are usually better in bed than beautiful ones. Low IQ people are not necessarily better in bed than high IQ people, but I'm not sure, we need more data.

>>10248035
>>10248055
Not that guy, but you seem like you don't belong to /sci/ and should go back to /b/ or whatever shithole you came from, thanks.

>>10248850
>Low IQ people are not necessarily better in bed than high IQ people, but I'm not sure, we need more data.
you know what they say...
>Dance like no one is watching, sing like no one is listening, love like you've never been hurt, and fuck like a goddamn retard

>>10248043
IIRC there was an article claiming that being too good at studying leads to you having harder time on actual job.

>>10246494
>he mentions that the highest correlate of IQ with success in military training, so how good you are at following orders without thinking.
>is this true?
Stupid people (i.e. people with a low IQ) are unable to follow instructions, while smart people ( i.e. people with a high IQ) are able to follow instructions.

PS. Success in military training requires a capacity for abstraction, i.e. an ability to plan ahead and accurately evaluate the position of oneself or the enemy; only the grunts are expected to blindly follow their commanding officer.

The ASVAB is basically a thinly-veiled IQ-test used to weed out the incompetent from positions that involve authority, responsibility and complexity.

>>10248043
the 120, but its a false dichotomy. The 135 iq student who works 30-50 hours a week, challenges himself with accelerated class placement and spends the rest of his time on productive hobbies will smoke both of them.

>>10248937
That can be interpreted in many ways. I would interpret it as the average extremely studious person being only moderately gifted, which means that they cannot compete with smarter people in the workplace, where an employer expects you to finish a certain minimum amount of work during office hours.

Studying for twelve hours a day is only of great use for the extremely intelligent; for anyone else, it may lead to academic performance that doesn´t signal the true intelligence (i.e. an intelligence that would not result in stellar grades under average conditions) of a person when he/she seeks employment.

>>10248947
>The 135 iq student who works 30-50 hours a week, challenges himself with accelerated class placement and spends the rest of his time on productive hobbies will smoke both of them.
That may be true for the humanities or easier STEM-subjects (biology, chemistry etc.), but in mathematics and physics, natural intuition is everything - no amount of studying will make you the next Gauss. Those 10 extra "points" of IQ (i.e. possessing a cognitive capacity that is exponentially better than that of a 135 IQ "point" person).

>>10248956
That's why mathematics is not science. Since it's based on nothing but intuition. Nobody wants to study it for this reason. Every mathematician never worked hard a day in his life and deserves no respect

>>10248961
>That's why mathematics is not science.
Nobody ever said it was science.
> Since it's based on nothing but intuition. Nobody wants to study it for this reason.
Correction: the vast majority of people - and academics - are brainlets who will make up any excuse for their intellectual inferiority.
>Every mathematician never worked hard a day in his life and deserves no respect
The same could be said for anybody who has ever excelled in anything, if your stance is that "natural talent" is to be shunned.

>>10248956
the point of OP is that IQ doesn't correlate very well with success even in those fields once you are above 100 IQ

>>10248976
The average 145 IQ faggot isn't the next Gauss and therefore never really excelled in math.
The appearance of once in a generation freaks can't be applied to real life.

>>10248976
this >>10249004 the point of IQ being a useless measure is that having high IQ doesn't correlate very well with success in math, cherry-picking some high IQ people being successful doesn't negate that

>>10248956
Gauss, Newton, hell even Von Neumann spent most of their waking hours breathing mathematics AND were >>145 IQ. The greats are/were obviously both very intelligent and incredibly dedicated.
Those 10 points are worth jack if you don't put in the work.
the 135 IQ student beats the 145 IQ in all fields, especially since the latter isn't making any effort to get grad school recommendation letters or even doing any research at all.

>>10248976
>Every mathematician never worked hard a day in his life and deserves no respect
if you read the stories of mathematicians such as Erdos, you will find that they put in ridiculous hours all day everyday.
Incredibly successful people are almost all high IQ, high IQ people are not mostly incredibly successful

>>10246423
IQ is too one dimensional to be a proper measure of intelligence. Feynman couldn't get into Mensa but he is obviously much more intelligent than 99% of people who score 150+.

Creativity is more complex than something you can measure with IQ testing.

>>10249029
>>10249045
so IQ is a bad measure of intelligence, then we agree

>>10249059
It's a good measure of normalcy. The more deviant from 100, the more abnormal the person. Besides, savants are not always high IQ despite being able to excel in their fields.

>>10249050
>Creativity is more complex than something you can measure with IQ testing.

Totaly this, intelligence cannot be isolated. an intelligent person is always thinking different things about different stuffs.

for example imagine this

you are given an iq test with many complex logical and spatial problems

everyone starts doing the tests, but you realize that if youre smart then it doesnt matter what a shitty test says, also the test is probably biased, also logic wont get you any of what you really want, so you take a dump on the test and go outside to have sex with a girl that has big tits, who is the smartest here then uhhhh

trump claims an iq of 156.

