/sci/ - Science & Math

of course this was written by some brown sand rat.

>>11612472
> referecing a low iq paper

>IQ is imperfect therefore it's meaningless!!!!
>NO NO NO YOU CANT JUST GO AND APPLY IQ WHERE IT HAS SIGNIFICANT PREDICTIVE POWER IT ISNT PERFECT!!

https://youtu.be/dSnOLW_W6og?t=3200s


I'm sure these kids are low I.Q

>>11612472
OP is definitely high IQ.

>>11612472
I think if IQtards were actually offering any solutions based on their data they would be taken more seriously
You can't expect to make extraordinary claims only to disregard the outcomes when it comes to real world applications

tfw low iq

>>11612472
The real issue with IQ is that it doesn't measure anything. Psychometricians have been trying for decades to prove that g exists and there's still so little evidence that it's reasonable to deny the existence of any single structural factor underlying intelligence, which means there probably isn't one.

Psychologists are also all knuckle dragging bugmen committed to a perspective originally designed to prove race science so that doesn't help them, either.

>>11612492
What's the avg IQ of greentext+Wojak posters?

>>11612552
160+

>>11612554
Weally? It definitely would go quite a long way to prove the point of the OP.

>>11612472
>psychology isn’t science
Woah what a revelation

>>11612548
It measures how good you are IQ tests, but we need to ask who the fuck thought that solving some brain teasers is a good indicator of intelligence?

The people who believe in IQ tests are prove that rational thinking and sound science have no place in their lives.

>>11612552
80 +/- 20 points

ITT: low IQ brainlets coping with the fact that IQ is the best correlate with various measures of success known so far

>>11612636
>who the fuck thought that using your intellect is a good indicator of intelligence?

>>11612472
All debunked, see:
>https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/
Also, he isn't qualified to comment on the field:
> He holds an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (1983),[21][9] and a PhD in Management Science from the University of Paris (Dauphine) (1998),[25] under the direction of Hélyette Geman.[25] His dissertation focused on the mathematics of derivatives pricing.[25][26]

>>11612771
Especially since the intellect is a much better indication of intelligence than IQ.

>>11612472
better throw away the entire field of sociology then

>>11612636
>The people who believe in IQ tests are prove
coping IQlet lul

>>11612656
>Correlation is Causation
>Not knowing that the same person can have a 20 iq shift depending on how much money they have in the bank

>>11612472
>t. coping brainlet

>>11612845
>>Correlation is Causation

It is unless proven otherwise.

Taleb is absolutely correct: my first IQ test (at age 6) gave me a quotient around 125. Years later it was 135. Now it is 142... it's almost like I've learned how to recognize some stupid patterns.

>>11613007
Which IQ test?

>>11612472
>Can psychometrics recover?

yes, just call them low IQ

>nobel price winners just "happen" to have an average iq of 140
what an amazing coincidence

>>11613056
200 rats in a box
the number you can give unique names is your iq

>>11613245
... I fucking hate this shitty website.

>>11612656
ITT: severely low functioning autists coping with the fact that their crowning moment and greatest achievement they'll experience in their life, scoring 130 on an online IQ test, is actually meaningless

>>11613263
Pretty sad that all of the attempts by the social sciences to diminish IQ by coming up with crap like EQ, VQ, and AQ failed so now they have to try to destroy the notion of IQ itself. At least they succeeded in turning STEM into STEAM, so that's something they can be proud of ruining.

>>11613285
Retards like you should be locked in a room and forced to read Les mots et Les choses.

>>11612472
>t. low IQ journalist

No one ever actually reads the point he’s making.
He’s saying the IQ is a better measure of a lack of intelligence rather than a presence of it.
I’m sure everyone here knows very well that there are some real fucking morons who might score highly on an IQ test, but you’re not going to find a smart person who bombs an IQ test

>>11613592
He isn't right about that either.
Picture related.

what's the deal with /sci/ and iq? i thought people here hate psychology

>>11612472
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>>11612472

>>11613609
R^2 = 0.177

>>11613689
Take any and all issues up with:
>https://twitter.com/jonatanpallesen?lang=en

>>11613107
Post a source for your claim, and don't make it some racist pseudo-scientist spouting completely unfounded estimates.

