/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10331751
great thread

try to find something else in life to be proud of other than the massively inflated online IQ test you took. I'm guessing you're "self-taught" as well.

>>10331772
IQ is what separates niggers from whites.

>>10331751
IQ is meaningless above 120 and below 80 as everything becomes lost in error. With these error bars all it's good for is detecting retards and brainlets.

>>10331808
Bro, 120 is pretty significant, being more than a standard deviation above the norm.
Also, it still has some predict power above that, but only really up until 130 or so.

>>10331808
>>10331813
Fyi, being 120+ places within the top 90% of the population.

>>10331775
>>>/pol/

>>10331775
>try to find something else in life to be proud of
"being white" isn't exactly what I meant by that, but it's something I guess...

>>10331816
And IQ tests have population errors of 8~13%.

>>10331829
>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]

>>10331829
>>10331834
I've spent the past few hours arguing with some spastic on /lit/ about IQ, because he was trying to say that authors have the same intellectual rigor (they don't).
I don't want to have to have ANOTHER argument here aswell, I, because it is a well established metric used by institutions the government.
Even indirected via g-loaded questions, tasks, etc.
See:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_public_policy#Use_of_cognitive_tests_in_the_United_States_legal_system_and_public_policy
Just don't.

>>10331834
>For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points
Which about the mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 translates to a population error of 8%. And the error is often quoted as 3 to 5 points which gives a higher error of 13%.
>Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.
Which is grouping people into general bins, [ retarded | challenged | normal | gifted ], as they need to find the learning disabled and filter them out.
>as having high statistical reliability
This does not mean what you think it means. Reliability doesn't mean precision but accuracy of binning.
>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.
Aka accuracy not precision. Look up the difference.

>>10331847
Oh, for fucks sake, what is actually wrong with you?
I'm not having this argument, there is absolutely no need. Until you're as impactual as research institution, I don't give a shit what you think, my random 4chan anon.
It's a useful tool, with powerful predictive powers. You're opinion is literally worth piss in comparison.

I rather see people's college transcripts & class rank than their IQ

>>10331849
>*impactful

>>10331751
You have learned how to deceive, and yourself is all you can hear. You think you really believe, but deep down, you are only fear.

There is something inside of me that makes me run up against the wall. The thing my eyes don't want to see, that will obliterate my soul.

It's the fear that makes you cry. It's the fear that makes you blind. It's the fear, that kills your mind.

Everyone's afraid, but that's no excuse.

>>10331849
>It's a useful tool, with powerful predictive powers

For detecting and rejecting retards.
Autists that are good at pattern matching are incorrectly binned as gifted which leads to people like OP parading his IQ around.

>Until you're as impactful as research institution, I don't give a shit what you think,
>You're opinion is literally worth piss in comparison

>And until you're as impactful as the Vatican, I don't give a shit what you think about religion. You're opinion is literally worth piss in comparison of the Pope's
<=| :^) +

>>10331862
>>10331867
No, not fear, it has just become tiresome.
I know it isn't a perfect metric, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful, because it is. Otherwise people like the "Three Letter Agencies" wouldn't bother asking g-loaded questions, or giving you g-loaded tasks.
So, what? It has a little bit of error, it is still the best thing we have at this moment in time, until we start being able to perform genetic studies of intelligence. Or quantifiable structual differences that can be observed with the likes of a connectome.

>>10331867
>... incorrectly binned as gifted...
Fuck off with that, in particular, as that isn't at all rigorous. There's plenty of overlap between the two, and both groups share traits.
Which is why many geniuses are thought to have some mild form of ASD.
Not to mention, people with mild forms of ASD score very well in metrics that fest for visual-spatial intelligence, which is a key intelligence for STEM.
That's the ONE thing, I'll outright disagree with you on.
>inb4 bias gifted autist
Shut up.

>>10331872
>*test

>>10331813
>tfw machine learning lisp scripts score 120 in your "significant" metric

>>10331908
Stop comparing human intelligence, to machine intelligence. Sure, they're faster than us, but they don't have creativity and don't understand the meaning of what they're doing.

>>10331868
I was just writing song lyrics.

As you've realized, a proper metric has to do with capacity of underlying subsystems independent of their present functional state. Intelligence is relative, that is you cannot be intelligent without something to intelligent about, and a context in which you are intelligent about it. For example, dissociative disorders can often resemble (and be experienced like) major brain damage. And yet the system has the ability to rapidly transition to a state where its functional characteristics are something quite apart.

In some cases the system cannot or will not make a given transition, because it doesn't have the means for whatever reason. It may maladaptively lock itself to a certain range of states. The division between hardware and software is unclear. So you also have to consider what the system can be reasonably expected to attain in average conditions, and what aspects you're willing to control.

