/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14863512
The purpose of IQ tests is to find out if the individual is mentally handicapped or not.

>>14863513
Do you believe that they lose accuracy the higher they go? I read some article by Taleb about the results being fat tailed statistically, but i don't know how i feel about it.

>>14863514
They aren't designed for it. Most of the psychological ones can't measure IQ above 135-140.

Most of IQ is bs though, it's really just all about hard work. Of course, some people are less intelligent and have a harder time learning, but nobody "just knows" stuff without putting in effort.
You may argue that Ramanujan having everything revealed to him in his sleep would be no effort, but all he did was maths all day.

>>14863512
IQ tests test quick thinking. I've come across slow but deep thinkers who mog the shit out of muh high IQ larpers.

>>14863516
Pattern recognition is something you can't really improve on that much.

>>14863530
Good thing real life isn't 3x3 squares where you guess the 9th element.

>>14863512
>>14863516
>>14863519

IQ tests measure the compensatiry strategies for when your neocortex doesn't work: >>14861671
You could say they sort of measure UNintelligence, though not always.
The way that neocortex works is completely different. It simplifies. It simplifies the sensory inputs, so that you can see the whole picture instead of having to desperately scan, know or look where other people are looking etc. But it can, and in people it goes deeper: the simplest explanation for what happened, why the things are here, for what purpose and so on. Being good at formal thinking is not a strength, but an attempt to compensate while limited to an approach that is very clearly inferior.

>>14863563
High IQ is not the same thing as aspergers.

>>14863534
It's a culture-neutral proxy for real life pattern recognition like math.

>>14863534
>Good thing real life isn't 3x3 squares where you guess the 9th element.
Except it basically is.

>>14863567
Pretty much nobody's neocortex is working unless they're over 40.

>>14863512
What is so hard about literally just reading the wikipedia article about IQ/IQ tests? Jesus christ

>>14863713
The part where you're supposed to actually believe kike propaganda.

>>14863716
the article for g factor (psychometrics) seems to give an overview of the answer to his question. i don't know a good direct source article or book that explains it

>>14863713
>>14863742
Explain g to me

>>14863516
I think raven’s progressive matrices, the one with the classic 3x3 matrices, goes up to 160 (standard deviation of 15). Supposedily it’s the best measure of fluid intelligence (g-factor)

>>14863516
>it's really just all about hard work
You literally don't even live in the same reality as 140+ IQ people. No amount of hard work will help you. You will simply never perceive what intelligent people perceive.

>>14864366
Feynman had a IQ of 128 or something though, so that's nonsense. Once you go beyond 115-120, other factors become much more important

>>14863512
A real IQ test is a battery of subtests. Not just one stupid matrices test. Both verbal and non-verbal subtest correlate very highly with the g factor. Vocabulary, for example, has an almost .9 correlation with g. What that implies I'm not sure

>>14864400
You have an IQ of 105 and you don't understand what "so" means or how conclusions follow from premises.

>>14864414
Nah, I'm just not a native speaker. My point still stands though. Feynman didn't have a remarkable IQ for an academic, especially not for one who accomplised so much

>>14864410
>Vocabulary, for example, has an almost .9 correlation with g. What that implies I'm not sure
Source?

>>14864424
>My point still stands
You never even approached making a point.

>Feynman didn't have a remarkable IQ for an academic
Okay. How does this refute or even dispute what I said?

>>14864400
This nigga is correct. Once you're above a certain point, being well organized, hard working and surrounded by bright peers is more important than pure horsepower.

t. 142, tested by actual psychologist.

>>14864427
>This nigga
>t. 142

>>14864430
stay mad nigger

>>14864431
I feel sorry for you.

>>14864426
You claimed that sub 140 IQ people don't even "live in the same reality" as sub 140IQ people? That they can't percieve what more intelligent people can. So, I used the example of Feynman, who had a middling IQ for an acadmic, as a counterpoint. He could see the intricaties of reality just fine, as shown by his many imporant contributions

>>14864436
>He could see the intricaties of reality
How do you know what he did or didn't see and how it compares to what people far more intelligent than him saw?

>>14864425
Can't find the exact study atm, but check pic rel. Even if the correlation isn't as pronounced here, it's still the strongest of all the subtests

>>14864441
Because his an absolute genius and his work has incredible depth and relevance? Are you even aware of his contributions. They didn't award him the nobel prize for his bongo playing. He also nearly aced the Putnam

My tested IQ is higher than Feynman but do you think I have the arrogance to claim I'm somehow smarter than him lmao

>>14864442
>second order g-factor

>>14864451
>Because his an absolute genius
What absolute genius? Your whole point is that even a mediocre intellect can have impressive academic accomplishments if they work hard enough. lol

>My tested IQ is higher than Feynman
Is that why you can't form a single coherent thought?