>>11613917
not gonna do your googling

>>11613674
Based

>>11613609
What's with that bimodal distribution there? Is there something holding back otherwise intelligent people from their full potential?

>>11614050
I did, it's all bullshit guesstimation from psychometrician incels and there are very few nobel laureates that have publicized IQ scores (the ones that do are far below 140).

why cant we just admit that IQ is a real thing and that some people are smarter than others. We could be making so much progress if we just admit the reality of the situation and go from there, but instead we are wasting decades worth of research time to bicker about sociology and political bullshit that is a million times more pseudo-scientific than the concept of IQ. Scientists are the most pussy people of all time and they legit fear for their careers if their findings contradict the socially correct opinion or trend of the time. They deliberately skew their results or they won't even touch a topic because they are the most spineless, pathetic, weak-willed individuals ever and they don't care about the truth

>>11613254
Fuck off then cunt

>>11614406
Minimum wage laws.

>>11614538
ah do you think it's actually holding them back from earning less?

>>11614561
I do. All the IQ/income plots would better resemble gaussian curves if there were no minimum wage laws.

>>11614585
I was going to say an income of 0 would be a hard limit but some of them seem to have negative incomes too

>>11614585
also do you find it interesting that it actually seems to increase incomes around the minimum wage? It's like a minimum wage of $20 increases the number of people earning slightly more than $20 as well. I guess it's the result of some "near minimum wage" work getting bumped as well to compensate. Why work something harder when McDonalds will pay you the same amount?

>>11614663
Sure, I find it interesting.
You should take an economics course (or just read a textbook) if you also find it interesting.

>>11614671
thanks for replying. As interesting as it is nothing destroys my interest faster than boxing it into someone else's theories, I just like making little observations of my own and building on them over time. It's so much more satisfying.
I might give it a shot though, reading a textbook that is.

>>11613007
you do know child iq tests are less accurate than adult ones right. they give you different tests

>>11612472
Good riddance
I've never taken a legit IQ test, and desire to never do so.

>>11612472
Reminder that 4chan's love of IQ falls apart the second you bring up jews

>>11613671
everyone does this sort of thing atleast in some small part to feel smart (some people it's the only reason) iq essentially stream lines it. i have an iq related problem please somebody message me at imbecile and maligner#9786

>>11612472
I took an IQ test at 4AM when I could barely function and scored a 97. Now I think I'm retarded.

>>11612636
that's exactly what people say when they got a result that didn't meet their preconceived notions of themselves
>rejected from yale
>actually yales is not even a good school its full of fags and

It has some limited use as one of many factors to consider in identifying mental retardation.

>>11613609
>>11613689
>Adjusted R^2 and R^2 being identical
Imagine only having one exogenous variable in [CURRENT YEAR]

>>11613592
>I’m sure everyone here knows very well that there are some real fucking morons who might score highly on an IQ test
You don’t “know” this. You imagine it because it’s emotionally reassuring to you.

>>11614488
Reported for racism

You can train for IQ tests though. That alone skews results of IQ tests.

Also, IQ tests don't test for 2nd order effects. How can we take it seriously?

Can't we just get a team of people with about 130 IQ and have them cram IQ tests from several sources for about a month until they understand all the hard/uncommon patterns, and have them get 200+ scores on every test, just for the lulz?

>inb4 you can't learn.
If someone explains one of those complex patterns you'll do much better the next time you see something like it or even remotely similar.

>>11615745
Understanding the complex pattern requires a fairly high IQ.
That said, yes, yeah it would probably fuck with the results, which is why IQ tests tend to be semi-randomized to try and mitigate that.

>>11615773
If we can't tell between a legitimate 200 IQ result and a "130 crammer" 200 result, then the test is kind of pointless.
Because if a 130 can cram to that degree, who's to say the average 140 isn't just a 120 that accidentally saw the right patterns too many times in the past?

