/sci/ - Science & Math

>another IQ thread

Everyone on 4chan has an easy way to check their IQ by looking at their posts last two digits.

>>10450797
Test

Does anyone actually care about it irl? Seems like it only comes up on 4channel so lazy neets can justify it and look down on people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jsWrQu7CQ

>>10450829
This. I think it only comes up in debates about racist topics

>>10450797
It's one of our board's most effective newfag filters. My IQ is exactly >>10450850 and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

IQ is just a proxy for g

>>10450797
It's one of our board's most effective newfag filters. My IQ is exactly 53 and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

>>10450797
It's one of our board's most effective newfag filters. My IQ is exactly 62 and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

A response from a researcher in the field
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/swanning-about-fooled-by-algebra/
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/in-the-wake-of-the-swan/

>>10450829
It's gauche to brag about something that someone was gifted by birth, plus as a society we care more about making optimal use of one's potential, rather than the potential itself. Plenty of high IQ people fail to meet their potential.

But from a social perspective it's of great value in explaining why certain populations thrive while others struggle. You're just not supposed to notice that, hence why it seems like no one cares about IQ irl

>>10450867
>alternate media selection
YIKES

>>10450862
absolutely based

>>10450877
major news networks do not provide reliable info when talking about controversial topics.

Taleb laid out his examples of shortcomings in IQ tests and posted several examples (graphs/statistical analysis) in favour of his argument
>>10450867
Fucking blogspam that presents no argument except (well, you're right but... IQ is not NOTHING).

>>10450867
>researcher in the field
It's an alt-right blogger lmao

>>10450917
james thompson is a prof at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London

The elephant in the room is that the reason some intellectuals dis IQ is purely political.
They can't deal with the fact that it proves certain populations to be dumb, it crashes their whole Judaeo-christian derivative morality about everybody being the same.

>>10450867

>In fact, psychologists have understood this point. Hunter and Schmidt and Kunzel point out that the best test of whether a person can do a job is to let them try it. However, this is expensive in time and money, since you have to supervise them to prevent disasters, give them detailed instructions and monitor their performance carefully, all of which takes at least two weeks to get a reasonable estimate of the applicant’s capabilities. You cannot do this for all applicants, or it would take up all the staff time required for doing the actual work of the business. The above researchers show that an intelligence test is a close second-best in terms of outcome, and far quicker and cheaper.
>The above researchers show that an intelligence test is a close second-best in terms of outcome, and far quicker and cheaper.
>second-best
>cheaper

At this point why would you even argue for intelligence tests if you admit it's usefulness lies in being a cheap alternative to proper job training/ assessment? Doesn't this undermine the accuracy of using IQ to assess job potential?

>>10450876
IQ has almost no value in explaining differences in populations. It is very useful however for predictions concerning individuals. You shouldn't use a test with a terrible reliability though. The one cited in OP for example. I agree with Taleb about using IQ as a covariate, especially concerning short test forms that are taken only once - too much noise indeed.

Reminder that IQ is the most valid and predictive psychometric in existence, period, and people only deny it because the consequences of taking it seriously hurt their feelings
>>10450954
>IQ has almost no value in explaining differences in populations.
wrong, retard

>>10450967
oh THANKS FOR REMINDING US NIGGER
Now what does that mean? I bet you a signed dollar that you would choke and start quoting Jordan Peterson if you had to argue for your case or even explain some of the terms you use like "PSYCHOMETRIC".

fucking brainlet

>>10450978
>unironically triggered by technical vocabulary
lmao retard. ps Peterson is a pseud too but at least he’s more of a scientist than Taleb

>>10450967

>Reminder that IQ is the most valid and predictive psychometric in existence,

Is it? Because as >>10450867 provided the usefulness of IQ is mostly economical not validity or predictability based.

>>10450983
I don't know who's more of a scientist. One is a pop-psychologist who spends his time teaching grown adults the great story of Pinocchio the Wooden Mannequin and Great legend of Simba the Lion King.
Taleb made millions of dollars day-trading and running a hedge fund and published a book explaining a novel concept of risk and how it manifests itself in real world scenarios such as the economy.

I said I bet you a signed dollar that you won't be able to explain that term you used. A signed dollar and I will never again browse this board if you can really explain the term "psychometric" without looking like a wikipedia fag.

>>10450797
dubs = 100+ last two digits

>>10450993
>Is it?
yes, see Strenze et al.
>>10450998
durr he made millions of dollars
wow he must know a ton about science! retard

>>10450785
>how can blood pressure be a valid measure when it can fluctuate so much between individuals?
>how can weight be a valid measure when it can fluctuate so much between individuals?

etc

isn't he the dude who's defensive about his race?

>>10451015
Yes... he made millions of dollars day-trading and running a hedge fund (i.e. making money for other people). He is infinitely more qualified to talk about statistical methods & I.Q. than JP.
But I knew you would choke. It's always easy to spot the nigger on this board because of the platitudes they tend to post.

My signed dollar lives another day

>>10451020
he's autistic about meds yes

>>10451029
>day traders know more about science than scientists
the absolute state of IQ denialists

>>10451035
A rural or suburban retards opinion is always worthless

>>10451019
the problem is that it fluctuates within individuals, which is a reliability issue that doesn't occur for weight or blood pressure

>>10450829
idk I had to do an IQ-test for a job today

>>10450967
from early on, the science of intelligence measure was used to justify racism. population differences still provide that, nonetheless controversially. for more, not so much. it does NOT explain why some population thrive and others struggle, thats just bullshit.

>>10451056
>blood pressure and weight don’t fluctuate within individuals

>>10451033
lol I wonder if he's internalized the /pol/-tier racism of traders and is trying to manage the cognitive dissonance between it and the fact that he himself is Mediterranean.

>>10451035
Dude he's also a professor who's an expert in the field of decision theory & probability. A published author of several critically acclaimed books, a self-made millionaire and master of applied statistics.

>the absolute state...
>reminder that...
>unironically...
I told you these platitudes make you stick out like a sore thumb.

