/sci/ - Science & Math

Scientifically speaking, it’s an array of numbers

>>11867083
but real numbers or fake numbers?

IQ is THE definition of intelligence and everyone who disagrees is just a buttmad brainlet

>>11867090
Rational numbers, to be precise

>>11867091
how is it defined? this arab in the picture seems to disagree

>>11867091
To try to compress intelligence to a single score is meaningless, IQ tests are still probably good at giving a score for certain aspects of intelligence however

>>11867126
should the same be said about every single concept in psychology and sociology?

>>11867079
Artificial construct. Like the cutoff we use to determine where a celestial body is a planet. Even though planets are real the cutoff was made up. Fake, if you like.

>>11867079
It's just a measure of how well you can learn, or your capacity for intelligence. It's pretty good, but like anything dealing with humans, it's so individual based with a billion variables it's hard to call our approach truly scientific. I'd say it's as much a science as economics or sociology. But one day we (theoretically?) could achieve godlike omnipotence of all billion variables and truly make a science out of it.

>>11867079
It's fake, that's why white losers on this board always have to resort to fake studies made by charlatans like Charles Murray who is the god of the racists.

>>11867386
what's his point? Mesopotamians don't exist anymore, we can't iq test them

>>11867079
An IQ test is just a Test like any other. Of course you have a normal distribution if enough people complete it, but that doesn’t mean it reflects your intelligence. I could produce one too, let enough people take it and would get the same distribution of results if the test was hard enough

>>11867079
>the lower the iq the shittier the country

Truly a mystery!

>>11867434
but doesn't it correlate with not being retarded?

>>11867436
Coincidentally the lower the GDP the shittier the country. And don’t even take the government, access to water and food into equation.

>>11867449
GDP is just a number on a computer

>>11867444
These tests miss too many variables and try to explain a complex reality with few variables. But IQ has never been proven to be a good indicator for anything of value in life. It’s in the same pseudoscience category as personality tests and astrology. They always argue with the same retarded statement: it hasn’t been disproven, so it must be real. Wonder why this test costs money

>>11867444
Well yeah, < 85 iq people are useless, even to the army, but lets just ignore that.

>>11867459
Yes and that number indicates how much a country produces per year. Productive countries can use that money to build infrastructure, invest in their population through school and science, leads to more companies in the country and less crime and diseases

>>11867468
so psychology is a fake science?

>>11867468
>try to explain a complex reality with few variables.
That's because reality IS dependent mostly on only 1 variable in the case of intelligence, g. If it weren't, then IQ tests would have never come up with g in the first place. We've had 100 years of development on this concept, and it's changed almost 0 for the past 50 years.

>>11867493
>and it's changed almost 0 for the past 50 years.
doesn't that mean it's a stale concept?

>>11867471
Because there is a difference between being dumb and having physical damage to your brain. If a good chunk of your brain has died due to mild asphyxiation or because of autism, you can‘t even do the most basic things. Mentally impaired people score lower on mental tasks, what a surprise! But it doesn’t make a difference if they don’t get the rules of UNO or finish a standardized test

>>11867502
not all 85IQ people are missing part of their heads

>>11867485
It’s based on assumptions that haven’t been proven through the scientific method. So yes, it’s complete bullshit

>>11867500
Define stale. IQ tests have shown efficacy in predicting a wide array of behaviors in other psychological fields. A better definition would be foundational work.

It's not stale in the same way calculus isn't stale, there's still active knowledge being added on top of it. The basic methodology behind it hasn't changed because it works.

>>11867506
That’s true though, it also depends on basic reading, writing and math skills. Something that people don’t possess if their country doesn’t provide it, or they have to work in sweatshops as children. It’s really hard to finish an IQ test if you can’t even read the questions on it.

>>11867513
why do people study it then?

>>11867523
there are non-linguistic IQ tests

>>11867530
Because they want to show correlations were none exist and make it look scientific by introducing an overgeneralized metric

>>11867386
Those Ancient races don't exist anymore Anon and people in those lands change over time

>>11867091
No you moron, the g factor is the definition of intelligence, IQ is just the best measure we have of g.

>>11867079
Wait? Moymeme got cancelled?
fuck...

>>11867386
Taleb really can't into irony can he...

>>11867580
Actually they sort of exist in small isolated populations. I recall they IQ tested one group of isolated farmers and they had average IQs in around 100.

>>11867600
That’s called sarcasm you moron

>>11867600
he is an arab, of course he can't

>>11867612
Well, good that we have your particular recollections of something you might have read some time before.

>>11867617
Are you accusing Taleb of using Sarcasm?

>>11867612
Source? Ancient Greeks got bred out by the Turks who raped them for 400+ years

>>11867600
>Taleb really can't into irony can he...
Irony is the wrong word, it’s sarcasm

>>11867079
IQ measuring intelligence is like BMI measuring health. It's real, but not really.

>>11867632

>>11867639
Can you explain why iq isn't really "real"? Do you study psychometrics?

>>11867612
Source or BS.

>>11867643
It’s measuring something and that is how well you do on a standardized test. BMI is measuring your body weight in comparison to your height. Doesn’t measure if that weight is fat or muscle, your heart health, or basically everything else in your body.

>>11867657
I don't understand these analogies, they don't work, stop using them. I understand IQ tests can be trained, but theoretically if everybody trained for them, then I don't see the problem. IQ tests have efficacy ceteris paribus, obviously it's bad to compare them between rich and poor people, but I don't see how they're "not real" otherwise.

>>11867636
But Taleb isn't using sarcasm? He's apparently sincere.

>>11867133
yes

>>11867673
>arab
>sincere
lel, have you tried buying anything from them?

>>11867670
>I don't understand these analogies
That’s just basic deductive reasoning, what do you not understand?

>>11867673
No you dummy, people confuse the words irony and sarcasm, two completely different meanings

>>11867695
>deductive reasoning
lmao, you are not a detective in a noire

>>11867695
Yeah, well they don't work, you can't compare physical metrics to mental metrics.

>>11867098
>take an iq test
>result: 100 + (20*e)
>litelary cease to exist

>>11867708
>my IQ has measure 0 on R

>>11867707
If you can’t even follow a single train of thought, you have no basis to critique. Bring up an argument on your own or dilate
>>11867701
>he hasn’t taken courses in philosophy as a physicist
Lmao

>>11867718
You still never explained how you can compare physical to mental metrics, I'll take that as a concession of defeat.