>>11612472
There is nothing to recover from. The paper is retarded.

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

>>11613674

I actually saved this. This is copy pasta worthy.

>>11615789
>If we can't tell between a legitimate 200 IQ result and a "130 crammer" 200 result, then the test is kind of pointless.
Which is why you're told NOT to do so.
Even then, the likelihood of a person recalling the hundreds of patterns that would be required is low to say the least.
That's also assuming that the actual test problems are published online and are easily accessible, which I highly doubt.
Sure, you can study some of Raven matrices, but whether these will correspond even half of the time to the in use questions is suspect.

>if a 130 can cram to that degree, who's to say the average 140 isn't just a 120 that accidentally saw the right patterns too many times in the past?
Nigger the point of them is to identify the pattern during the test, and you know there's a pattern of some description.
If the person can COMPREHEND THE PROBLEM then they have HIGH COGNITIVE ABILITY.

>>11615795
>posting associates of Nazis
Cringe.

Okay, I have a question for all the people who think IQ tests are bullshit.

Have you ever met a person you considered really, really dumb? I mean not just because this person had a different opinion, I mean really borderline retarded.

Do you think this person would have a fair chance of scoring higher than you on any established IQ test? Because that's what you claim when you say that IQ is meaningless and has no predictive power.

>>11612472
IQ test measure the brain's ability to recognize patterns. I'd say that's a pretty good survival trait to have and a good one when living in a capitalist country. When you notice all the patterns it's easy to make big bucks. Explain why no smart people have low IQ if it's meaningless.

>>11615818
Your little game of matching pictures can determine if a person gets a job or not. For a high risk situation like this only the most precise, non cheatable tools should be used.
Also the whole origin of this shit is riddled with eugenics and racism, which doesn't really help it either.
>>11615825
Donald Trump claims to have an IQ of 156. Now I'm sure it doesn't benefit you politically to admit Donald Trump is smarter than you and is at the 99.999% percentile of mankind, right. But assume for a moment that this number is real.

Would that make you question the sanctity of your precious image matching puzzle?

>>11615832
>Your little game of matching pictures
Okay, if your that far down the rabbit hole of IQ denial there's no use talking with you.

>the whole origin of this shit is riddled with eugenics and racism,
Oh fuck off faggot, if that's the best "point" you can make against it you can suck my balls and fuck off to whatever lefty YouTuber told you that IQ tests bad.

>>11615826
>Explain why no smart people have low IQ if it's meaningless.
This is the one benefit of IQ
It can determine the difference between somebody who is intelligent and somebody who is a retard
Coincidentally anybody who isn't a retard can do this with a simple conversation

>>11615818
>posting associates of Nazis
K we can disregard everything you say

>>11615852
I was joking anon, Sean is probably the best of the "YouTube scientist" types I've seen.

>>11615832
>But assume for a moment that this number is real.
>Would that make you question the sanctity of your precious image matching puzzle?

Yes. It would.
Because I actually worked with high IQ children and let me tell you: Donald Trump is 110 IQ at best. That's assuming that he is lazy and never bothered to learn anything that wasn't on TV. He probably is below 100 if he actually puts in some effort to understand things. Because what comes out of his mouth is either due to low IQ and high effort or medium IQ and no effort at all.

>>11615832
>can determine if a person gets a job or not
IQ tests are more serious determinants of job success than work sample tests.
>whole origin of this shit is riddled with eugenics and racism
So?
>Donald Trump claims to have an IQ of 156
>Would that make you question the sanctity of your precious image matching...
What a bizarre way to frame this. "Sanctity", "precious". You aren't serious.

>>11615856
Ah, k. The joking is literally indistinguishable from actual reservations people have about HBD types.

>>11615866
Fair point.

>>11615864
> determinants
Predictors.

>>11615864
>What a bizarre way to frame this. "Sanctity", "precious". You aren't serious.

Oh, he probably is.
That's the problem with being dumb. You can't see that you are dumb.