>>14864462
Nah, it's you who's claiming IQ as being entirely synonymous with intellect, 'lol'. My point is precisely that IQ is only a rough estimation with many variables ( unrelated to g) that influence the score.

Feynman was a genius with a staggering intellect, but only an average IQ for an academic. That in itself questions the validity and meaning of IQ tests in the higher ranges of intelligence

>>14864477
>Nah
Nice backpedaling.

>Feynman was a genius with a staggering intellect, but only an average IQ for an academic. That in itself questions the validity and meaning of IQ tests in the higher ranges of intelligence
It doesn't, even if we entertain the notion that Feynman was a "genius".

>>14863512
> Isn't IQ literally just pattern recognition?
No, you dumbfuck. IQ is a meta-test of general intelligence. It tests how well you can learn patterns of patterns. If it were all one test, it would be biased; by testing EVERYTHING, even total made-up bullshit, it reduces the bias of people having memorized specific patterns and instances.

>>14864477
>That in itself questions the validity and meaning of IQ tests
It would be very interesting to see how people in cognitively demanding fields score in IQ tests. I don’t have any data to back this up but I’d bet you won’t find a math Phd with an IQ below 135, or if you do they are very rare. There are certain ”minimum IQ requirements” for certain intellectual achievements so to speak. Individual exceptions could exists but broadly speaking this is the case

>>14864482
No backpedaling, you're just very obtuse, especially for such a staunch defender of IQ testing. Almost like your autistically overcompensating

And lol at you putting the word genius in brackets. He was an absolute genius. That's consensus. You probably can't even solve a single problem on the putnam and yet you're on here downplaying the intelligence of giants you deluded brainlet

>>14864501
Most math and physics PHD students would be around 2 SDs above average, just like Feynman. But the difference between 128 and 135 is neglible at that range. That's my point, it's a stupid shortsighted manner of differentation once you enter the higher tiers of intelligence. Of course it would be hard to find math phds with an IQ of 100

>>14864503
>No backpedaling
You are backpedaling. Your rhetoric was about how lower IQ people learn slower and have to work harder. Then again, maybe learning capacity and the amount of intellectual effort you have to put in have nothing to do with your vague and undefined notion of "real" intelligence, either. :^)

>He was an absolute genius. That's consensus.
Even if we entertain the notion that he was a "genius" and that pop-soi consensus among low-grade midwits like you is the final say on it, this Feynman anecdote still doesn't prove anything.

>>14863514
>>14863512
Most psychologists are not very intelligent or well-read, especially outside the confines of psychology. The social psychologists are the worst in this regard, and the cognitive psychologists and evolutionary psychologists are probably the best, which is why many of these people are now moving over to biology, neuroscience, and computer science departments, rather than psychology.

In fact, some of the stuff on IQ tests is not even mathematically valid. Pattern continuation is a good example.

>>14864519
I wasn't the guy you were initally replying too, so no. The only single point I made is that, once you go beyond a certain threshold of intelligence, IQ becomes a wholly inadequate way of differention, and other, more intangible factors such as conscientiousness and creativity become more important. Because you made a deluded claim that sub 140 IQ live in a entirely different reality compared to the rest of the population, and while there obvisouly are rifts in perception and understanding across the intelligence spectrum, that's simply a stupid, binary statement

>>14864506
>But the difference between 128 and 135 is neglible
The higher you go in intelligence, the greater the differences in performance become. Lets say the average Phd student is around 135. The fact is these very smart people are destroyed by the 145 mega brains when it comes to producing results.

>>14864539
>The only single point I made is that, once you go beyond a certain threshold of intelligence, IQ becomes a wholly inadequate way of differention
That's not a point you made. It's a retarded claim you made, and it remains unsupported. Meanwhile my observation remains unchallenged.

>>14864548
Observation isnt the correct word, more like mental diarrhea

>>14864554
Why are you seething? Go ahead and prove me wrong.
>b-b-but muh Feynman
But we've already established that he's neither a genius, nor does a single anecdote prove anything if he were.

>>14864567
How have we established he's not a genius? One of the greatests physicists of the 20th century doesn't conform to your notion of "genius"?