I believe their is some higher consciousness that varies among the population, but the IQ test was craze was built to take power away from those who were poor and unfortunate. Rather than to help build those people up, it was taken that they were innately inferior to those with higher scores.

Which planet will survive?
Planet full of 80 iq brainlets who deadlift and eat Mediterranean diet. Or planet full of 140 iq order iyi thin waisted fragilistas who are good at following orders.

>>10249183
it's 50/50

>>10249183
Vastly depends on their hierarchies.

>>10246423
If IQ test are BS why does every smart guy have a triple digit IQ and even moron a double digit one?

>>10246423
Then stop using this guy's math for your power grid you arrogant ignorant waste of human potential

What the fuck do normies and dummies invent to make the life a pleasure in in comparison to intellectual giants

>>10249360
to make this life a pleasure to live in,*

>>10249353
I think his point(one of them) is that high iq doesn't protect you from ruin. High iq people even make the ruin worse by creating overly complex systems, which then collapse.

>>10249353
because as OP clearly states, low IQ is a good predictor of failure, but high IQ is not a good predictor of success, so what you are seeing is that low IQ is good at detecting lack of intelligence, but high IQ is not good at detecting how powerful the intelligence is

>>10249360
again, just because some high IQ people did good things, doesn't mean high IQ correlates well with higher intelligence and success

you can't cherry-pick data to fit your ideology

>>10249435
Your assuming correlations and causation

Most mediocre people mindlessly follow like sheep
They have no concept of how Owned they are by central bankers
The Roman Mob eternally reborn content in squalor content so long as they have bread ind circus at the Colosseum of the modern day

Maybe IDIOTS are a burden to live around because they are content like animals to live in lies so long as their bellies are full

>>10249452
what's IQ if it doesn't correlate with success in any field? just a number you get to brag about? how are people with high IQ who achieve nothing better than lower IQ people who achieve things?
>Most mediocre people mindlessly follow like sheep
if you read OP high IQ people do best in jobs where you have to be sheep, although the correlation is still shit

>>10246423
>when you compare the arbitrary measurement IQ to my arbitrary measurement of "performance" the correlation falls off later, which clearly means IQ is a bad measurement
This is your brain on social science.

>>10249465
psychology being a garbage field is addressed in the link too, daily reminder that psychology has never cured a single person

>>10249452
>follows a meme image like sheep
>calls other sheep
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rothschild-family-wealth/

>>10249470
>www.snopes.com
literally a guy on his sofa and the prostitute he married after leaving his wife

>>10248053
So in your opinion a borderline retard, whos very determined and gets trough high school by studying 12 hours per day because everything is ultra complex for him is more valuable than a genius 200 IQ who gets straights As in college without studying because the concepts are simply easy for him?

>>10249045
>high IQ people are not mostly incredibly successful
That depends on how you define "incredibly successful". Statistics show that a high IQ (>90th percentile) correlates strongly with a high income (>90th percentile) and higher education (graduate degree or higher).

>>10249139
>Rather than to help build those people up, it was taken that they were innately inferior to those with higher scores.
IQ correlates strongly with capacity for abstraction, which is vital to success in all aspects of life.

>>10249353

Reminder that having a high IQ does not guarantee you are good at math or science. You could be good at language or the arts instead. And if you go in a field that doesn't match your skill set because society told you to favor something else or you personally aren't interested in the subject you will effectively decrease your chances for success.

Despite what "G" battery tries to advertise
high IQ isn't in itself a catch all for any given subject matter.

>>10249461
>what's IQ if it doesn't correlate with success in any field?
But it does exactly that, you lying imbecile.
>if you read OP high IQ people do best in jobs where you have to be sheep
If you define "being a sheep" as "obeying your superiors more often than not", then yes, I guess everyone is a fucking sheep. Happy now, you goalpost-moving idiot?

>>10249598
>>10249604
the literal point of OP is that the correlation is garbage and statistically meaningless for anything above 100IQ

>>10249608
>But it does exactly that, you lying imbecile.
the point of OP is that it's a garbage measurement for success for anything above 100 IQ, have you even read it? nobody is moving goal posts, you are not even checking what we are talking about

>>10249606
>Reminder that having a high IQ does not guarantee you are good at math or science.
That is exactly what it does. Math and science are essentially abstraction taken to the extreme, and IQ measures capacity for abstraction.
>high IQ isn't in itself a catch all for any given subject matter.
That it is not, but a low or mediocre IQ is a guarantor of failure in both mathematics, science, art and learning languages, lest you get incredibly lucky as an entertainer, a model or some other field that doesn´t require a superior mind.