>>10451078
thank you for giving a perfect example of the motivated reasoning that brainlets engage in to justify IQ denialism

>>10451088
>Dude he's also a professor who's an expert in the field of decision theory & probability
no he's not. have you actually read the article he wrote """debunking""" IQ? he has no idea what he's talking about

>>10451082
reliability relates to measurement. of course weight fluctuates within individuals, but its measurement does not fluctuate if weight stays constant. thats the difference to IQ measurement. nice picture tho

>>10451086
meds built civilization so i dont think he's too concerned

>>10451092
i'm neither denying anything nor am i motivated. population differences in IQ scores have no value, except for racists justifying their believes. it is like it is. provide a counter argument if u can

>>10451109
>i'm neither denying anything nor am i motivated
you are. your argument is:
>if IQ is real,"racists" are right
>"racists" being right would hurt my feelings
>thus IQ is wrong
my counterargument is
>IQ predicts income and educational attainment
>the races measurably differ in IQ
>thus the races will differ in income and educational attainment even in the absence of discrimination

>>10451098
No I read his tweets and I agree with him. I.Q. is a measure of extreme unintelligence. Proponents of I.Q. claim that it's correlated with how well you do in life and the other argument is that it measures how "fast" you learn to do a task but not how "well" you do it.

He argues that this is bullshit and for any real reasons you do not need a secondary aptitude test to measure competency... in this case a real test or simulation of the skill/job will give you an actual measure of your capability

i.e. measured = actual performance and I.Q. is moot

>>10451098
Have you? His point is that it only works as a real measure in the negative direction, which is true. There is also the circularity problem.

>>10451124
>No I read his tweets and I agree with him
lmao
>>10451125
>Have you?
yes, it's an embarrassment
>His point is that it only works as a real measure in the negative direction, which is true.
no it isn't. this is just a lie

>>10451113
>IQ predicts income and educational attainment
It only predicts income up until 60k$/year.

>>10451134
read an actual study instead of getting all your information from taleb's tweets

>>10451149
Dumb fragilista BTFO.

ITT

Can we all just agree that YES there are limiting factors in what a human can accomplish or how smart they can become but we don't know what those limits are or how to find those limits. If we assume something is a limiting factor, such as IQ and their tests, then it becomes true only because of the nocebo effect. If we think something is impossible, then we're not going to try to think how to make it possible.

IQ is the could possibly be the biggest placebo/nocebo in the world right now.

>>10451174
>guys can we just agree that research like doesn't even matter?? numbers hurt my feelings anyway

>>10451174
Point is people claim IQ is some sort of monolith yet the same person can get different results at different times and different incentive structures. It's too malleable.

Maybe it's good for large populations but individuals? I don't know.

>>10451158
this plot of a positive correlation between IQ and income definitely destroys my point that there's a positive correlation between IQ and income

>>10451101
I unironically think that IQ changes, exercise unironically boosts my IQ, if I do a math problem after a gym session it's way easier for me.

IQ is a fucking scam and comparing it to any research from actual sciences is dishonest. It has raw correlation to job performance of about 0.23 and it's further corrected in meta-analyses to 0.5, because they assume huge IQ measurement errors. Then they have the gal to say how good of a test it is for job performance because it's cheap and has correlation of about 0.5, disregarding that for the person doing even more imperfect measures than they did the actually useful increase over random picking they can get is related to the 0.23 raw correlation because meta-analysis like that can't fix the individual measurements to their real values, merely assume the lack of correlation is due to noise.

Taleb is right in his judgment as a statistician who understands p hacking, cherry picking in scientific papers for significant results, small dishonesties in data, or any other phenomena that bring correlations and significance of data sets up against the actual measurement.

>>10451201
There is barely a positive correlation via positiva, that is for normal ranges and up.

>>10451113
my feelings are irrelevant here. racists are idiots and their political ideas are harmful to a society, both historically and in the future.i never said IQ was wrong. it is a very good measure with practical implications for individuals, but like any other psychometric measure, it has issues when it comes to measurement that make it worthless when u try to use it on a population level. when you look at income at this level, other variables are way more relevant, same with education. in this way, youre counterargument is just bad science. my point is, what can you draw from that but racist politics?

>>10451211
>IQ is a fucking scam and comparing it to any research from actual sciences is dishonest. It has raw correlation to job performance of about 0.23 and it's further corrected in meta-analyses to 0.5, because they assume huge IQ measurement errors

This fascinates me, do you have a source on that? I don't doubt for a second that psycholophasters would do such a thing.

>>10451211
i disagree about your opinion on real sciences, the rest of your post is gold

>>10451218
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/

>>10451217
>my feelings are irrelevant here
they aren't, and thus your objections aren't either

>>10451229
you misunderstand the issues of trying to use individual test scores to explain population level phenomena, which has nothing to do with anybody's feelings

>>10451237
>averages don't exist

>>10451229
so the objections are relevant? your grammar is fucked

>>10451242
damn you know so much about psychological research methods. not.

>>10451211
Ryan Faulk has already debunked all of these claims. I highly recommend you watch his latest video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jsWrQu7CQ

>>10451227
Thanks, what a sad field psychology is.

>>10451158
This shows correlation all the way up to highest income levels you retard

>>10451229
Answer this first:
Are you a Psychologist or Sociologist?, or just another /pol/ shithead that thinks he knows what the fuck is he talking about?

>>10451015

>Strenze et al.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328416329_Intelligence_and_socioeconomic_success_A_study_of_correlations_causes_and_consequences

>Job Perfomance r selection .53
>Hunter & Hunter 1984
>John E. Hunter

Referenced source

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/53dc/b497dfbba0a23a9d247114379b5f3d920a1c.pdf

Below is an article provided by John E. Hunter in 1998.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.1733&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>the pantheon of 19 personnel measures in Table 1, GMA(also called general cognitive ability and general intelligence)occupies a special place, for several reasons. First, of all procedures that can be used for all jobs, whether entry level or advanced, it has the highest validity and lowest application cost.
>Work sample measures are slightly more valid but are much more costly and can be used only with applicants who already know the job or have been trained for the occupation or job.
>GMA test (Job Perfomance r selection) .51
>Work Sample test r selection .54

As shown it is not the most valid and predictive. It is second compared to Work Sample Test as stated in >>10450867. The advantage of it lies in being a cheaper assessment, thus accuracy is sacrifice for economical purposes.