>>11867722
I made an argument and you brought nothing forward. Explain why I can’t compare a physical to a supposedly mental metric. Unless you can explain this, you are defeated

>>11867643
It's real, but so is BMI.

>>11867126
what kinds of intelligence it omits? the kind of intelligence that allows you to pick berries and chuck spears at fish? IQ evaluates the kinds of intelligence we need in modern world to a somewhat accurate degree.

>>11867900
Surely solving some brainteasers perfectly encompass the complexity of life. Never had the need to use such bullshit as a physicist

>>11867079
nassim is a moron and anyone who posts anything he tweets here should be perma banned

>>11867733
Physically, BMI was never created to be perfect, it's flawed and everybody knows it. IQ has stood the test of time as the ubiquitous and most reliable metric for measuring intelligence. BMI is based under the assumption that you're NOT a world class athlete and mostly muscle. IQ has no such limitation, and in fact excels greatly in sussing out if you're mentally retarded or a genius and everything in between.

>>11867926
it's good for comedy though

also how long has Alt Hype's channel been closed as private?

>>11867941
For 2 Days but he active on bitchute I think

>>11867939
>BMI was never created to be perfect, it's flawed and everybody knows it
It was and is still perceived like that. Otherwise there would be more factors in it, like the circumference of your belly or arms to measure accurately the fat distribution
>>11867939
>IQ has stood the test of time as the ubiquitous and most reliable metric for measuring intelligence
Wrong. People who score higher on these tests have no higher chances of winning Nobel prizes and have better professions than those with average intelligence.
>>11867939
>BMI is based under the assumption that you're NOT a world class athlete and mostly muscle
Semi true. BMI does make no assumptions at all and that excluding world class assumption is an explicit one. BMI doesn't discern if you are a Bodybuilder or a walking lardass

>>11868037
Hmm, it's almost as if Nobel prizes are predicated on nepotism. You know, I guess it's funny then that the average follow of Judaism, ethnic Jews, just so happen to score 115 on IQ tests on average and dominate academia at the same time. I can name off more jewish physicists off the top of my head than white ones.

>>11867954
I can't seem to find his channel got a link? I was trying to find his rebuttel of that skull guy's attack on the bell curve

I guess he's trying to avoid malicious strikes in the current climate?

>>11867920
what is solving differential equations, if not a brainteaser

>>11868037
>People who score higher on these tests have no higher chances of winning Nobel prizes
then how come literally nobody under 100 IQ ever got a nobel prize (sciences, dont know about shitty stuff like peace etc)?

>>11868064
115 is average for first world countries. If you also look into their lives then you can see that they often come from wealthy backgrounds, allowing them Togo on this path

>>11868111
>115 is average for first world countries.
no it fuckin isnt

>>11868091
Brainteasers are useless problems and based on lateral thinking. Solving differential equations is based on deductive reasoning

>>11868126
>Brainteasers are useless problems and based on lateral thinking.
and iq tests arent based on such questions

>>11868111
>115 is average for first world countries
I'm not sure you understand what average is

>>11868064
>dominate academia at the same time
Which kind? Economics, psychology, physics, mechanical engineering? Stop talking out of your ass and use the thing between your ears.

>>11868064
>let’s compare the scores of a religious group against that of whole countries
Your retard logic seems to contradict itself

>>11868066
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/thealthype/

>>11868140
>>Brainteasers are useless problems and based on lateral thinking.
>and iq tests arent based on such questions
So useless?

>>11868201
Thank you.
While looking for a video I came across an interview with Richard Herrnstein. I'd not previously heard him speak, it's a tragedy he died.

It is time to euthanize everyone below 120 IQ

>>11868245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-S6UdcO7No

>>11867941
the day molymeme got banned I think. I actually heard Ryan Dawson say alt hype was banned on red ice the other day, I didn't confirm it though.

>>11867939
>IQ has stood the test of time as the ubiquitous and most reliable metric for measuring intelligence.
And BMI is the single most reliable metric for health in the modern world.
>BMI was never created to be perfect
Neither was IQ.

>>11868317
If IQ was similarly flawwed to BMI then its detractors would be able to point to the failure group clearly.
BMI fails at one end of the fitness spectrum, it clearly doesnt fit highly muscular individuals. You can verify their health through a myriad of other measures to demonstrate that they are in good health despite what BMI only assessment would imply.
Now do the same IQ. Where does IQ fail? What verification is there that these individuals have intelligence different from what IQ would imply? And more importantly, if it does fail, is the failure statistically significant to abandon IQ as a useful metric? BMI critics have answers for this, let me know when IQ critics do as well

>>11867449
>>11867478
GDP is a measure of how much of its soul a country is willing to sell for profits. It is not a good thing, and susceptibility to raising it is one of the very few drawbacks of having a high IQ population. Everything large scale problem not caused by low IQ is caused by GDP addiction, or by not listening to uncle Ted

>>11868450
IQ fails art the far right tail of the bell curve it doesn’t fail for 97% of the population in being a reliable predictor of life outcome.

Nassim somewhat overstates it but he's basically right. Molyneux is a quack/crank and racist, and IQ is mostly a red herring.

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

Honestly, I can probably better judge someone's overall practical general intelligence by reading a random 4chan post they've read than by looking at their IQ scores. Talking to someone for a few minutes is a much better predictor than an IQ score.

>>11868514
>medium
lol

>>11868147
>Which kind?
Pretty much all of them. Mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, economics, sociology, among others.

>>11868161
Jews have a unique genetic subgroup not found in other europeans. They're more an ethnoreligious group, Jews can be atheists,

>>11867091
definately some badbrain dumdums who dont believe in IQ

>>11868514
into trash not clicking that shit, you are a retard

>>11868450
>BMI fails at one end of the fitness spectrum, it clearly doesnt fit highly muscular individuals.
Such a fringe group to point out. It works for the vast majority of the pop.

>>11868450

>>11868450
>What verification is there that these individuals have intelligence different from what IQ would imply?
Plenty of autismos have high IQ but aren't actually intelligent.

>>11868531
>Pretty much all of them. Mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, economics, sociology, among others.
Wrong with math, physics, chemistry, engineering, philosophy, linguistics and biological fields in general. You trick no one here with your shit reasoning just because your mind wants it to be so.