>>11615832

This has been written about people like you.
>>11613674

>>11615864
>>11615860
>>11615835
Let's do an exercise, OK? I'll show you some real data right now. Of the top 100 billionaires in the world, here is their distribution by zodiac sign. Got this from google just now:

libra 14
leo 11
taurus 11
aries 8
aquarius 8
scorpio 7
cancer 7
geminis 6
virgo 6
capricorn 4
pisces 4
saggitarius 3

Also let me point you to a paper with 136 citations that showed p<0.05 associations of certain astrological signs with worse outcomes in hospitals:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435606001247

Now here is your job, OK? You KNOW that astrology is bullshit, so it's easy to dismiss these results as being spurious, because you KNOW astrology can't be real, right?
The correlations you often see brought up with IQ can only dream of having significance like P < 0.05, yet you immediately assume they must be real. Search deep inside your mind for the reason why you do this. The reason why you're so incapable of questioning your beliefs and methodologies.

Again, there is a peer reviewed cited paper without methodology problems demonstrating you can derive good significance correlations from complete spurious reasons that have no scientific basis.

Your move, dear spergs.

>>11615891
>Using the derivation cohort, we searched through 223 of the most common diagnoses for hospitalization until we identified two for which subjects born under one astrological sign had a significantly higher probability of hospitalization compared to subjects born under the remaining signs combined
>literally cherry picked datapoints
k retard.

>>11615832
>Donald Trump claims to have an IQ of 156.
A bold claim for a man who's only known adverb is "very"

>>11615891
>You KNOW that astrology is bullshit, so it's easy to dismiss these results as being spurious, because you KNOW astrology can't be real, right?

How exactly do we KNOW this?

>iq distribution by race shows blacks are intellectually inferior
>iq suddenly becomes pseudoscience

>>11615891
Oh, and for the "hurr billionaires a unevenly distributed", order them and then group them into the "seasons" to help make the discrepancy clear, so:

aries 8
taurus 11
Gemini 6
Cancer 7
Leo 11
Virgo 6
Libra 14
Scorpio 7
Saggitarius 3
Capricorn 4
Aquarius 8
Pisces 4

and then:
25

24

24

16

Huh, that's weird, could there be anything that corresponds with Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces...
Oh right, those are the signs that fall on months with the fewest births!

>>11615832
> Donald Trump claims to have an IQ of 156
> assume for a moment that this number is real
Why should we assume an obviously wrong statement just to humor a weak analogy invented to make you feel better about your beliefs?

>>11615825
Yeah, probably, what did you think this question would elicit from somebody that thinks IQ is bullshit?

>>11615891
>Of the top 100 billionaires in the world

Too small of a sample size you retard.

>>11612472

>>11613245
Just give them names in an alphabetical order lol, easy 200 as long as you know enough names.

>>11615891
>The correlations you often see brought up with IQ can only dream of having significance like P < 0.05
Why are brainlets incapable of making arguments without blatantly lying? Are you all dishonest or are you really just this stupid?

>>11613674
t. Brainlet who hasn't read any theory

>>11613007
IQ tests measure your education level, that's why your IQ increases. You look at any IQ tests and you realize most of the patterns and questions are learned in school. When you have tests that ask you about similarity or differences between words, it's about the definition of words, which are learned in school. When you're asked logic questions such as if X then Y and if Y then Z, then is if X then Z correct? then you're looking at mamthematical logic, which is learned in school. When you have questions like sally is X times older than john, when sally is X years old, how old is sally when john is Y years old, it's algebra and learned in school. When you have pattern questions such as two grid with dots resulting in a third grid with dots, and the pattern is adding the dots (equivalent of OR operation) in both previous grids together, subtracting them (NAND), or so on, it's boolean algebra, and once again learned in school. When you have patterns that rotate, translates, permutates and so on, it's math and learned in school. When you have sequences with a pattern between each previous number, it's once again math and learned in school. In other words, the tests measures knowledge, and how well you do on those depends on how far along you are in your education and how much practice you had. I'm pretty sure everyone here can do algebra in their sleep, but also struggled at least a bit with algebra back in high school. You surely didn't get 100% in all your math exams back in high school, even though you probably could get 100% now. Has your IQ risen? Or have you gotten better through practice? if you could put a 4th year university math question into an IQ test format, I'm sure that virtually everyone who isn't a math major wouldn't be able to solve it, and most math majors would struggle, whereas people with Ph.D in math would find it a lot easier.