>>10249610
The OP is also literally WRONG; the correlation between IQ and success is strong across the whole spectrum of giftedness. The IQ of a middle-schooler predicts - to great accuracy - the educational, monetary and social attainment he/she will gain during his/her lifetime.

>>10246481
>Why?
Because then you can finally break free from this rat race through office cubicles. You have to do it the unorthodox way though.

IQ tests are shit because the logic is biased and doesn't account for unorthodox solutions and patterns that are even more complex than the maker of said test anticipated.

There are literally people out there that are too smart to have a high IQ score.

>>10246423
No
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Practical_validity

>>10249911
>The practical validity of g as a predictor of educational, economic, and social outcomes is more far-ranging and universal than that of any other known psychological variable.
this is addressed in OP, this just means that all psychology is garbage, not that IQ is a good statistical measurement

>>10248340
Based.

>>10251197
>this is addressed in OP, this just means that all psychology is garbage, not that IQ is a good statistical measurement
Are you an imbecile? The conclusion you draw makes no sense at all.

PS. Do spread your ignorance around you, so that wiser men and the government can recognize you for the idiot that you are. They will certainly - and without regret - weed you out from any positions of authority using an IQ-test of some sort.

>>10248313
this is more cope. I specifically picked an actual real archetype that you can find at almost any good university and you’re still trying to back your way into some noble mediocrities fantasy ascent to genius while pairing it with a reluctant lip service to “hard working geniuses” as if learning real analysis over break isn’t a sign of extreme potential and likely curiosity towards one’s subject.
>>10248636
In anything that requires higher cognitive function, yes. They will always process information faster and make deeper connections.
>>10248753
biochemistry wasn’t a part of the first example its a midwit major for people too dumb for physics and mathematics.
>>10248850
>its almost as cute but you can’t leverage it for pussy
>above average women deny the beauty, aura and charm of beautiful women
>durr they’re not as good in bed!
fucking retarded responses every single reply was annoying

>>10251263
>In anything that requires higher cognitive function, yes. They will always process information faster and make deeper connections.
this is your fanfiction about IQ, actual IQ research doesn't support this

>>10249864
A truly intelligent person would be able to understand that and answer accordingly. Identifying and discarding, as necessary, "zebra" solutions is an important aspect of intelligence.

>>10246423

>>10251557
again, OP's point is that while low IQ below 100 is a good measure of incompetence, high IQ above 100 is not a good measure of competence

People are so fucking dumb here. why would you expect IQ to explain everything about success. Humans are fucking complicated and theirs other factors like luck, personality, nurtured opportunities. You wouldnt expect IQ to explain everything or be able to make predictions for a given individual. But doesnt mean there isnt a significant correlation pr prediction: doesnt mean its a bad measure.

>>10249433
and has anyone actually asked for this statements statistics or as to why it were true if it were?

>>10249013
>high IQ doesn't correlate very well with success in math

where are these stats even coming from?

>>10248340
making the dunb assumption that researchers who are almost most definitely smarter and more successful than you havent considered this or evaluated the tests in this was.

>>10251557
>Germany's average IQ is 100
>a lot of the greatest 19th and 20th century thinkers were German with almost no Singaporean superstars
hmmm yes IQ is veryy important anon.

>>10251665
modern Singapore was socially engineered recently, it's basically an IQ shredder where smart people migrate and then don't have kids
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/20/modernitys-fertility-problem/

>>10251665
Germany is a huge country. Only reason they have lots of famous scientists is due to their population size.

>>10251678

>>10249139

>trump claims an iq of 156.

Trump would fart in a room with only one other person and still deny it.

>>10246423
It's coping of an IQ 100 brainlet

>>10251296
That is a different type of intelligence from what IQ is testing for however. It requires the thinker to understand social norms to gauge what the tester expects

>>10249812
>free
>rat race
>office cubicles
You literally double down on the same cringe as the NPC wojak.

>>10246481

based

This guy is biased as fuck and pathetically tries to justify his hatred for academia everywhere he can, opposing it to people doing things for "real"

Just another 1 dimensional guru

>>10251713
He's right, retard

>>10248043
i doubt the 145 iq would be 145 if he wasn't a lazy cunt, you can actually get better/worse at pattern recognition

>>10253178

>>10249139
>my iq is one of the highest
It's technically true.

>>10253460
relative to elite iq, his actual intelligence isn’t impressive and no one with a 150 iq would be elected to office they’d be too intelligent for their handlers nor would they be a hotel and casino mogul. James Simons is an example of a genius iq billionaire.

>>10253460
>technically true
this is assuming his iq didn't degrade to sub-100 in the last 50 years

>>10253477
Your IQ is not one of the highest, obviously.