ITT: those who defend IQ tests have no arguments for why it works and, judging by their critical thinking, are less intelligent than its opponents. No person in history ever got laid for showing off their IQ score and while you solve your shitty brain teasers, millions of women, including your oneitis, are getting bred by chads.

>>11868514
not an argument

So why is Argentina a shithole then if whites have higher IQ? China has a higher IQ average than USA, nobody from America is mass migrating to China either.

>>11869741
>nobody from America is mass migrating to China either
cause china is not for sale like america?

>>11869754
Argentina is basically Italians learning Spanish. They are overwhelmingly European.

>>11867091
no psychometer believes this dude

>>11869810
southern europeans are retarded either way, and >50% of argentinians have native blood

IQ is the single greatest predictor for professional and financial success in life. No other metric comes even remotely close. This has been confirmed, empirically, for decades with no valid counter argument or example.

>>11870182
what about money?

>>11870265
IQ correlates strongly with income but not particularly strongly with wealth. this is actually one of the pieces that Taleb's analysis got right but he abused to mislead people.

>>11870288
why is he so insecure about IQ? he seems like a smart arab memes aside

Reminder this """"""""""debate"""""""""" only exists because white liberals have spent decades trying to get nigger IQ up, failed spectacularly and are now desperately coping by pretending IQ doesn't exist.

>>11870320
yes, the bad news is that even if IQ is bad, the rest of psychology and sociology is even worse than IQ, so they should abandon their technocratic dreams either way

>>11868091
>solving differential equations is physics

Read more

>>11870182
And BMI is the greatest single metric of a modern person's overall health.

>>11870468
nah, resting heart rate, sure there are many other better ones

>>11867701
>>11867643
>>11867670
This guy is retarded and probably an SJW faggot, stop replying to him.
>>11867468
You are retarded, learn statistics and check the studies, you will notice the correlation the studies show have significance.
You spouting a shit ton of bullshit and high school tier relativism will not make it false.

IQ is similar to how temperature was defined trough history. We knew it was related to energy, but it doesn't have an exact dimension.
IQ is related to intelligence, but not like horsepower is exactly related to the motor power capacity.
IQ is a shadow left by the complex mechanics inside the brain, measuring in multiple people; those with high IQ always or almost always perform better at any intellectual task, and low IQ almost always perform worse. It's obvious a bigger animal leaves a bigger footprint.
Only a brainlet of leftoid biggot will refuse to see the importance of this.
You won't give a gun to someone who consistently shits the bed arranging pieces of a puzzle under a certain time, he won't be able to reload properly his gun, he won't react properly to change of instructions under pressure, etc.
Comparing high IQ or medium IQ in long term tasks of course gets fuzzy, there are other factors in personality like the big 5, someone low in conscientiousness but high in IQ will probably be tied with someone with average IQ and high conscientiousness, less inconsistent work of high quality vs more consistent work of less quality.
The fact that it doesn't predict stuff it wasn't meant to, doesn't mean it is inaccurate, it means you are a subhuman monkey who can't read academic papers

>>11870627
Bottom tier post.
Ignoring reality because you don't like it. Is like hiding sex from your kids, until your daughter comes back home pregnant

>>11870637
The picture doesn't say anything about dismissing IQ

>>11867079
>>11867079
Nassim "It's about hate" Taleb.
Nassim "There is no science" Taleb.
Nassim "Do not cancel" Taleb

The horror of mediocre IQ.

>>11867079
>>11870651
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE

>>11867079
Taleb is angry because Lebanon has low IQ.

Whatever you want to call the thing IQ measures, it predicts success.

>>11870651
but taleb is smart, not sure why the insecurity about IQ, maybe it's his neighbors and family

>>11867449
Do you want to take a guess at the relationship between average national IQ and GDP per capita? Personally I'd argue that GDP doesn't really reflect much in countries with large public systems which are elsewhere privatized. The US for example has a massive amount of GDP tied up into finance and insurance markets which are largely superfluous in countries with things like social healthcare programs and government assisted housing.

>>11870725
How can you objectively define success? (you can’t)

>>11870919

Resource acquisition, in general

>>11868037
>Wrong. People who score higher on these tests have no higher chances of winning Nobel prizes and have better professions than those with average intelligence.
That doesn't seem to be true at all. Do you have sources showing the average Nobel Laureate is average or below average IQ?

>>11870691
How many ways can "shaun" be spelled?
shawn, sean, how many others?

>>11870931
what if the true success were the friends we made along the way

>>11870945
He's full of shit. There's a study that gets passed around here in which someone tested the IQ of non-Peace Prize laureates, and, surprise surprise, they were exclusively in the range of high 130s to 150s, with the higher end of the range favored

>>11867449
GDP is a product, not a cause.

>>11867079
Doesn't matter, it's soon gonna be illegal to research anyway. YouTube already banned all major channels and even some smaller ones talking about IQ research, no matter how objective they did. It's over, they won.

>>11867079
I would say that to a point it is real. I always thought it was referring to your ability to learn and integrate what you have learned, versus the some sort of cap. Over their lifetime, a lower IQ person won't have integrated as much information as a high IQ person will have integrated. Integrating more information allows you then to pick up more information from your surroundings. IQ might refer to the "mesh" of your net/brain. Maybe someone with a high IQ has a tighter mesh potential. A net with a higher thread-count catches more fish.

IQ metric or not, you are just intellectual dishonest if you believe that anyone can be a Einstein if they study hard enough, eat the same things growing up, etc.

>>11871795
dis akshaully a very thoughtful and subtle take on what it really means for there to be innate differences in intelligence, specifically the long term accumulation of more complex and useful information being accelerated for higher int individuals.
>>11871812
its cruel and malicious to tell someone they can become a genius with enough man hours invested just as it is to tell an ugly woman she can become a beauty queen or a cripple that they’ll make the pros with enough will power

>>11871812
The Demiurge doesn't design all of its computer programs to do the same things. The Demiurge designed Einstein to come up with the Atomic Bomb so it could then hold its flawed creation at a point of stagnation via mutually assured destruction so that it would have more time to try to spawn in the single individual with a Soul.
Had the atomic bomb never been invented, the world would have already fallen in on itself.

>>11870725
No, you don't understand correlation neither retarded psychologists.