>>10450785
it isn't, thats why there is so much debate. something that is suppose be a clear answer is actually bullshit and people are holding on to it cause it makes them feel special.

>>10451056
I can literally make my blood pressure shoot through the roof by thinking about something that makes me anxious right now. How should that be different from IQ?

>>10451470
because group differences in blood pressure don't have any political implications

>>10451133
You're a retard because the article you're referring to is nothing but a compilation of a series of tweets. He has tweeted more about this subject since then and given more examples on why I.Q. is a pseudoscientific swindle (his words).

>>10451501
>You're a retard because the article you're referring to is nothing but a compilation of a series of tweets
double lmao

>>10451525
>Nassim Nicholas Taleb has tweeted a set of remarks about intelligence research. He has now gathered those together into one format, with links and explanations.

THIS IS FROM YOUR LINK YOU MORON

>>10451473
not pertinent with respect to science

>>>/reddit/

>>10451563
the politically motivated reasoning that people use to dismiss sound science is pertinent to science, brainlet

>>10451470
Blood pressure is supposed to change and when something shows it fluctuating it is fluctuating for a good reason.

IQ is supposed to be more or less set in stone, not fluctuating outside of minor effects of being tired etc, which are usually controlled so you don't wake someone for IQ test at 4AM in the morning. If it's in actuality so fucking fluid that difference between tests during the week is a standard deviation then it's not measuring the precious G factor or the G factor is a completely different concept from what psychologists think it is and so has different implications.

>>10450862
>>10450797

HOW DID YOU GET 62

>>10451640
You need 60+ IQ to understand that to be quite honest.

>>10450862
WAIT WHAT?

>>10450829
It helps me feel superior to other people that I scored a 141 even though I work at McDonalds and live with my parents at age 32.

>>10450797
test

>>10450797
>tfw single-digit IQ

>>10450785
>How can IQ be a valid measure when it can fluctuate so much between individuals?
>fluctuate between individuals

>>10451872

>>10451623
>IQ is supposed to be more or less set in stone

maybe it's not then. Maybe it fluctuates too depending on your current state. I don't see why that would make it invalid.

>>10451969
Because the implication that your general intelligence can vary from average to genius on day by day basis would be hella stupid. It by itself would shit on plethora of arguments for IQ's utility (can't use it to predict performance cheaply because it's so wildly fluctuates and you would need several spaced IQ tests for some average without much meaning, can apparently improve IQ significantly since sometimes dumbasses become smart for a moment).

>every argument against Taleb
"Hes a meanie jerk!"

face up to the real world losers.

>>10452305
>every argument against IQ
"Its proponents are meanie jerks!"

don't bother facing up just kill yourself

>>10450862

>>10452296
>>10451623
>IQ is supposed to be more or less set in stone
IQ is just a proxy for g

>>10451195
>people claim IQ is some sort of monolith

Who? Who the fuck actually does this? Do you understand what the g-factor actually is and how correlations work?

>the same person can get different results at different times and different incentive structures

Yes, and this is generally acknowledged by anyone who knows what they are talking about. This doesn't diminish the predictive power of the thing, and in fact instead suggests that it could provide even more predictive power than it already has with a better incentive structure.

>>10452800
IQ thread posting fags do you retard, stop acting like you haven't realized this or lurk moar

>>10452783
And G is supposed to be set in stone likewise retard, or at least to degree that doesn't have huge daily variations outside of testing a half dead man and a fully rested man or other stupidities.

All of my posts were implying that such variation in a test that's a proxy for general intelligence are either unacceptable, or general intelligence is a lot different than we think.

>>10452821
>what is a proxy?

>>10452803
>IQ thread posting fags do you retard

I really haven't seen this, and hence I presume that this is just you projecting what you think they are saying based on your prejudices as opposed to actually understanding what it is that IQ predicts and what is claimed.

>>10452829
Something that in this case is supposed to be correlated with the idealistic concept of G, and there is a whole lot of problem with the correlation and faithfulness of proxy when it has huge fluctuations.

>>10452852
>problem with the correlation and faithfulness of proxy when it has huge fluctuations

There's not conceptual or statistical problem with this though. IQ can be used 'at large' to predict a number of things, and this works. That's really all that's being claimed and all that matters here. It's not really at all surprising the individuals might have results that vary significantly on IQ tests, we aren't CPUs and can simply have off days where we find we have more trouble paying attention to patterns or caring about this stuff. This doens't magic away the predictions that are made that do hold up.

>>10452296
and that is the whole reason why iq is invalid, because tests have shown that it does fluctuate. i remember reading somewhere where they tested kids and then offered them 10 bucks as an incentive and nearly all of their scores were higher.

>>10452862
>indexes of physical performance are invalid because physical performance varies from day to day based upon sleep, nutrition, mood; and because if you incentivize people to work harder they will perform better

>>10452862
IQ is supposed to be used to compare a kid to his cohorts and devise an Individual educational plan not the way spergs use it right now.

You get a kid to take the test, you see what he's good in and what he's bad in. Then you do an educational assessment on what needs to be done with the child. If he scored high then put him in a more challenging class, struggling kids into adornments that seek to help them.

>>10451842
Do you know what an integral is? Try again next lifetime, brainlet.