I was real clever back in the day and IQ testing showed that as well. If you tested me in the near past I wouldn't be surprised if it was 85 - 105 some days. Reasons include:
-I don't care or am not able to
-My subconscious is overloaded.
-A little bit of actual brain damage
-Years of corticotropin and cytokine bombardment

Other people are probably in a similar boat.

Your metric naturally has to follow from your overall purpose, not just what you want. There are a number of factors to consider in your particular context.

>>10331934
Why is nothing objective? I just want one thing to be as it seems.
Even something so seemingly objective as spatial ability is context dependent, and requires some sort of stimulus to function.
Can I just use God as an excuse, and dumb myself down with enough neurotoxic substances?
I want to be spiritual, so bad, but I cannot bring myself to reject reason.

>>10331942
Nothing is objective because everything is memory. And memory is just state. So all you're ever dealing with is relative states at many scales and levels of organization.

How can it be absolute and objective? No useful high level metric is sufficiently simple to be applicable in all states.

>>10331964
Not even your consciousness is objective between "states", any lapse in that consciousness (such as sleep) and you've broken that continuum.
Then, all you have to rely on for that continuum in your memories, which as you've said, are liable to errors.

>>10331918
and yet they score in the 75th percentile on raven's progressive matrices, meaning they have an iq of 120
https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2017/01/making-ai-systems-see-the-world-as-humans-do.html
"The model performs in the 75th percentile for American adults, making it better than average," said Northwestern Engineering’s Ken Forbus. "The problems that are hard for people are also hard for the model, providing additional evidence that its operation is capturing some important properties of human cognition."
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-60724-002
doesn't it suck when your "intelligence" test can't even distinguish a human from a machine? if it can't even do that, what makes you think it can tell two humans apart?

>>10332015
Raven's isn't a complete IQ test, moron.
Also, you can't compare the two. It is a test designed to text certain facets of human ability, we then invented machines to mimic that ability, only with a higher throughput, so of course they outperform of things like matrix reasoning, because we designed them to.
The thing is, they don't UNDERSTAND what they're doing, we do.

>>10331775
Prof. James Watson

Greatest Biologist in history after Darwin.
Nobel in Medicine for discovering DNA shape.

Race realist & Anti-SJW.

James Watson quotes:
https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/

>Some anti-Semitism is justified

>All our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans] intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really
>And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic
>People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true

>I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective
>People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think [doing so by genetic selection] would be great
>Women at Oxford and Cambridge are better than Harvard and Yale because they know their job is to look pretty and get a rich husband

>There is a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.. that’s why you have Latin lovers
>[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance
>Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system
>East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society

>The one aspect of the Jewish brain that is not 1st class is that Jews are said to be bad in thinking in 3 dimensions.. it is true
>Women are supposedly bad at 3 dimensions

>People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism'
>[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser
>[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic
>[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane

>Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them
>Disabled individuals are genetic losers

>Anyone who would hire an ecologist is out of his mind
>My former colleagues are pinkos and shits

>>10332054
What a dickhead. Fame has just become his excuse for laziness and thinking his toilet thoughts are somehow more meaningful.

>>10332054
In my ethics class they pulled him up as a case study and they show how he made fun of all his colleagues and how he wanted the Nobel prize instead of doing science for the sake of it. He's not ethical

>>10332047
Yes it is moron. Finding patterns is intelligence and machines score higher than the average white American

>>10331751
its sober escapism, the absolute worst kind of escapism. You think you're doing the best you can but constantly tell yourself the "you know you're not as smart as "that" guy was when he was your age, your kinda smart but lazy" meme and live through life with a shard of effort in everything hoping that you can get through with minimal effort because you also tell yourself the "smart people don't need to work hard, they work smart" meme time after time until you reach a point where your just walking through classes hoping one day you'll reinvigorate your love for your studies again with the belief that you'll "just" figure it out eventually because you gotta be high IQ to make it although there is no actual correlation with IQ. and happiness. But indeed life is not about loving what you and making yourself and your family happy. Life is about being able to please some men at an institutuon with your memorization capabilities of what they've taught you (they have no actual idea of knowing you've linked all the information taught to you together for sure) by testing you harder and harder until you just don't wanna do it no more.

TL;DR git gud kid, not at you btw op

>>10332348
I like to study with brainlets just to rub it in their faces that their attempts to overcome their mental limits compared to me are completely in vain

>>10332324
I think you should go and actually read about what AI is from a reputable source, not IFLS or Elon's Twitter feed.
We programmed them to mimic our behavior, and they have higher-throughput rate, that doesn't make them intelligent.
I doubt they'd do so well on parts of WAIS-R for instance, such as Verbal Comprehension or Perceptual Reasoning without being trained.
In fact, they would have had to train it to pass the Matrix Reasoning, which is what Raven's tests.
So in other words, unless it got that Matrix Reasoning score without being trained on Matrix Reasoning, it isn't valid.
As we can do Matrix Reasoning, and pass it (giving us our actual IQ score) without needing to be trained, because it is instinctual to us.