>>11871875
Someone with a high IQ is going to be better at playing games, and in this world, success is gained mostly via understanding and exploiting game rules.

>>11871780
>no matter how objective
isn't IQ self-reported?

>>11872603
No, what the fuck made you think that? Actual IQ tests are adminstered by psychologists.

>>11871012
IQ is a product, not a cause.

>>11871780
How many have been shoahed?

>>11872806
molymeme and some other irrelevant people

>>11872810
Alt Hype is on lockdown

>>11867939
>BMI doesn't assume you're a world class athlete...
anon it's a bad metric for those who have committed to weight training programs for a few years

If 100 IQ is representative of all the world's people wouldn't that imply the average white IQ is higher than 100 IQ. So if you're 120 IQ you might just be "average" among other whites.

>>11873052
compared to the euro average of 100 the world average is something like 82

>>11873066
Do you forget China?

>>11873052
The "weight" is at the European average. That's how 100 iq is determined, mainly because we have the most data on Europeans.

>>11867079
Both.

>IQ is real:
you can statistically standardise testing for general intelligence and problem solving ability.

>IQ is fake:
It's an abstract score based on a questionable methodology, it's based on subjective scoring and it's hard to quantify differences that are linguistically/culturally caused rather than biologically.

They've never tested some rando living in the Amazon or Equatorial Guinea and discovered a new titan of IQ that instantly got on a plane to become a Rocket Surgeon.

If anything the population averages that OP's screenshot is scoffing at is probably the most useful IQ metric, lots of the stuff that's retarded at the micro scale get averaged out at the macro scale, provided you remember that people cause the IQ score the IQ score does not cause the population.

>>11867436
>People that have no access to education fail a test that relies on basic literacy and numeracy.

shocking, is this one of those fabled red pills?

>>11873112
>test that relies on basic literacy and numeracy.
abstract pictorial reasoning tests require you to know how to read now?

>>11867101
>arab
I M B E C I L E

>>11867079
>>11867101
Taleb is dumb as pigshit

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=8028

>>11867386
>invented chemistry, astronomy

>>11870627
The copes of IQlets never fail to make me laugh.
At least this one is better than parroting the Hawking quote all over again I give you that.

>>11867478
US Gdp is absurdly big and the country scores very poorly on education access

>>11873112
> white people were given education by aliens

>>11867079
define real.

>>11873164
if you only speak pidgin then you couldn't complete the test.

>>11873664
how many world vision ads have you seen in your life mate?

>>11871915
What evidence you have for that? Psychologists go and adjust a line to data and calculate R, and because they don't actually understand what R means if R is not 0 then voila, High iq "predicts" shit. No you haven't proven shit because you are begging the question. What is mathematically true is that if you have two random variables with positive correlation coefficient, then they can't be independent. But what does it mean for two variables to be dependent? It literally just means than there is AT LEAST one case were if you know the outcome of a variable, this changes the probability of the other variable. Now the at least part is important because the R , except for specific cases, doesn't tell you really how are they dependent. Yes, an R of 1 means that the data fall on a line, but try to adjust a line to a quadratic set of data and you will find a positive R even if clearly they don't follow a line. So what R is good enough? That isn't the fucking point, the point is that the data are just showing you they are not independent, but also that there is no evidence for the relation to be linear, so what is the real relation? The whole point is that if you don't have the relation then you don't have an overall understanding of IQ at a general level. Just saying, the data is "noisy" well yes, but that doesn't mean you can conclude that without "noise" the data should follow a linear trend. So what trend should it follow? Well that's the question psychologists should try to answer to actually have testable hypothesis . That or find a measure with an R that's high. It is also not uncommon for shit at that level to be correlated, so I don't understand that it is "remarkable" as they say. Statistics isn't there to cure you of your shitty data, it is there so you an analyse proper data in a rigorous way.

>>11867083
Repeat after me: I am not funny!
I make forced memes on a science board!

>>11873075
lol
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2149613/fake-fingerprints-and-electronic-erasers-how-chinas-innovative

>>11873107
>hard to quantify differences that are linguistically/culturally
there are non-linguistic non-cultural IQ tests

>>11873830
That is not what R means. Do you know what an r value is? Cause you look pretty stupid right now.

>>11873830
They have done all the things you said relating to IQ tests. Just bc you don't know about them/ haven't looked, doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>11873647
You have to factor how the wealth it spread

>>11867386
>>11867530
can any psychology majors explain why talking about IQ is so controversial?

>>11867079
IQ test theoretical physicists and IQ test day labourers. Tell me what you get.

>>11873994
What? In the case of linear regresión it certainly does mean everything I said, which is what is used all the time. The R is laughably low, so why it is kept as a "succesful" model? The usual answer is because it is positive at least. my point was what is the actual information you can confidently deduce from that and non actually gives proper evidence for the tendencies spouted.
>>11874009
What things? Do you have an article that gives other justification as to why the trend should be linear? Or what the trend actually is?

>>11874053
Answer my question. What is an r value?
You're just repeating the argument the relationships are not causal - which is false. Educate yourself bigot

>>11867670
>obviously it's bad to compare them between rich and poor people,
And thus, its meaningless to compare them between rich and poor countries

>>11874040
because there's a lot of money in pretending you can solve things you can't, unsolvable problems are a cash-cow

>NOOOOOOOOO PEOPLE CANT JUST GO AND BE NATURALLY DUMBER OR SMARTER NOOOOO

>>11874040
Basically that different racial groups have different average IQs and that those difference are caused by genetic difference. This can cause extreme hysteria among western liberal academics. One of them even got heart attack.

>>11874060
There are two Rs that get confused all the time. The coefficient of determination which is big R, and pearsons correlation coeficient or little r. The big R is a model dependent concept while r is defined for general random variables. R is defined for a set of data points and a model that predicts values, and simply is the diference between the variance of the data and the variance of predicted values and divide it by the variance of the data. Now in the case of linear regresion, what is first done is to find an optimal model, and this is usually done by ordinary least square models and variants, and if that is the case (and for some other cases too) big R is simply just the square of the correlation coefficient, but that coeficient is defined as the covariance of two variables divided by the product of the standar deviations of each of the variables. So yes in general they are not the same, but they agree for general least squares. Also the term "explained variance" doesn't mean what you think it means.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/what-does-explained-variance-explain-reply/5103B7B5921A2C47088A36B14F027070

>>11867090
All numbers are fake.