>>10452865
>indexes of physical performance are invalid
This is true though

>>10450785
how can quantum mechanics be a valid science when its not repeatable
when you figure that out, you'll figure out why iq is just fine dude

>>10452909
>how can quantum mechanics be a valid science when its not repeatable
Except it is repeatable
How can /sci/ be the most high IQ board when there are this many retards

>>10450797
Damn straight

>>10452865
ya, which is why iq testing is pointless unless in rare occasions where you would use ranges, but giving back a specific score just invites the possibility for error

>>10452913
>measure up spin over the x direction, get 0
>measure up spin again over the x direction, get 1 this time
>repeatable btw

>>10453069
IQ would be a fine metric if the only possible scores were 1 or 0

>>10450790
based

>>10452909
>how can people accept sinusoid voltage but not 3-8V fluctuation on USB power bus

>>10451078
actually the earliest use of IQ as a metric was from social welfare with the intent being to help the least capable

>>10450785
It literally tells you how much work you put into your brain .

>>10453841
>send my brain into orbit
>IQ literally skyrockets

if iq isn't the right metric how else do we separate out the dumbs?

>>10451078
>. it does NOT explain why some population thrive and others struggle, thats just bullshit.
Explain yoself

How good is IQ in determining what your brain is capable of?

I guarantee 0 people in this world with a PhD in mathematics/physics have less than 130 iq and I guarantee 0 people with a masters in phd/physics has less than 125 iq.

Would not surprise me if for the PhD part I could set that number to at least 140, i'm undershooting by a wide margin here.

IQ tests measures your brain processing speed and your brain processing peak performance. If your iq is below 130 there is 0% chance you have the peak processing performance to get a PhD in math/physics

when you take an IQ test how much difference does your awakeness/wakefulness make?

>>10451640
>>10450862
96 IQ here

>>10453997
Embarrassing

so I've seen graphs comparing the male and female intelligence distribution
the one with women more closely clustered around the population average while men have a much wider range with more drooling idiots balanced by more geniuses.

what causes this distribution is is sex linked via the x chromosome or a consequence of testosterone?

>>10451214
Unfortunately the IQ-income correlation is weighed down by all these high IQ retards staying in academia until their late 30s whilst everyone else is making Kylie Jenner a billionaire.

>>10453985
the average physics PhD candidate has an IQ around 130

>>10450953
>Why would you use an IQ test to predict real world performance when you could just measure real world performance to predict real world performance.

>>10454007

IQ tests are in large part a test of your ability to concentrate and focus on command. It is impossible for an iq test to show the real score of someone who is unable to focus on the test.

Dumb women are more like drones and are more likely to do what they're asked to the best of their ability(so they focus on the test), dumb men are more likely to not focus at all on the test.

>>10454047
>presupposes that ability to concentrate isn't an aspect of general intelligence

>>10454047
the distribution suggests something other than your concentration thesis is happening and concentration is itself genetically influenced
my query is why there is such a stark difference in distribution between men and women?

>>10454086
> concentration is itself genetically influenced
Almost certainly heritable

>>10454066
>>10454086

Ability to concentrate is definitely an aspect of intelligence, no doubt about it.

Ability to concentrate about a test you don't give a shit about and that will never influence your job driving a tractor and ability to concentrate about tasks you care about are 2 different things though.

Men are naturally more rebellious and are more likely to not care "because fuck you" than woman are, therefore they dominate the lower scores. Men also dominate the upper range because we are smarter, obviously.

>>10453985
>I guarantee 0 people in this world with a PhD in mathematics/physics have less than 130 iq and I guarantee 0 people with a masters in phd/physics has less than 125 iq.
Low iq post

>>10454115
you've just repeated your previous after rephrasing it, this does not in anyway answer my question
I'd be grateful if you chose not to attempt to answer my question, further you don't appear to be offering any real data or informed insight.

>>10450829
If I had a high IQ I would love to stroke it too.

>>10450867
>garbage far right blog
>""""""researcher in the field"""""
Ah yes, kind of like those Phillip Morris """"researchers""""" that tried to bury the cigarrete/cancer link for years.

>>10451158

lower IQ is a better predictor of income than higher IQ is what this chart says. shit gets noisier the higher the IQ is.

>>10454152
unz publishes extremists for any point along the spectrum
they've also published at least one good essay i'm aware of that argues against race/iq

>>10454121
My IQ is 142. Wish it was higher as it would without a doubt be helpful in tackling the problems I work on every day.

Pretty much though, if you're not in chem/engineering/physics/math then you'll probably never even face problems where having an IQ above 120 matters

>>10454134
>you've just repeated your previous after rephrasing it

Correct, as the initial phrasing was a valid shout at explaining what was observed and your post was in no way a refutation of what I initially wrote. Therefore I tried rephrasing it for your thick skull. Can I give you a real definite answer to the question? Of course not it would be impossible, on top of that I don't even know how valid the statement is, their testing procedures or anything else. Isn't there a philosophy thread for you to be commenting on somewhere?

>>10450867
A whole bunch of non-arguments. Classic example of intellectual, yet idiot.

>>10451623
On some days I can shoot pool flawlessly and on others I am vastly worse, missing cuts and forgetting English.
Who's to say IQ isn't like that as well?

A 145 or higher IQ is useful in work like being a bouncer, where you don't have a license to kill or commit battery like the cops but yet you still have to control people just as well.

Culture is much more important, if you come from a culture that values learning you'll be much better off no matter who you are.

Much of the reason "hood" type people and rednecks are so dumb is because their culture keeps them that way.

(((They))) know this, that's why they're dumbing culture down, it's why most music is nothing but sex, drugs, partying, money, status and violence. If you told people that learning is important, knowledge is important and understanding is important we'd have a much smarter population. Our culture is anti-intellectual, people actually look down on intellectual pursuits it's "nerd shit" to them.

>>10450797
test me

>>10454658
>"hood" type people
>(((They))) know this, that's why they're dumbing culture down
You've got the right idea, but "(((they)))" aren't the ones who first did it:
https://archive.org/stream/WillieLynchLetter1712/the_willie_lynch_letter_the_making_of_a_slave_1712_djvu.txt
>Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I have a foolproof method for controlling your black slaves. I guarantee every one of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves and make the differences bigger. I use fear, distrust and envy for control.
It's all there: how to break them, breed them, take the fathers away so the mothers will raise their sons weak, turn them against one another with petty differences, control their language so they can't even express the concept of resistance, etc.