>>10331942
>>10331964
>>10331964
Fuck I read this because it was interesting, not because I want to be depressed.
But now I'm depressed

>>10333033
It's okay bro, you can trust that you're you after you've gone to sleep, I'll remember you for you... until I have to sleep too.

>>10332839
Every person I've known with your attitude has eventually failed and become a raccoon loving asperger NEET.

>>10333054
Cope

>>10333225
I can tell it hurts you to read that.

>>10331775
>thinking you're smart because of your ancestors' achievements

Pretty sure they'll think us modern American are dumb af

>>10333054
It's not an attitude its a delusion. They have nothing else in life either than their ignorant belief that they are "smarter" than everybody else. This lack of humility eventually becomes their downfall when they realize they aren't geniuses and lose all their sense of self worth.

>>10333270
>we have the best technology the planet has ever seen
>the people living in this society are probably dumber than the people who lived in prior civilization
The goal of civilization is to allow everyone to live like a dumb animal without having to worry about everything that makes civilization possible.
We are living this dream today.

>>10333300
What does that have anything to do with the point I was making?

>>10333054
>>10333293
This. We had a bright PhD student who was so busy thinking he was better than everybody that he never did any work.
Now he's a NEET.

>>10333248
I’m crying right now

>>10331751
Not really.
If you want to be a good scientist, train in science. Not on IQ tests.

>>10331751
Why are you so determinedly sure that intelligence is not malleable? Even high IQ people have to study, to learn new things, otherwise they're left out cold.
Studies have shown that learning a new skill such as juggling or learning to play the piano physically alters the brain, so why are you so sure that IQ somehow determines someone's success? Do you not understand the difference between correlation and causation?

>>10334750
>Some measures of educational aptitude correlate highly with IQ tests – for instance, Frey and Detterman (2004) reported a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor) and SAT scores;[108] another research found a correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores, with the explained variance ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design".[109]

>>10334750
>>10334752
Source:
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/27531743?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>10332324
Can you grasp the meaning of the word understanding, or is that too hard for you?

>>10334752
>>10334757
So are you advocating for giving everyone an IQ test and then giving out jobs accordingly? Why send them to school, allowing them to make their own decisions at all? The test DETERMINED they won't be good at X, they have to do Y.
Plus, if IQ explains slightly more than half the variance in math and less than half in other subjects, you do realise that you kind of proved my point for me? There are multiple other factors at play in performance. IQ, while being the most rigorous, is not the only important one.

>>10334765
I don't think IQ is as rigid as people say it is, but differences by whole standard deviations do matter.
Someone with an IQ a standard deviation below the average is noticeably impaired. It becomes lesser so as IQ increases, and at around 120/125 IQ matters a lot less.

>>10334765
Well duh? IQ is the greatest criterion for organizing society. It is the genetic destiny of the high IQ.

>>10334798
Euro-Sinid Technocratic Federation when?!

>>10331751
>a scientist
cringe

Because of:
https://endpoints.elysiumhealth.com/the-dunedin-study-e8d370ae630c

>>10334792
IQ is as rigid as psychology gets. And yeah it matters, but not solely and not to the extent the anon implied.

>>10331808
Why do you think it's meaningless outside of those boundaries?

>>10336104
If i had to know only 3 details about you before hiring you or allowing you any measure of power over my fate I would ask: sex, race, iq in that exact order

>>10336124
We would be living in Jupter by now if people were allowed to do that.

Science is not all about calculating shit in your head. A lot of it is also,
>reorganizing your and other people's knowledge
>socializing and networking and brainstorming together
>teaching
>lots of "dirty work" that is necessary such as programming shit, building and supervising experiments, and so on and so forth

Although a high IQ is definitely a necessity, you also require,
>high stress threshold
>no mental illness (or to be more precise none that will hinder you)
>sacrifice and hard work

So yeah a 150IQ genius is going to be faster at solving some puzzle than a mediocre 120IQ guy, but the life of a scientist is not all about solving those puzzles. The 120IQ can still find lots of useful and good work to do to help science forward. And in the grand scheme of things the 150IQ guy might be a good puzzle solver but might lack in other departments to the point that the 120IQ guy manages to accomplish more in the long run.

>>10336131
We would have created a gamified edenic thunder dome Earth with literal demigod beast men reenacting the theogonies of various IE religious traditions for the amusement of the world autarchs if this were the case.

>>10331868
>Otherwise people like the "Three Letter Agencies" wouldn't bother asking g-loaded questions, or giving you g-loaded tasks.
These agencies still use lie detector tests and hire based on the results.