>>11874174
There is no such thing as trees only tree exists.

>>11874104
this plus from a political perspective you can blame the difference on discrimination and exploit it to attain political power

>>11873972
Such cope

>>11874104
Your image is about schizophrenia.... You people are insufferable.

>>11874439
Yeah, if it was about IQ, the guy would be dead on the spot lol

>>11874070
Beyond the obvious ideological opposition to it, this is a large part of it. School funding is based upon the number of students regularly attending. If the conclusion were reached that it would benefit large swathes of the student population to attend vocational training based upon their IQ, rather than fail 9th grade math for four consecutive years and "graduate" learning effectively nothing beyond a middle school level, that would be an instant and drastic loss of funding for many public schools across the country, and a loss in revenue for all of the businesses that rely upon schools ie. food catering, textbook publishers, etc.

>>11867537
These also rely on concepts derived from basic education. There is no such thing as a "culture fair" IQ test.

>>11874688
>There is no such thing as a "culture fair" IQ test.
Yes there is. There is no evidence that IQ tests are culturally biased

>>11874688
god you're an insufferable little bore aren't you, it's always the same false arguments trotted out again and again and each time they're shot down and exposed for being completely ignorant of the subject or merely a troll.

>>11874709
this

>>11867386
he cannot cope with not being white, can he?

>>11874709
All I've seen seem to rely on poorly masked geometrical and arithmetic operations, and thus are really tests of basic mathematics knowledge.
>>11874730
I have seen literally no arguments coming from you, all you do is repeat psychometrician dogma over and over again.

For every 1 real IQ point possessed by OP, he will have 2 fake. However, as OP's IQ decreases over time due to aging, for every 1 real IQ point lost by OP, he will gain the square of all fake IQ points at that period. Therefore, OP is an idiot.
Q.E.D.

>>11874746
>All I've seen seem to rely on poorly masked geometrical and arithmetic operations, and thus are really tests of basic mathematics knowledge.
Math questions aren't typically a part of IQ tests at all. I assume you are referring to trigonometry question on AFQT test. But that doesnt really matter.
The predictive validity proves conclusively that IQ tests are not biased against any minority group

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/

>>11874740
levantines are WHITE!!!!!!!!!

>>11874773
I'm reading one of the sources linked there. Found this from a very quick skimming.

>>11871812
Still an unfair comparison because Eisntein's brain is different

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/einstein.html

>>11867079
SO apparently lack of sleep lowers IQ. Is this recoverable?
>t. more all nighters/36+hour days than I can count in one hand this year alone, sometimes multiple in one week.
I definitely feel dumber than how I was in high school and early college. Thinking of dropping out of grad school

>>11867079
fake, it was designed to show which kids in france need extra help on their tests it wasn't meant to be a general intelligence test.

>>11867386
Because civilizations can not degenerate or get better. Evolution is that weird scam made by Darwin, right?
/pol/ and leftists are playing some dumb as fuck game.

>>11867079
Put Taleb and Molyneaux in debate or boxing ring. I want to see some pseud fight.

>>11874040
IQists are mostly very careful to state that no phenotype (and thus no genotype) is morally superior or inferior, that those are value judgements that have no place in science. IQ critics all understand implicitly this is bollocks to cover their ass, or at the very least value intelligence very highly themselves.
If social scientists and liberals are forced to admit IQ differences exist, and that they are partly genetic (which is conclusively true within populations and probably true between populations), they're forced to admit there exists some inherent genetic superiority in one person or another, which should have grave consequences for government policy from immigration and education to foreign policy and criminal justice, which all currently operate on a black slate, everyone has equal potential assumption. Heck, it fundamentally brings into question the wisdom of an open free for all democracy.

>>11874241
i saw a tree growing through another tree is that 2 tree or trees?

>>11874709
Bro, the IQ test was invented for the military by a guy who wanted to keep Jews, Italians, and Black people out of the army. Of course it's biased.

It's a test designed for military officers so they can read maps and call in artillery better. It's also a test you can study for, so it's measuring education, not intelligence.

Read a fucking book.

>>11877236

Which is how humanity used to operate before enlightenment Western European politics. The presumption that some people are superior and others are inferior and that’s just life. Ironically enough, I think the “inferiors” of mind are going to plunge us right on back into that feudal/hierarchical state.

>>11877293
not an argument

There was a long developement of theory of IQ.

>>11877236
>the wisdom of an open free for all democracy.
Democracy can only work for a homogeneous society.

>>11877293
reactiion speed tests correlate to IQ if weakly

>>11877325
there is ~0.3 correlation

>>11877293
IQ tests were invented by a frenchman to test children for slow development who might benefit from remedial education.
When the US army lowered IQ requirements during Vietnam it had terrible results. Google McNamara's Morons.

>>11877368
>blaming the Vietnam War on low iq recruits

>>11877368

>McNamara’s Morons

Tropic Thunder needs a spiritual successor

>>11877375
Retard. It had terrible results for the poor idiots sent to fight in the jungle.
https://www.historynet.com/mcnamaras-boys.htm
Basically Forrest Gumps, but without the whimsical luck. It was incredibly cynical and cruel.

>>11877375
How low is your IQ that your reading comprehension is this poor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g

>>11868064
You are inverting cause and effect here. Jews are not rich because they're smart, they're smart because they have access to the right type of education.

What made them rich in the first place is that they have the highest level of intra-communal cooperation of any ethnicity/religion. When one of em gets up there, they drag not only their family but litterally any random jew that happened to ask for help. Once you are rich, it's easy to get the best education for your kids, which in turns help a lot when it comes to getting accepted to prestigious universities.

Asians are superior because they are just good at tests.

Africans suck dicks because their intelligence is mostly social as they have an extremely extraverted culture and so does latin america.

>>11877396
>>11877401
Nothing wrong with using meat for meat grinder.
This should be standard procedure.
I wanna see patriots being slaughtered in the countries they've gone to invade. Especially dumb ones.
Raising the IQ of the troops wouldn't have won Americans the war though.

>>11877293
>Bro, the IQ test was invented for the military by a guy who wanted to keep Jews, Italians, and Black people out of the army. Of course it's biased.
Then why the jews score higher than whites on them?