What (((they)))'re doing to you now is no different. Ironic, no?

>>10454658
define "culture"

>>10454658
did you read some Thomas Sowell?

>>10451101
Aren't you presuming that the fluctuation is a result of measurement and not the person's actual intelligence fluctuating?

>>10451217
>racists are idiots and their political ideas are harmful to a society, both historically and in the future

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>when you look at income at this level, other variables are way more relevant

Only correlating variables matter, and they've all been controlled for.

>>10455462
Just look at how many riots and mass shootings are chased by the alt right.

I mean, remember how that black cop shot that white guy and all those white people ran down the streets breaking and burning and looting and attacking random black people on the street based on nothing except falsehoods promoted by mainstream and popular media that all turned out to be life? Remember that?

You see, that's why the alt right and their misinformation is so dangerous.

>>10455462
Just look at how many riots and mass shootings and destruction are caused by the alt right.

I mean, remember how that black cop shot that white guy and all those white people ran down the streets breaking and burning and looting and attacking random black people on the street based on nothing except falsehoods promoted by mainstream and popular media that all turned out to be lies? Remember that?

You see, that's why the alt right and their misinformation is so dangerous

>>10451473
actually they do because they could be used to justify higher health insurance costs for certain groups

>>10455586
Here's the issue though. Nigerians have much lower rates of heart disease then Germans. However if a Nigerian was living in America would the policy reflect Black American or Nigerian rates in the Nigerians rates?

>>10455724
Here's the issue though.

There is such a thing as controls, retard.

Generalisations can be good. Generalizations can be bad if they are inaccurate. Stop generalizing generalizations and understand that an argument that inaccurate generalizations exist means all generalizations are bad.

>>10450785
Why would you take an IQ test more than once?
I'm pretty sure you can raise the results of any test if you allow the person to take it more than once.

Just picture the average asian muh famiry honour nerd giving an IQ test. Now imagine the average western wigger giving the same IQ test half-assedly. The difference in effort the average asian and white person put into the test alone could easily explain the 5 point gap between both populations, which leads to something IQ fags seem to ignore when they assume IQ is the perfect, objective measure for general intelligence: the results of an IQ test depend on a lot of circumstantial and cultural factors, from your mood when taking the test to the reason why you're taking it, etc. It's not some static, inmutable feature inherent to every person like dick size once you're an adult, nor it's objectively measurable like a platelet count

>>10455791
>which leads to something IQ fags seem to ignore when they assume IQ is the perfect, objective measure for general intelligence

Nobody says this.

>>10455804
People imply it all the time in /sci/

>>10455804
>Nobody says this.

Exactly. You won't be able to find a single post which actually makes these assumptions, this is wholly just projection from people who don't understand what IQ is or what it is a predictor of.

>>10455824
So, brainlets?

>>10455812
Post an example.

>>10455834
>every "my IQ is under 125 boohoo why am I such a brainlet" that assumes being a retard in general is unequivocally tied to a test result
>the all-so-common "Is an IQ of 1xx enough to get PhD in x?" as if it was the min. height restriction to get on roller coaster

Et al. I know a lot of these are made jokingly but if you deny a good part of the retards in here don't think of IQ as the "general intelligence number" you simply haven't spent enough time in the board or you're simply denying the obvious for the sake of winning an internet argument

>>10450862
Yep, 30 IQ non-functional retard reporting for duty.

>>10455902
Post an example, not your anecdotes.

>>10455902
>think of IQ as the "general intelligence number"

No one does this. Everyone knows that's g, but IQ, though imperfect, is the best measurement we have for g.

>>10455572
>Just look at how many riots and mass shootings and destruction are caused by the alt right.
1/100000 of the amount caused by blacks?

>>10450862
>>10455930
Nice script, mind to share it?

>>10455976
>I need a script to pass the newfag filter
get a load of this guy

>>10455937
>No one does this. Everyone knows that's g
Nigga, plenty of people in this board don't even know what g is, stop overestimating the niggers here to fit your point

>>10455933
I'd say anecdotal evidence is good enough for 4chan, if you're actually interested on /sci/ take on IQ you can find those posts yourself

>>10454152
And you wonder why its so easy to dehumanize leftists in the sciences. I mean, you are a threat to the sciences, and your IQ denial says it all. You dismiss a source solely for its political orientation, you call it garbage because your little lizard brain feels upset at seeing people disagree with your little cult. Only garbage is the things that come out of a leftists mouth. It's a "far right" blog, so fucking what? You're a fucking communist on 4chan who believes in the pseudoscience of racial equality. Learn to be humble.

Oh, and you dismiss James Thompson. A guy who was a professor at numerous London universities and who even knew Arthur Jensen back in the day. You didn't even decide to take a peek at it right? Because as a typical neurotic little leftists, if a source commits thoughtcrime, you can just dismiss it, right? You thought that?

People who deny IQ need to be fucking arressted, I think I would prefer that. I also think anti-racists activists ought to be arrested for the amount of damage their garbage has caused to this Earth, and the Mismeasure of Man should be burnt. The greatest pseudoscience and the greatest damage to science has always been far leftists. Far leftists are also the only people to have ever killed geneticists, because the idea of genes scares them that much.

>>10451163
>tfw someone from /sci/ actually bought the book just to leave a comment.

>>10456051
Maybe the real answer is just not trying to subject people to groups.

shitposting about IQ is one of my favorites. it's particularly easy to attract "geniuses" on /pol/

>>10453843
we can't

>>10450823
valid proof right?

>>10454041

Your green text means fuck all mate. If the virtue of the IQ test in assessing job performance lies in the "cost effectiveness" rather than accuracy of cognitive abilities then it undermines the principal of general intelligence assessments.

It basically falls into the same excuse trap that modern education deals with. Which is what is the best bang for buck strategy in dispersing education among a large population? This process undermines the optimal strategy for individual betterment which is custom education or peer to peer training because it is economically expensive.