>>11617126
Now, you could argue that how far along you get in your education depends on your overall intelligence, and that might very well be true. But your IQ tests don't measure that at all, they only measure education. So you could have two people, one with the ability to get into higher education while another living in some third world shithole without access to education, both could be on the same level of intelligence, yet one of them would score significantly higher on IQ tests than another person.

>>11615901
That's not cherrypicking you mong. It would be cherrypicking if you wanted to show all symptoms are related to astrological causes. The point is that, statistical hypothesis tesiting how it is used, give you the power of demonstrating significance of every correlation you imagined, and so psychologists conclude that they found a causal relationship. The same shit is done with iq, and the fundamental problem is that there has been for a long time a massive brainfart perpetuated by many on what statistical hypothesis testing actually tells you. Maybe there is a correlation, but your criteria for understanding such correlation cannot be tested by these. So you get shit like this published https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-01894-001

>>11616550
Show a single of those IQ correlation studies with that kind of significance. Post the link to the paper here and let us analyze it.

>>11612492
Dude that took few sets of IQ tests, if there are more because tests look too much of similar, in recent days or weeks, can outscore anybody.

If he took notes from test, there's a possibility he did it with notes...

Proposed wisdom doesn't have to be true in neuroscience, physics, maths, anywhere...

>>11612472
>medium.com
Leftist outlets like medium try to discredit IQ in the eyes of their readership because it’s true and damning to multiple left-wing political positions.

>>11616746
t. Seething and coping

guess they have to come up with some new iq test which black people can win, then it will stop being offensive? Infact i think ive just saved the field.

>invent some new category whicj blacks wil;l always do best in. weight that so that the overrall black scores average to 100 or more
>racismdestroyed.jpg
>now we can just carry on and the poor dears dont have to feel bad.

>>11618345
infact even better. lets make everyone also post their dick to the test and weight it like that. id love to see the cope when even their penis scores are sub par.

>>11615891
>star sign is the same as math test

yeah keep coping libtard

>>11617227
>IQ is the same as cherry picking two data points out 223
Retard.

>>11617227
>IQ is the same as cherry picking two data points out of 223
Retard.

>>11612472
How come the only people who ever try to say IQ isn't real are women, jews, or minorities? Really makes me ponderino

>>11617126
>You look at any IQ tests and you realize most of the patterns and questions are learned in school.
You’re just lying. What do you gain by doing this?

>>11618831
He clearly explained his point in a convincing manner. He’s not lying, his point is solid.

>>11612472
>Italy has the highest IQ in Europe
That's all the proof I need to know that IQ is a utterly meaningless concept

>>11612472
This is pretty funny coming from Taleb, one of the biggest pseuds.

>>11613674
It is via negativa not via positiva. Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there (see argument further down), it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”. (The fact that it correlates with general incompetence makes the overall correlation look high, even when it is random, see Figures 1 and 2.) The concept is poorly thought out mathematically by the field (commits a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails and asymmetries; fails to properly deal with dimensionality; treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seems to be promoted by

Racists/eugenists, people bent on showing that some populations have inferior mental abilities based on IQ test=intelligence; those have been upset with me for suddenly robbing them of a “scientific” tool, as evidenced by the bitter reactions to the initial post on twitter/smear campaigns by such mountebanks as Charles Murray. (Something observed by the great Karl Popper, psychologists have a tendency to pathologize people who bust them by tagging them with some type of disorder, or personality flaw such as “childish” , “narcissist”, “egomaniac”, or something similar).

>>11612472
Well IQ has never been proofed in the first place, so there is that

>>11620040

I don't think anything at all in psychology has been "proven." It's a baby shit soft science. Regardless their most useful contribution is IQ.