>It's a test designed for military officers so they can read maps and call in artillery better. It's also a test you can study for, so it's measuring education, not intelligence.
You have zero clue what you are talking about. The first IQ test was made in France to study intelligence of school children. Then it got revised several times in America by Wechsler and others. This is the version we use to this day basically.

>Read a fucking book.
You do the same. I suggest you start with this.

>>11874614
good point. really shows what a sham the system is

>>11867079
IQ “tests” are just a series of problem-solving questions, and the method for calculating IQ just shows where on the bell curve your score is. There’s no rigorous justification for why certain questions, or classes of questions, are used in the test. This means your score doesn’t meaningfully correspond to any underlying trait.

Furthermore, even if we assume the idea of testing (and the particular question set used) is sound, the nature of multiple-choice tests reduces the accuracy of any score. You can practice the test and get better scores. You can use test-taking tricks to eliminate choices, and get better scores. You can make lucky guesses, and get better scores. So, there’s at least two variables at play — your “actual” intellect, and the amount of test prep you do. This will bias the test towards people with tutoring and formal education, which is bad science.

>>11877572
>You can practice the test and get better scores. You can use test-taking tricks to eliminate choices, and get better scores. You can make lucky guesses, and get better scores
and?

>This will bias the test towards people with tutoring and formal education, which is bad science.
How does this even follow?

>>11867079
IQ is real, but intelligence isn't all IQ

>>11876228
Please respond

>>11878594
why?

>>11867079
It's very good at predicting how smart someone will be, to such a close degree that yeah, it probably is accurate from a scientific standpoint. Lots of brainlets will complain, but that's the way it is.

>>11877572

>This will bias the test towards people with tutoring and formal education, which is bad science.

Actually the bias of the test specifically favors Mathematicians, Physicists and Philosophers. Since the tools used to construct the test in the first place heavily borrows from those three fields of study. Which explains why those three professions host the highest scoring averages usually.

Regardless of demographic be it race, ethnicity or sex, individuals who dedicate their life/time to math, physics or philosophy will on average score higher than their peers. The question is this because the test successfully identifies them as the most intelligent? Or is it because they have the most familiarity with the very tools and designs that constructs the test. Thus the test is more an indicator of those capable of being professional Mathematicians and such?

Outside of testing errors, studying etc. This boils down to the idea of general intelligence. Considering suvants on the autism spectrum for example and generally all learning disabilities, show that people have different congative apitidudes for different subjects beyond some un-nunauced iq pecking order. I don't believe someone particularly good math is interchangeable with someone particularly good in spacial skills if they had the same enivorment. I think as a metric though for population it's a good tool but beyond that is a dick measuring contest.

>Another IQ thread

>>11878734
This is already accounted for with the Flynn effect reflecting famililarity with abstract reasoning. the ability to train for an IQ test is itself a product of IQ, some of the better tests are vocabulary learning tests since they stress the cognitive machinery in diverse ways

>>11868126
lateral thinking is an important basis of mathematics, innovation, and problem solving

>>11867091
>>11867595
>the "g" factor
How do you manage to justify a significant general intelligence factor when different brain areas exist? Most cognitive functions are associated with different brain parts and different people have different compositions of weak and strong brain parts. Where is this g that makes a person be great at everything?

>>11878734
Their fields require the greatest cognitive flexibility, abstraction, lateral thinking, and highest working memory load, you could argue processing speed since not become mired in the steps of intricate problem solving procedures (learning to error correct, detect previously known information, ferret out shortcuts) is a sign of a good scientist/mathematician.

All of intelligence can really be broken down to processing speed, working memory, associative thinking with secondary characteristics like abstract reasoning, visual spatial reasoning, verbal reasoning being indicators of possession of well developed versions of these faculties.

>>11878799
It's a phenomenological, statistical factor. Ie g is a property of 'the brain' born out by factor analysis

Imagine you want to introduce a factor of fitness -f. If somebody can bench press a good weight, youd expect them to be able to deadlift a greater amount too. All the exercises will correlate with the general fitness factor f, of that person. This is despite the fact the body is split up into muscle groups (like the brain).

Similarly if we give people a wide array of complex cognitive tasks, they all seem to correlate with this factor g. The more cognitively complex, the more g loaded. Just bc we dont know the physical basis doesnt mean the phenomena doesnt exist
>"things cannot be heritable as we dont know how traits are passed on" 1800s creationist
You're approaching this the wrong way. We KNOW the phenomena so should look for the physical basis. Not use a physical basis to refute an observable phenomena.

>>11878843
If somebody is good at bench pressing, they must also be good at dancing. If somebody is great at math, they must also be good at social situations.

Does that sound right? Not at all. They're mostly unrelated functions, so why are you suggesting they should be all explained by one "fitness" factor? Sure, there is some underlying correlation to be meaningful enough statistically, but how significant is it in any individual compared to training, specialization and different relative strengths of mostly unrelated body parts / brain ares? Hell, I'm not surprised if performance between some cognitive functions is inversely correlated. This talk that everything is correlated to one factor is statistic BS that can be trivially seen to not be accurate in real life - how many smart, social, funny and beautiful people do you know? They're rarities, much more rare than high IQ people.

>>11878876
Ok I'm not having this argument. My fitness factor was an analogy, you're taking it too far on purpose. If you want to know more read' the g factor', or look up factor analysis. Good day.

>>11878895
Or look up the youtube channel "modern heresy" his stuff will adress most of your qualms if you dont like reading

>>11878799
cattel horn carrol theory

>>11878876
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/modernheresy/

Hes been axed by youtube, so heres the bitchute account.

>>11867079
ok, different approach. let's do the football analogy. would a single number be sufficient to describe a football team?

>>11878928
win rate?

>>11877924
>How does this even follow?

Premise 1: A student who knows test-taking tricks will have a higher IQ score than a student who doesn't, even if they're otherwise exact peers.

Premise 2: Students who receive tutoring are coached on test-taking, and learn tricks in the process.

Conclusion: If a student receives tutoring, they will score higher on the IQ test.

Corollary: The IQ test is measuring education, not intelligence.

umm based?

>>11879057
So if you take into account education, IQ gaps between races vanish?

>>11867079
It is and is only science when it supports my specific political ideology, in any other case it is pseudoscience hogwash

>>11879128
This isn't practically feasible, since controlling for education would require us to compare students who took the same classes, in the same school, with the same teacher, for their entire lives.