>>10456058

>>10456295
IQ is a predictor of real world performance.
>predictor

>What is the chance this person is going to end up in prison?
>Give him an IQ test
or
>Wait 20 years and check to see if he went to prison

>What is the chance this person will meet sales targets?
>Give him an IQ test
or
>Give him the job, train him, pay him, wait 3 years for him to get experience and then check his sales

>What is the chance this person will complete his final medical exams?
>Give him an IQ test
or
>Spend 4 years educating him and then give him his final exams

Yes, a 1 hour generic test is not as predictive as actually measuring the thing you are trying to predict. Perhaps predicting the future is useless and we should just allocate jobs on a random basis and then sack people who don't perform (oh wait, you can't thanks to unions/employment law!)

an IQ test is a minimum requirement filter

just because you have a high iq does not mean you'll actually be good at a job as individual personalities make a huge difference.

>>10456382

So we agree that it's about cost effectiveness first and accuracy second.

>and then sack people who don't perform (oh wait, you can't thanks to unions/employment law!)

That shit mostly applies to the education sector or those with disability rights. In most other sectors if you aren't performing you can be fired since union rights for those sectors were trashed. Hell you can be fired even if you are performing just because financial restructuring aka contracting or "right to work" policy.

How smart were Neanderthals?
Would they have an IQ above 85-90?

>>10456509
Did some googling.
There's evidence that they were pretty damned smart.

>>10456495
>So we agree that it's about cost effectiveness first and accuracy second.
For assessing future performance of potential employees yes, of course. If you have X amount of dollars you could either test 10,000 potential employees with 60% accuracy, or 10 with 100% accuracy. You're more likely to get a better employee with the first method.

But IQ is actually about having a reliable method for assessing intelligence, for which their is no single real world performance task you can measure. This allows you to control for intelligence when assessing things like discrimination claims (are X minority more successful because of nepotism or because they're more competent), or elucidating what makes one brain function better than another, and ultimately which genes so you can do pic related.

>>10450862
H-how?
This post will end in 41 btw

>>10456541

>>10450862
>>10456541
Is this some quirk of /sci/ I don't visit here particularly often?

05

>>10456605
02

>>10456599
Nah, you just need to have an 140+ IQ for it to work. This post, for example, will end in 62

>>10456765
>62
well this must be embarrassing for you

>>10450967
that just means that sociology and psychology are garbage fields, not that IQ is a good measurement

>>10456599
>Is this some quirk of /sci/
it's called "being a slow board"

>>10455998
>if you're actually interested on /sci/ take on IQ you can find those posts yourself

Just looked at some archived IQ threads and couldn't find any post like that, so I guess you're wrong.

>>10450862

>>10456572
Is that the transracial kid from Atlanta?

>>10454007
Its the result of bad experiments. The spread in male iq is only observed at ages at or below 13, since thats when about half the boys are in puberty and half arent. Once the males have all finished puberty, or once everyone in the study is fully grown, the spread in male and female distributions vanishes and youre just left with the males average being 5 iq higher

>>10457322
>youre just left with the males average being 5 iq higher

Source? That kind of gap could fully explain overrepresentation of males in STEM and especially in elite positions. Small differences in average make large differences at the tail of the distribution.

>>10450967
>most valid and predictive psychometric in existence

get a load of not even 30% predictive power.

I bet that suddenly developing anxiety or depression disorder will fuck your life up no matter how high your IQ is.

>>10451158
>That one 75IQ dude making $180k/yr

>>10457351
based

youtube keeps recommending I watch this stefan molyneux guy, is he credible?

>>10457351
Gotta be sports, guy can probably suplex a truck

>>10450797
That's true, shame there's no easy way for me to build muscle.

>>10457738
I this a meme?
Just eat big and lift heavy, don't forget flexibility.

>>10457746
It doesn't work, I've tried SS, SL and 531 on a surplus with lots of proteins and I couldn't grow a pound of muscle in years. Some people don't respond to exercising

>>10454658

You're on /sci/ anon, try again. Jesus fucking christ.

>>10458083
it does depend on your physiology
aim for fitness instead then
too much muscle is just expensive to maintain anyway

>>10450967
>>IQ has almost no value in explaining differences in populations.
>wrong, retard
it's not wrong

somehow asians have higher iq than whites but whitey is in no way inferior

somehow arabs who are basically genetically white have the same iq as blacks in america, but also make super efficient use of their oil and have crime rates (in their own countries) comparable to european countries

somehow jews who are basically genetically white have a whole standard dev above withes

not to mention US's iq was 15 points lower not too long ago

anyways, intelligence and all aspects of it - iq, memory, hardworkingness, creativity are all genetic and should be selected for by means of eugenics

if a black population did that, they'd blow everyone out the water in 3 generations, regardless how inferior or backwards they are currently

THE problem is eugenics is currently completely ideologically dominated by racists who don't actually care about good intelligent genes, but about blond hair, pale skin and blue eyes
>>10456051
you are personally doing damage to eugenics just to advance your racist agenda

go research how brown smelly indian students outperform you both in the uk and the us - in terms of school grades, university achievement and salary

PS
weight has a heritabillity of 50%, this cat is fat because of genes

he a BIG boy

>>10458300
>it's not wrong

It is.

>somehow asians have higher iq than whites but whitey is in no way inferior

IQ doesn't measure superiority and inferiority, it measures relative intelligence.

>somehow arabs who are basically genetically white have the same iq as blacks in america, but also make super efficient use of their oil and have crime rates (in their own countries) comparable to european countries

The middle east is caucasoid but they're still their own gene cluster compared to europe. Crime rates are also a terrible international statistic as countries have different laws.

>somehow jews who are basically genetically white have a whole standard dev above withes

Also their own gene cluster.

>not to mention US's iq was 15 points lower not too long ago

Easily explained by environmental factors.

>>10451073
If you are in the US that is illegal.

>>10458300
eugenics works best as a low filter preventing the weakest influencing the future generations
modern welfare systems effectively encourage those with a lower abilities to breed instead of being productive

you can learn a lot from livestock breeding
populations fprced to adapt are better

>>10458358
how does the NFL swing with that?