>>11612472
It is much worse than that, IQ is literally nazism.

>>11620172

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST GO AND BE SMART AND NOTICE THINGS WHEN OTHER PEOPLE CANT DO IT AS WELL AS YOU

>>11620186
It's not that grave a misconduct to be smart, but showing it off is just unacceptably rude.

Why is this guy so obsessed over IQ-scores? Let us take this passage:
>There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth
Seriously? Studies point to the complete opposite of what he is claiming. There is in fact a massive correlation between intelligence and income.
>Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests
Yeah, someone that performed a test with a good result is very likely to score once again high in similar tests. It is called test-retest reliability.
>Wealth may not mean success but it is the only “hard” number, not some discrete score of achievements
We already pointed out how income and IQ are actually strongly related. In addition, everybody chases wealth; wealth will get you attractive partners, friends, clout, stuff, pretty much everything. Wealth practically makes the world go round. How can you even claim that wealth does not mean success? Ridiculous.
>You can buy food with a $30, not with other “successes” s.a. rank, social prominence, or having had a selfie with the Queen
Life is not as simple as portrayed here, since a strong social position will increase your chances of finding yourself in a high-salary job. Nepotism and favoritism are common practice everywhere.

>>11620172
>find retarded clickbait article that has minor resemblance to the opposite side's argument
>screenshot it
>libtard's btfo

>>11620172
LMAO


The new Mein Kaimf

>>11613674
IQ is the definition of unscientific.

>>11612472
IQ is cope for the under-productive

>>11622719
And it is one of the reasons people with IQ below some level should be not allowed into science.

>>11622824
That literally defeats the point of science as a concept, if an idea is good it will stand on it's own merits regardless of the source.

>>11622839
Science is an ambiguous term:
a) the best way to study the world
b) the institution to control those who participate in science^a
And science^b should be destroyed.

Ok so I take it no one that actually can understand the terminology he uses read the paper. If anyone had, they would be calling it the utter horseshit it is. He’s overusing technical terms so retards just skim it and assume he must be right. If the opinions he pulled straight out of his ass that are littered all over that article weren’t a clue , you must be a retard. This guy literally doesn’t even understand half the shit he’s trying to disprove, there’s no point trying to pick it apart because it’s basically wrong/bullshit/opinions from start to finish. He even contradicts himself multiple times.
>the only thing iq tests do well is identify retards
>iq tests say most black people are retards
>but that’s wrong too, why? We don’t have enough information, source? Me I say so, we need more information because racist and population variances matter because reasons trust me I’m a high iq smart guy who knows statistics.
Anyone who knows psychometrics and has run the numbers themselves(like, at all, very basic knowledge only is needed) knows that for a test, iq is absolutely insanely valid and predictive. Idiots like this guy expect it to be perfectly predictive, or valid, and when they “prove” it isn’t, they proclaim the test shows nothing and is bunk. Lmao. And retards who feel insecure, or can’t accept that some groups are less intelligent or whatever their hang ups latch on to this as a lifeline. And why latch on to the black people? They do worse at literally every single test ever created. All of them. If that isn’t enough “proof” for you then just stop paying attention to this kind of thing because you we only ever going to get bad news. “We came up with a new iq test that shows blacks are exactly as intelligent as anyone else and proves all other tests were exactly racist x points they scored lower” is never going to happen. Sorry

>>11622993
Yes, his article is itself a pseudoscientific swindle. Nearly all insults originate from projection.

Incidentally, breaking this pattern is a large factor in why Trump managed to win the 2016 primaries and election.

>>11614488
Because you can have an IQ of 145 and have not an ounce of usable skill and utility in you.

>>11622993
Blacks are like one of 2-3 underclasses of the USA. Every state has groups that underperforms/overperforms compared to the majority. There's Japanese immigrants who's scores and prowess improved after leaving Japan because they were burakumin back home.

>>11623073
Hell if you break up white Americans into groups you'd see the same trends of underpinning among Southern whites and overperfoming in other regions.