We'd also have to show that those two students received the same amount of tutoring, on the same subject(s), from the same tutor(s). Likewise for time spent with parents on schoolwork.

Even controlling for all this, there's still media consumption, since media can be educational, and can teach test-taking skills. (Example: Jimmy watches Animal Planet, Timmy watches Family Guy. Jimmy is more familiar with scientific vocabulary as a result.)

Note that all of these factors are contributed to by other confounding variables, such as the number of parents and siblings in a household, family income, and the quality of parenting.

I'm sure there's other variables I'm not thinking of, but these alone make any meaningful research impossible.

>>11879145
reddit go back

>>11879146
>point out obvious flaws in a proposed study
>"muh reddit!"

>>11879146
If you want your race war so much why don't you go out and start it?
BLM gave you an excuse and you didn't do shit. Just die you nazi. You're useless and you can't do shit.

>>11879576
kek, feel the onions

>>11879802
We're sabotaging you in your own presidency. You thought you had won. But you haven't.

What is intelligence?

>>11879145
Hey reddit, look up school voucher studies on IQ. This bad schools myth has to die.

>>11879057
You would first have to show there is enough students who receive tutoring or the "test taking tricks" for it to significantly effects the results. But there is good evidence to think that what you described isn't meaningfully impacting IQ scores of racial groups since predictive validity is same for blacks as for whites.

>>11879107
Mulattoes don't have the same scores as whites. you just made that up
Hybrid vigor is a meme with no evidence it exists in humans.
Eyeferth study supports hereditarian hypothesis more than it supports the environmentalist one. There was 4-5 IQ gap between scores of white boys and mixed kids.
Mixed kids have worse life outcomes than normal kids. This has been replicated multiple times. Them saying otherwise is irreverent.

"Children from interracial marriages are about three times more likely to be abused by parents and others, compared to those raised by Korean parents, a government report showed Friday" http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/117_65916.html

"A new study of Chinese-Caucasian, Filipino-Caucasian, Japanese-Caucasian and Vietnamese-Caucasian individuals concludes that biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc--baa081108.php

"Mixed-race youth had the lowest mean score and white youth the highest for mother-adolescent relationships and maternal support, the study showed. For father-adolescent relationships, African-American youth had the lowest score, while whites had the highest." http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21241-mixed-race-youth-feel-less-cohesion-with-mothers-but-greater-independence

"Biracial and multiracial youth are more likely to be victimized (bullying) than youth who identify with a single race." http://www.nveee.org/statistics/

"Overall, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, multiracial, and American Indian/Alaska Native adolescents reported a significantly higher risk for suicide-related behaviors compared to their Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White peers." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551046

>>11879145
Sociologist fallacy: The post

>>11867688
how will soft sciences ever recover lmao

>Took IQ test
>95
>Sounds ok.
>Take another a few months later
>125
Either IQ is bullshit or you can increase IQ by 30 points in a few months thus making it useless.

>>11880401
Or stop taking IQ tests.

>>11880412
*online IQ tests

>>11877293
>Jews, Italians
italians and especially jews score higher than anglo-whites

>>11880401
you took an actual full IQ test overseen by a trained technician which tested you on multiple factors or did you do a facebook tier online IQ "test"?

>>11880615
Only north Italians.

>>11877572
>. There’s no rigorous justification for why certain questions, or classes of questions, are used in the test.
why do different unrelated questions and classes of questions correlate with IQ then?
the SAT is basically a disguised IQ test

>>11878734
there are linguistic IQ tests

>>11878928
should be possible to create a football team ELO score like for chess

>>11867079
it's only useful for finding out if someone is retarded(sub 100). But other than that it's useless, you can seethe all you want but being a 200IQ incel doesn't make you smarter than Taleb.

>>11880788
Taleb is dumb as pigshit
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

>>11867386
Um claiming mesopotamia is pretty broad for that argument. Alot of those inventions were from Greek and Urartian civilizations.

>>11870462
Your link isn't working

>>11867079
left and right retards push IQ whenever it suits their views like the lefty retards from my school:

>country IQ is bs (which i agree but to paint me as a racist they had to pretend i shared the same views as the moly meme and others)
then
>anon didn't you know blacks raised in rich families have equal IQ as its white counterparts (bitch do i care?)

>>11881235
>>anon didn't you know blacks raised in rich families have equal IQ as its white counterparts (bitch do i care?)
This is not even true. You should have BTFOed him right on the spot for the lying retard he is.

Difference in intelligence between different races and countries is real, but it's not meaningful enough to dictate what your life is gonna be like.
You can be a successful low IQ retard who happens to be really good at socializing and networking his way up.
You can also be a complete loser with high IQ who can't look at anyone without dropping his spaghetti on the floor.

>>11881321
Outliers don't disprove the mean.

>>11881327
Every person is different, having high IQ doesn't mean you're bound to live a successful life and solve every unsolved math problem.
Using IQ to define who you are is literally a coping mechanism used by brainlets to feel better about their own shortcomings.

>>11867083
based

>>11880788
>but being a 200IQ incel doesn't make you smarter than Taleb.
but I could be potentially

>>11867079
real

>>11874740
Why we he care when he just ripped a white supremacist a new asshole?
Based Nassim putting the white dog in its place

>>11881321
It really says a lot about our society

>>11867079

>>11881400
based and saved

>>11881400
Yeah, everybody knows that chinese people are really smart human beings and have the best living conditions of any country, oh wait

Why are mutts obsessed with IQ?
This is "muh ancestor" levels of cope

>>11881416
kek
brainlets already focusing on outliers and ignoring the general trend

>>11881423
>muh general trend
The one that says you're a brainlet retard who will never accomplish anything meaningful?

>>11881424
>muh <argument that proved me wrong>
What a beautiful admission of defeat

>>11881429
Correlation does not imply causation
Also >2002 studies
lol

>>11881423
>outliers
It's like a billion people....

>>11881440
cool story bro, except I didn't say otherwise
Can you tell me some other reddit catchphrases?

>>11881448
Reddit has higher IQ than 4chan

>>11881445
....and still one country. We are talking about national IQ here.

mutts have the lowest IQ because they racemix a lot

>>11881449
And you're certainly not helping that.

>>11881456
Yeah, I shouldn't be talking to low IQ mutts like you. It's actually decreasing my IQ.