>>14864578
>How have we established he's not a genius?
People who make paradigm-changing scientific discoveries, come up with ground-breaking new theories or solve long-standing and seemingly intractable problems are in a category of their own, and it's those people that are rightfully called geniuses. Feynman was not in that category. Either way, there's no point arguing with a brainwashed midwit about this. Your acendote doesn't prove anything even if we entertain the idea that he is a genius after all -- a fact you keep desperately deflecting from because it puts the last nail in the coffin of your midwit spergout.

>>14864587
If you’re thinking about the Einsteins, Newtons and other grand names from the history books, sure they are in a league of their own, but such revolutionary figures come pretty seldom, and the great minds that work in the periods in between them do deserve to be called geniuses, and IMO feynman is one of them.

>>14864587
That's a vague and arbitrary defintion. According to you he's not a genius, but according to the conscenus of the scientefic community he is. Why don't you visit your physics deparment and pose the question there, you'll unanimously get the same answer. But the word of some /sci/ autist carries more weight apparently

I'm not deflecting. I'm just tired of repeating my point because you're being wilfully obtuse.

>>14864630
>they are in a league of their own, but such revolutionary figures come pretty seldom,
Yes, that's what a genius is. We have a special term to distinguish them for a reason.

>>14864631
>according to the conscenus of the scientefic community he is
LOL. Absolute drone.

>I'm not deflecting
You are deflecting. You literally just did it again. You can't address the fact that your N=1 anecdote doesn't prove anything even if I for some reason concede that Feynman is as the highest tier of physics (he isn't).

>>14864636
Yeah I see what you mean and I guess many people use the word more casually. Someone with exceptional achievements that further their field in new ways could be called geniuses in my opinion. If you revolutionize your field you become a historic figure.

>>14864430
>Nooo you're not part of my epic brain secret club if you say x word

>>14864684
At this point it's just an argument about semantics. You can call him a genius if you like, but his insights and accomplishments weren't as profound as those of the people in that higher category I described, which we now have no word for. :^( Show me someone from THAT category with an IQ under 135.

>>14863713
It’s basically all lies

>>14864482
>trust me, dude, the number that predicts how likely you are to have a type of accomplishments matters more than the actual accomplishments.

"I'm smart but lazy" - fags should be castrated purely out of principle and not reason.

>>14865519
Except he didn't have "that type" of accomplishment and even if he did, your N=1 anecdote doesn't prove anything. lol

>>14865524
>I'm fit to rank once in history level accomplishments
Blow it up your ass, faggot.

>>14865530
Why are you losing your mind with rage instead of just conceding? You clearly can't dispute anything I'm saying.

>>14865466
>Show me someone from THAT category with an IQ under 135.
Maybe Marie Curie?

You can have sub-categories and types of genius. There could be the greatest geniuses and there could be just geniuses. Someone like Picasso is an artistic genius.

>>14865638
>Maybe Marie Curie?
Ah, yes. The woman who invented dying from radioactivity. Pretty based.

>>14864442
So wait? Vocabulary and Arithmeic are more indicative of general intelligence than spatial reasoning and 3x3 matrix patterns?

>>14865649
She had a profound impact on science and technology, and she was an ”out-of-the-box” thinker in some sense, but there’s something about her that makes me hesitant to call her a genius

>>14865466
How is renormalization not genius? Physics was stuck for 20 years until that came along. Dirac and Einstein could not solve it.
How is Feynman solving a 20 year old problem not genius?

>>14865670
>How is renormalization not genius?
Eh?
"The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." -Richard Feynman

>>14865666
She was in the right place and time. Her work seems like mundane lab technician. She just isolated new elements like some pharmacist would isolate a plant drug, someone was going to do that sooner or later

>>14865665
>second-order g-factor

>>14865680
What is that supposed to imply? It was a 20 year problem and he solved it. The solution is considered weird even for himself but its still the solution.
Are you saying renormalization doesnt work?

>>14865685
what does that mean then?

>>14865687
He wasn't the one who came up with renormalization and he was in fact critical of it.

>>14865698
He literally got a nobel for inventing renormalization.

>>14865689
"Second order" is the stuff in the middle. No shit vocabulary is highly correlated with verbal comprehension.

>>14865702
No, he didn't. Stueckelberg and Bethe came up with it.

>>14865710
So what are these groups?