>>10458364
I wasn't aware the NFL used IQ tests as a condition of employment.

>>10458366
What exactly is the wonderlic then?

>>10458372
Not an IQ test. From the sample questions available on Wikipedia it looks like mathematical word problems.

>>10458300
Genes aren't meaningful at all, the apparent heritability of such and such trait are primarily a result of the values and lifestyle of the parent, and the memetic transfer of lifestyle. Epigenome > genome.

>>10458380
IQ heritabillity of an adult is like 80%

>>10458373
it's challlenging the G-factor it's an IQ test

>>10458384
Yes, because parents that have themselves devoted their life to performing in that domain have induced such and such changes to their epigenome, some of which is inheritable thus making their child inclined to a similar lifestyle and values, which they are also likely to incentivize.

>>10458384
>muh G factor
So every test you ever take is an IQ test.

>>10458397
got a paper on that anywhere?
I've not seen reference to epigenetics and IQ before

>>10458402
at the scale and the way they're implementing it it is

>>10458406
There are other questions and some that could actually be considered vague.

>>10458409
they tout it as a quick IQ test on their web page anon

>>10458404
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30707743
>nature
>Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite near-identical rearing conditions
>Epigenetic variance in dopamine D2 receptor: a marker of IQ malleability?

Not very difficult to find, though it is still a field in its infancy. Personally, I find it a lot more plausible than the supposed existence of these mystical "intelligence genes" or "obesity genes", with all unforeseen deviance explained by magical "random mutations". I believe the Darwinian or deterministic model is so preferred by the mainstream because it disempowers and victimizes the individual.

>>10458450
>"obesity genes"
to be fair, intrauterine effects and very early neonatal events also count towards heritabeelity

those are environmental (and perhaps also epigenetic maybe) but not rly genetic unless you consider your mom not leading a healthy lifestyle during her pregnancy a genetic thing, which it actually might be

>>10458450
well the inciidence of neurological disorders in the ashkenazi population as a corollory to their elevated IQs strongly implies there is a large influence of genes on IQ
there's that study where they implanted human glial cells in mice that created hyoer smart mice

>>10458482
>corollory to
fuck
*consequence of selection for

>>10458482
>strongly implies
actually, no, not at all, if you look at it in terms of microbiology and biochemistry - meaning what genes do what proteins - this is possible for monogenic diseases
that shit is a consequence of isolatedness and inbreeding
the high iq is supposedly a consequence of selection for high iq

that's not what brought them higher rates of some somatic diseases, but you thinking that 'with high iq comes great burden' is just you repeating pleb opinions

In fact, most of the typical ashkenazi genetic diseases are monogenic, relating to a specific gene

How can height be a valid measure when it can fluctuate so much between individuals? Your height even changes during the day!

Dumb fuck.

>>10458300
>go research how brown smelly indian students outperform you both in the uk and the us - in terms of school grades, university achievement and salary
>If we cherry pick the best of a population they do better on average
Wow, what a fucking surprise.

>>10458570
i love this post, i've seen it about 100 times, automatic response, scripted, 100% bot, i assume it's something you got coached into

it doesn't matter, doesn't change their race, doesn't change the correctness of the statement 'indians in the US are, by /pol/ standards, superior to whites in the US'

also, wtf happened to regression to the mean, the above phenomenon goes on for 3 generations now lol, were the wives all super duper selected too

>>10458518
But they ran a bunch of genome studies and found high selective pressure in those areas associated with neurological function?

>>10458540
Sure, because the .5 cm change in height through the day is equivalent to a 60 point difference in IQ.

>>10458589
I'm confused, are you arguing for race realism or against it?

>>10458609
>60 point difference in IQ

What is the source for this? I know certain things can effect your intelligence, like diet, tiredness, etc, but I find it hard to believe a 60 point difference is anything more than someone not even trying to get the answers right.

>tfw 30 iq

>>10458613
>race realism
not a very accurate ideology, in fact it's a political ideology that pretty much abuses genetics and eugenics to push for what is essentially affirmative action

im arguing for the fact that some people are better than others regardless of race
and you may say, but hey average this and that, but that's bullshit

as i said earlier, 3 generations of eugenics on kenyans and they'll excel, without having curly hair, big noses and the envy of every other ethnic group - just like brahmins excel

it just naturally follows from these assumptions
1. iq is genetic
2. no two people are the same (meaning you can select for things)

that obvious
>>10458629
yikes, oof

>>10458589
>Climate Change exists
>i love this post, i've seen it about 100 times, automatic response, scripted, 100% bot, i assume it's something you got coached into
Point being, the reason you "see it so much" is because it is the correct argument to make in the face of that statement.

>it doesn't matter, doesn't change their race, doesn't change the correctness of the statement 'indians in the US are, by /pol/ standards, superior to whites in the US'
>It doesn't matter
Seeing as how you're using it as an argument that "Whites are inferior to Indians", it clearly does matter.
>Doesn't change their race
Yes.
>doesn't change the correctness of the statement 'indians in the US are, by /pol/ standards, superior to whites in the US'
First of all, you have not specified what "/pol/ standards" are to make any conjecture on the validity of that statement possible, and I'll assume you're suggesting that "High IQ = a superior population".
Second, if you want to make the argument that "Whites are inferior to Indians", you would also have to concede that Blacks are inferior to Whites.

>also, wtf happened to regression to the mean, the above phenomenon goes on for 3 generations now lol
Regression to the mean applies only for a single generation.

Now to get to the main point of "cherry picking".
Lets say that you have a group of 100 blue people and 100 purple people.
Blue people have an average IQ of 100, while Purple people have an average IQ of 80.
Lets say the best of the best of the red people have an IQ of about 120.
These people move to the population in which the Blue people are the majority and are evenly distributed.
Because of this, the average IQ of the population of Blue people is now inferior to that of the Purple people.

>>10458631
>im arguing for the fact that some people are better than others regardless of race

I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

>and you may say, but hey average this and that, but that's bullshit

...why?