>>11868450
>>11868761
I think this is where asynchronicity comes into play. Taking a """"holistic"""" approach can yield a better picture. Especially in the cases pointed out here >>11868508 and here >>11868631. At the far right intelligence gets much harder to contain. Somewhere in the gray area between a "smart" person and a "gifted" person is/are variable(s) that can truly define it. It truly does not matter for most though, something like >=97.5% of the population. What is interesting is that, like BMI, there's no such phenomenon on the left side. A person with a BMI of 16 is always unhealthy; whereas, there's much more variation in health for someone with a BMI of 28. The parallel is kinda interesting.

>>11881452
That's retarded

>>11881459
>It's actually decreasing my IQ.
I doubt that's even possible

>>11881464
My IQ is really high, so as impossible as it might seem, your stupidity is actually affecting that large number of mine.

>>11881338
Outliers still don't disprove the mean. No one uses iq to define who they are, but very successful people (as you described them) will likely have a high iq.

>>11882003
And there are limits to what you describe. Someone with an iq of 80 will not do groundbreaking work in a field of science. Sure they may have a good life, and thats good, we can all wish everyone the best. However, group trends matter eg if you don't have a good number of 120+ iq individuals where are your decent electrical engineers, aeronautical engineers, drug developers, metallurgists/materials scientists... going to come from? When it comes to iq group trends matter more than individual stories.

>>11880336
What is IQ predicting?

If it's some metric of success (e.g. wealth, employment prospects, income), then the same factors that contribute to high IQ scores (e.g. test prep) also contribute to success more broadly, so those factors are the cause, not IQ.

>>11880360
I study mathematics, not sociology. I just remember what a confounding variable is. Maybe if you were literate, you would too.

>>11881449
Which boards are you comparing?

>>11870931
Thank you.

Why convergent instrumental goals arent used more often to attack relativism is beyond me.

>>11877236
>Black slate

I know it was a typo but it is surprsingly poignant.

if we can't trust iq we can't trust any psychology, to a deeper extent physics, to a deeper extent math, to a deeper extent anything.
If IQ isn't real nothing is real and anything would be nothing.

What is the average IQ of west african tribes like the Igbo with relatively high attainment?

>>11882368
I don't know anon, why don't you emigrate to Nigeria to find out?

>>11882371
He didn't say all of Nigeria you fucking white nigger. He said Igbo, particularly the Igbo Jews, with matching Jewish IQ.

>>11882427
[citation needed]
Also, any group that has to "fight" to get into Israel isn't Jewish. Like somali Jews their complete lack of written history or rabbinical documents renders whatever they believe they are null and void.

Also can that anon provide any examples of Igbo's achievements?

>>11882464
there are quite a few notable scrabble players, I don't know much more than that, oh and the Igbo are not jewish by blood.

>>11882464
They're a small population with minimal resources. Their performance speaks for itself.

>>11882003
the most successful people dont have the highest IQ. typically they are around 120. to be specific, by success i mean acquisition of wealth

>>11882480
Have any results on their measured iq? As far as I know, post-secondary education is mostly associated with lifestyle. Like the Chinese, despite only having 6 points higher than whites, they have 20% more degrees. I mean, degrees are correlated with intelligence, but by no means predictive.

>>11882148
>What is IQ predicting?
>If it's some metric of success (e.g. wealth, employment prospects, income), then the same factors that contribute to high IQ scores (e.g. test prep) also contribute to success more broadly, so those factors are the cause, not IQ.
Test prep may only increase your score on IQ test not actual genotypic IQ. Which is the thing that actually predicts life outcomes, not necessarily your IQ score. When you take all this test prep things you described you will basically only fool the IQ tests into overestimating your IQ. The price for that is decease in predictive validity. So no, test prep does not predict life outcomes.

>I study mathematics, not sociology. I just remember what a confounding variable is. Maybe if you were literate, you would too.
Well, you still make fallacious arguments like a good sociologist. Media consumption, quality of parenting, family income and plethora others are all results of individual's IQ. By controlling for these things you are partially controlling for IQ itself too.

>>11881338
>Every person is different, having high IQ doesn't mean you're bound to live a successful life
No but there is very high chance you will. Much higher than if your IQ would be low.

It depends. Scientifically it is real, and the only push against it is political. There is no reason to deny the validity of one of the practice of analytical psychology with most consistent results unless for political reasons.

>>11873112
>>People that have no access to education fail a test that relies on basic literacy and numeracy.
WOW I WONDER HOW OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS MADE IT.
THEY MUST HAVE HAD A GOOD SCHOOL SYSTEM!
You're a fucking clown.

>>11883427
They had low IQ

>>11873112
> a test that relies on basic literacy and numeracy.
What is backward digit span? What is object rotation? What are Raven's progressive matrices?

My country has average iq of 92 and yes I'm from post-soviet 3rd world shithole. I went to literally the most selective private school in entire country, that produced national and international science olympiad winners every year. I was in physics olympiad team. Now get this. When I was at grade ten we had school wide iq test. School's average iq was 117, science olympiad students had average of 138. Guy that scored highest had 165. He got first in physics in our country, silver at IPhO, went to study to KAIST with full ride scholarship and later did his phd at Cornell. Hope you can extrapolate from this..

>>11883497
>School's average iq was 117, science olympiad students had average of 138. Guy that scored highest had 165.
Was the 100 mean assigned to Somalia or something?

>>11883462
this

What's Taleb's IQ?

>>11882482
I know, but again this is an extreme example. Billionaires having an iq of about 115-125 is well known. But outside of that extreme (which is more a product of a poor economic system), ie the wealth range £16000 pa to about a few million pa (per anum) the trend is linear. The trend is even stronger when comparing total aggregated capital in your life vs iq. Again outliers do not disprove a mean trend.

>>11878799
Brain correlates are generalist too lol.

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028961100122X
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028961100122X
etc.

>>11878799
>How do you manage to justify a significant general intelligence factor when different brain areas exist?
How do you manege to type something like this and thing you made good argument?

>ost cognitive functions are associated with different brain parts and different people have different compositions of weak and strong brain parts. Where is this g that makes a person be great at everything?
idk, in which part of the brain is verbal ability? Where is mathematical ability? Or visual-spatial ability? huh I guess they don't exist either.