Verbal is just language, not IQ.
Perceptual reasoning is traditional IQ, math, physics etc.
Working memory is what? Short term memory? has nothing to do with intelligence.
Processing speed, i legit have no clue what this is supposed to indicate

So 1/4th of the WAIS-IV test actual intelligence, and they put in a bunch of other useless fluff because?

>>14865714
You are brazenly making shit up.
https://academic.oup.com/book/7537/chapter-abstract/152503933?redirectedFrom=fulltext

>>14865715
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stratum_theory
The stuff on the bottom is narrow cognitive abilities (first order), the middle is broad (second order) and the top is general cognitive ability (third order). The 'g' everyone keeps talking about is the third-order factor. The data that guy posted was for second-order.

>>14865720
Show me where exactly your link contradicts me. lol. The absolute state of YT education...

>>14865722
What do you mean bottom and top? Like in each column?

That still doesnt explain why Verbal, Working memory, and Processing speed are even tested to begin with, when they aren't indicative of abstract problem solving and pattern recognition in the slightest

>>14865729
>What do you mean bottom and top?
The levels in this picture >>14865710

>That still doesnt explain why Verbal, Working memory, and Processing speed are even tested to begin with
They're indicative of verbal comprehenion (to the degree shown in that anon's data) which is indicative of general intelligence (to a degree which he falsely claimed to be a 0.9 correlation, but is probably much lower than that).

>>14865735
Okay, so why not just test for the one with the highest levels of accuracy, being the block design test, and the 3x3 matrix tests.

Why even test anything else if it's just worse at predicting intelligence?

>>14865723
Do you want me to prove a negative?
You are making shit up. Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga got a nobel for renormalization. Now you come and say "nop they didnt". Just like that.

>>14865738
>Do you want me to prove a negative?
I want you to quote the part in your source that you think contradicts me. You're so stupid it's crazy.

>>14865742
Everything contradicts you because what you say isn't in that source or in any source. You say that Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga did not get a nobel for renormalization while they did.
My source and 1000 other sources contradicts you by repeating what i just wrote

>>14865747
> You say that Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga did not get a nobel for renormalization
I'm saying Feynman wasn't the one who came up with the concept. You're a tedious retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group#History

>>14865756
Right he just got a nobel for it but was a secret hater

>>14865758
You're overtly psychotic. Once you take your meds, feel free to read the history section in the article on renormalization group and contemplate the difference between originating something and being one of many contributors to its further development.

>>14865715
>Working memory is what? Short term memory? has nothing to do with intelligence.
It refers to the amount of information you can hold and manipulate in your mind simultaneously. correlates very strongly with intelligence. The more working memory you have, the more complicated problems you can solve in your head.

>>14865764
>The more working memory you have, the more complicated problems you can solve in your head.
The more working memory you have, the more simple toy problems you can solve in an IQ test... which is probably helpful, but not how real-world problem-solving works.

>>14865762
>Contributes so much he gets a nobel
>Actually he dindu nuffin and secretly hated it

iq is only useful for screening mental disabilities. After a certain point it's measuring autism not intelligence.

>>14865791
If you read his work, he worked on a lot that he thought was a bit stupid and overcomplicated. He liked the challenge.

>>14865791
Nice backpedaling. Either way, he didn't invent it and he thought it was a hack that held back the entire field as evident in his own words on the subject.

>>14865802
Its typical for scientists to dismiss their own work and say they are not happy and that reality must be somehow deeper

>>14865819
You've fully conceded that it wasn't invented by him and that he was very critical of it. Next time try to avoid having a psychotic episode and just stick to whatever YT pop-science comment section you crawled here from.

>>14865824
No i didnt. Every scientist says they are not happy with what they did. Must be luck, must be a trick, muh deeper theory

>>14865827
>b-b-but all good scientists say that "their" work is "hocus-pocus", mathematically illegitimate and holds back the entire field!!
Don't care about your psychotic subjectivist tripe. He didn't invent renormalization and it doesn't matter who got a Nobel prize for what.

>>14864567
>>14864578
>>14864587
See my post above: >>14863563 People come up with novel solution when their neocortex works. Feyman definitely "was in that category", but he was among thelast, because such people are no longer allowed in since they are "not intelligent" by modern measures.
The missing linked part:
>Remember the flynn effect and that people with IQs that low built the western civilization, and those with high IQs are ruining it right now.
>What IQ measures, I think, are the compensatory strategies for when the neocortex can't come up with an answer. You can have low IQ as the result of brain damage, but also because your neocortex works perfectly and you've never really had to use formal thinking too much. A high IQ often means your neocortex is not really working and you trained uo your formal thinking (which occurs who knows where) from having to constantly think about stuff.