>>11622993
you type like a twink fagboy all i need to disregard your post

>>11612472
>medium.com
sage & hide

>>11623084
Faggot cracker cope, go blow your dad.

>>11612472
You can never sneak anything past Arab philosophers.

>>11619987
Do you seriously think the only factor of making a successful country is IQ? Are you just gonna ignore geopolitics, geography, demographics, food security, weather etc..?

>>11623273
A simple model combining IQ and degree of communism/socialism actually explains a gigantic portion of GDP/national success IIRC. Basically the Haiti/Dominican Republic and North Korea/Worst Korea dichotomies.

>>11612472
>IQ doesn't exist!
>All people are equal with equal abilities!
>This fits perfectly with the theory of evolution!
So funny to see lefties deny science the second it breaks their agenda

>>11623077
Except you don’t. If that were true income would be the best predictor of iq scores. It isn’t. Can you venture a guess at what the best predictor is?

>>11623366
By the standards of these fags people have never in history designed a test that measures anything, predicts anything, or is useful in any way. Except I can do that in 5 minutes. “Debunking” iq tests is ridiculous at its premise. If it was so shit they should be able to design a better one, but they can’t. It comes down to, “iq tests don’t fit my political agenda, and don’t fit my everyone is equal worldview, so they must be invalid and wrong because if they aren’t I am wrong about a great many things”. These are the same people that will claim structural racism effects minorities in x and y ways, and literally can’t measure or define it. Minorities are poor, and this thing I made up exists, therefor my made up thing causes poverty for minorities. That’s their argument, and iq tests are “bunk” lmao

>>11623407
Breast size?

>>11623440
Bingo. Ever notice how the bigger someone’s tits are the more people listen to them? Their intelligence can’t be ignored.

>>11612472
I'm between 120-130, which is good enough for me. Therefore, I'll say that you are a faggot trying to cope with the fact that you have low iq. I would perhaps agree if I had 90IQ like you.

>>11623407
Being white?

>>11612472
>can psychometrics recover?
https://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/
https://www.unz.com/jthompson/swanning-about-fooled-by-algebra/
https://lexic.co/barfblog/everything-wrong-with-taleb-s-iq-blog-post
There was nothing to recover from. These are childish criticisms that were dealt with decades ago by i.e. Jensen or hell.by Spearman.
>Spearma in 1928: I hypothesise that among higher IQ individuals, the correlations between the tests is lower
> Taleb in the 21st century: IQ has lower predictive validity among higher IQ individuals. IQ debunked loool xddd

>>11613689
Brainlet?

>>11612548
It measures how intelligent you are, Chaim. Read a book.

>>11622746
Iq-denial is brainlet cope.

>>11623778
>IQ has lower predictive validity among higher IQ individuals.
Lower is a very funny way of saying "zero"

>>11622993
based

>>11623892
It's called spearmans law of diminishing returns and it's been refuted definitively in the literature.

Funny how you retards think you can waltz into a subject that's had this research for 60+ years, and think you can tell people what their results are and aren't.

>>11623892
How about you prove what you claim retard? Lower predictive validity among higher IQ individuals has been refuted, and there definitely is not 0 predictive validity among higher IQ individuals (that would be insane).
Here's the hypothesis (keyword: hypothesis) that IQ-predictive validity isn't linear being refuted:
https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/linearity-of-ability-performance-relationships-a-reconfirmation

>>11614738
I love talking about Jews, IQ and over representation wdym?

>>11612548
The APA has accepted IQ tests as measuring what a reasonable person would consider to be intelligence

Just because concepts are fuzzy it doesn't mean they aren't worth studying

>>11612552
I'm gonna go with well below the average of sci posters. Probably also below the average of pol.

I wonder how this topic goes down in social science departments. You just know the psychologists and sociologists butt heads on it. IQ is psychology's baby and they still keep it ardently, thank God, or else the SJW fairy fags would have their way and kick it to the road side since it illuminates some "troubling" results.

>>11612492
FUCK off. It's science or it isn't