>>10458631
>not a very accurate ideology, in fact it's a political ideology that pretty much abuses genetics and eugenics to push for what is essentially affirmative action
>I've gathered everything I know from memes and shitposting from people opposed to it

>im arguing for the fact that some people are better than others regardless of race
>populations have people that deviate from the mean
What a radical statement that no one else believe in.

>and you may say, but hey average this and that, but that's bullshit
>and you may say, but hey eugenics this and eugenics that, but that's bullshit

>>10458646
>...why?
Because you are never actually looking at an average. You are always looking at an individual. It's the same reason you cant say that dice under a cup aren't snake eyes because on average that is the most likely outcome.

>>10458646
read my post again, that's why
>>10458654
I never said eugenics is bullshit

eugenics based on race is bullshit - what i said

and you guys seem to agree mentally, but not emotionally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income#By_ancestry

you'll get there

>>10458656
>>10458665
But you can make predictions and decisions based on those predictions. Like if you made a bet that the dice weren't snake eyes, you'd have a 35/36 chance of being right.

>>10458656
>Because you are never actually looking at an average. You are always looking at an individual.
"If you can make a point on a graph that means the graph is meaningless".
What a ridiculous statement.

>It's the same reason you cant say that dice under a cup aren't snake eyes because on average that is the most likely outcome.
No one would ever say "this is certainly the outcome" in regards to a probabilistic range, what the fuck are you talking about.

>I never said eugenics is bullshit
I'm saying that your argument is as equally valid as that one.

>eugenics based on race is bullshit - what i said
Which you have not made an argument for.

>eugenics based on race is bullshit - what i said
Which you haven't made a convincing argument for. Which is why we don't agree mentally or emotionally with your propositions.

>>10458665
>Because you are never actually looking at an average. You are always looking at an individual.
"If you can make a point on a graph that means the graph is meaningless".
What a ridiculous statement.

>It's the same reason you cant say that dice under a cup aren't snake eyes because on average that is the most likely outcome.
No one would ever say "this is certainly the outcome" in regards to a probabilistic range, what the fuck are you talking about.

>I never said eugenics is bullshit
I'm saying that your argument is as equally valid as that one.

>eugenics based on race is bullshit - what i said
Which you haven't made a convincing argument for. Which is why we don't agree mentally or emotionally with your propositions.

>>10458675
what are you talking about, i'm not the guy that came up with an analogy thinking it's a good argument(just like you did)

the expectancy of a throw of a dice is 3.5 hurrr durr
analogies are for retards and 100% sure sign of lack of logical thinking, concreteness or aptitude - but that's beside the point

here's another retard that would rather go for the lower hanging fruit - the analogy
>>10458683
>>10458685
eugenics based on race is bullshit because i can come up with millions of examples where you'd be wrong to use race when you could just use a favorite metric IQ, along with other things like long term memory, vocab etc.

and as you all agreed with me, 'no two people are the same, people aren't equal, people are different etc.' which is always true unlike predictions based on race which is not always true - ie wrong
and the only reason you'd pick something that is wrong rather than right is because you are an ideologue

the question is simply:
Would you rather base a eugenics program on intelligence or on race

basing it on intelligence is just the correct answer, i don't even see why you are arguing here

also
>Which is why we don't agree mentally or emotionally with your propositions.
>we

>>10458707
>eugenics based on race is bullshit because i can come up with millions of examples where you'd be wrong to use race when you could just use a favorite metric IQ, along with other things like long term memory, vocab etc.
Then start posting them.

>and as you all agreed with me, 'no two people are the same, people aren't equal, people are different etc.' which is always true unlike predictions based on race which is not always true - ie wrong
First, when did I agree to all of those points.
Second, just because people are different does not mean they do not cluster.
Third, saying "people are different" is not an argument for or against the predictive validity of IQ.

>which is always true unlike predictions based on race which is not always true - ie wrong
Which brings into question your understanding of predictive validity.

>and the only reason you'd pick something that is wrong rather than right is because you are an ideologue
Because you've managed to convince yourself with this lackluster argumentation that they are wrong, and that your position is right.

>Would you rather base a eugenics program on intelligence or on race
Neither.
Though, if I were forced to as this implies, it would be a combination of the two.

>basing it on intelligence is just the correct answer, i don't even see why you are arguing here
If you have no understanding of how to ensure a society's stability, sure.

>also
>>Which is why we don't agree mentally or emotionally with your propositions.
>>we
You're trying to argue with another person, or had you already forgotten that?

>>10458707
>Would you rather base a eugenics program on intelligence or on race

I wouldn't want any eugenics program. I just think your initial claim that IQ isn't a good measure of groups is wrong.

>>10450785
How can temperarure be a valid measure when it can fluctuate so much between location and time?

>>10451056
But-but IQ doesn‘t fluctuate by more than 10 points in most modern tests, even over the span of their lifetime, anon. pls xplain 2 me

>>10456280
How convenient for the dumbs.

>>10450785
Because actual useful intelligence fluctuates a lot. You aren't always operating at the same level.

>>10450862
Based and IQpilled

What kind of mental gymnastic do you need to perform to believe in evolution but not in heritable intelligence?

>>10459769
is penis size heritable?
I feel like this debate would be less aggressively argued against

>>10459785
>is penis size heritable?
Yes? How is that even a question?

>>10459805
it was a rhetorical question attempting to poke fun at the controversy of IQ

>>10450785
Maybe it is a valid measurement of something that fluctuates?

>>10450797
Roll

>>10450797
Valid

>>10450862
slighty to the left

>>10450797
lol test

irrespective of science arguments I would trade 10-20 iq points for the equivalent of wisdom

>>10450785
because pragmatism is your best friend when it comes to emperical science.

>>10459769
I don't believe in evolution either.

>>10459816
What makes you think IQ is anything like penis size?

>>10450785
Taleb is mad his IQ is around 120.

>>10450797
testing

>>10450797
Wish for 01

>>10450785
Crisis of survival calls for intelligence.

>>10451102
Modern meds are mixed with nigger, arab, and turk. The ancient romans and greeks had blonde hair and blue eyes.