>>14865843
>such people are no longer allowed in
"Such people" meaning what? Those that score low on an IQ test? They're allowed in in droves. It's a really funny pattern with your entire crew that you're all overtly delusional.

>>14865858
>"Such people" meaning what?
Meaning people whose neocortex works. They are constantly judged as difficult. uneducable. stupid. even autistic or antisocial.
Those whose neocortex malfunctions are judged as bright, intelligent, always eager to study whatever you throw at them. But that is all they can do. Their ability to deal with novel problems beyond trial and error is entirely absent. They are smart because somebody told them, and they remember. They are entirely useless in practice in any non trivial job, because they can't deal with problems as they come. But they are not stupid, they only haven't been taught this yet, you would understand it if you weren't stupid yourself. Essentially, we are doomed.

>>14865770
Kek you can use tools like pen and paper to assist your working memory but those won’t do the thinking for you, you need brain power for that and IQ is the measure

>>14865885
>Meaning people whose neocortex works.
By which you mean low-IQ people? There's an unprecedented number of them in higher education now. We should be expecting a renaissance in two more weeks. :^)

>>14865888
Low IQ post. You're not even disputing anything I wrote.

>>14865895
>The more working memory you have, the more simple toy problems you can solve in an IQ test
It goes so much more beyond this. The more working memory you have, the more complex ideas you can handle and you’ll learn them faster too. Working memory correlates highly with IQ which correlates highly with problem solving, ability to learn and intellectual achievements. These are all well established findings.

>>14865906
>The more working memory you have, the more complex ideas you can handle
Nope.

>and you’ll learn them faster too
Maybe. Depends on various factors.

>Working memory correlates highly with IQ
Yes, but a lot of it is due to the format which requires problems simple enough to be self-contained but complex enough to be intellectually demanding.

>>14865913
>The more working memory you have, the more complex ideas you can handle
>Nope.
It is a main contributor. It has to do with the mind’s ability to grasp abstract representations, which requires the simultaneous manipulation of information (that is what working memeory does) The more working memory you have, the more complicated ideas you can handle.

>Measures of working-memory capacity are strongly related to performance in other complex cognitive tasks, such as reading comprehension, problem solving, and with measures of intelligence quotient

>>14865890
You may judge them as low IQ because they are stupid, but I bet they score high.
>>14865906
>>14865934
>the more complicated ideas
>the more complex ideas
The most important ability is the ability to simplify superficially complex problems.

>>14865934
>The more working memory you have, the more complicated ideas you can handle.
Obviously and trivially false.

>>14865948
Simply incorrect.

>>14865954
My working memory is shit but my IQ is far higher than yours, and my ability to grasp complicated concepts is far superior to yours as well. Your replies ITT demosntrate it. Discussion closed.

>>14865956
Kek
The correlation between working memory capacity and IQ is around 98%, studies show this. Working memory capacity explaines the minds ability to form complex abstraction. This is very straightforward if you think about it for a moment.

>>14865973
You can keep shitting out your midwit ideology but empirically speaking, my IQ is a good standard deviation above yours despite my working memory being quite shit.

>>14865979
It’s not an ideology, it’s a theory that’s well supported by empirical findings, and if you looked into it, I’m sure you’d find the evidence very convincing.

>>14865982
Your hypothetical midwitology studies are incompatible with my real-world observations and so they go straight into the trash.

>>14865992
Lmao
You keep boasting about your IQ which implies you give credit to psychological theories and findings. Look into working memory capacity, did you know that the studies have done real world observations on a large scale?

>>14866010
>You keep boasting about your IQ which implies you give credit to psychological theories and findings
I take it with a grain of salt. The only reason I bring it up is because my literal existence contradicts your theory. The reason for that is readily apparent to me: even a mediocre working memory is enough to hold the information needed to internalize a complicated concept when it's broken down and introduced properly.

>>14866022
>my literal existence contradicts your theory
How exactly? If you give a group of people a working memory capacity test and then an IQ test, the results correlate at 98%, which means your ranking in both tests is likely to be very close to each other, but it’s not perfect. Have you taken part in such standardized tests?

>even a mediocre working memory is enough to hold the information needed to internalize a complicated concept when it's broken down and introduced properly
What you describe here is a learning techinuque, and it doesn’t disprove the effect of working memory or IQ for that matter.

>>14866043
>Have you taken part in such standardized tests?
Yes.

>What you describe here is a learning techinuque
Call it whatever you want but my point stands completely unchallenged.

>>14866051
>>Have you taken part in such standardized tests?
>Yes
Okay, great, but as mentioned the relationship is not perfect, and outliers do exist. It is still a very strong correlation and theory tries to explain this (it’s still a theory, remember)

>Call it whatever you want but my point stands completely unchallenged
Not true, because given the same learning techniques the person with a higher IQ (or working memory) is likely to still learn faster and grasp more complex abstract ideas. No one says you can’t learn with a low IQ, people with higher IQ will just be better at it

>>14866061
>the relationship is not perfect
I'm in the 99th percentile in terms of IQ while my working memory is on par with an average person. I've known a bunch of other people like this (most of whom were diagnosed wth ADHD, for whatever that's worth). This kind of discrepancy doesn't disprove a correlation but it definitely undermines claims of a causal relationship.

>Not true
You're literally too dumb to even keep track of your own claims.

>>14866070
>You're literally too dumb to even keep track of your own claims

I believe you originally claimed one can use learning techniques to grasp abstract concepts, and you claimed this renders working memory or IQ insignificant, but that’s not true. Did I misunderstand something?

>>14866091
Your claim was that working memory limits your ability to work with complex concepts and I've just explained to you why that's false. People don't rely on the power of their working memory to deal with complexity. Any human's working memory is pathetic and puny compared to the sheer complexity of the problems we deal with. How many separate elements can you keep in your head at a time? 8-9? Maybe 10 if your working memory is very good? Now take any complex concept, define it and then try to unfold your own explanation. You'll end up with a sentence you can't even fathom. By your dumbass logic, I can now claim that your working memory prevents you from grasping that concept and the hierarchial breakdown you rely on is just a "learning technique".

>>14865973
>Working memory capacity explaines the minds ability to form complex abstraction. This is very straightforward if you think about it for a moment.
No this is not correct. It determines the complexity that you can use but it's inversely correlated with the ability to make abstractions. Somebody who is good at forming abstractions will never need a high IQ because the world they live in is way too simple, while somebody who is bad at making abstractions will train up their IQ because the world they live in is immensely complex and takes a high IQ to handle.
Then you have the oddbals like >>14866070 who are good at making abstractions, but trained up their IQ anyway. The most interesting thing about it is that those still experience the same "IQ gap" as if their IQ was way lower. The fact is, it's much more the high IQ people who fail to interpret the simple speech of other people, who can't figure out why (or even that) they aren't understood, because to them their speech sounds totally comprehensible.

>>14866101
Dude, you can augment your working memory with a pen and paper or a computer lets say. These tools make you better at certain tasks. If you have a pen and paper you’ll be better at calculations than a person without them. Given the same tools the person with a higher IQ will still perform better. Your inherent mental capabilities determine your performance in the end, that’s my point, and it is reasonably well measured via IQ. It all comes down to IQ

>>14866108
You keep shitting out generic talking points and make no attempts to engage with the actual argument. You're yet another regurgitating midwit.

>>14863514
For a simple image so you understand why IQ is usefull.
Your brain is like a car
Its like mesuring your brain to see if you have a Mustang or a Fiat Multiplat.
None the less , you can drive maybe faster with the Mustang , but it dosn't say that you arn't gonna take a fking tree with it.
Even if you are dumb , you can still go further than the mustang if you drove slowly but surely. (if you know your capacity and don't push it to far , you stay in control)
This analogy can be seen in various exemple (LaFontaine poem The Hare and the Turtoise)
To finish , your IQ just represent the capacity of your brain to solve various probleme.
It dosn't say that you are usefull to the society or anything (for that you can look at the Law of Stupidity by Carlo M. Cipolla)
Hope i help you Space Cowboy

>>14866110
Lets put it this way, all the tools in the world won’t allow you to grasp something like quantum mechanics if you don’t have the brain power (IQ) to do it. Does this clarify? I’m not saying your brain is all you have to make your way in the world and learn, but it will largely determine how far you can eventually get

>>14866070
You are lucky. Good memory can be substituted by pen and paper (if it isnt terribly bad), you can't use anything else but your brain to abstract. It has always happenned to me the same, good at math bad at remembering it and constantly having to refer back to past chapters when reading books abou tit

>>14866125
>all the tools in the world won’t allow you to grasp something like quantum mechanics if you don’t have the brain power (IQ) to do it
That's another generic talking point and it's not even relevant. My rebuttal of your false claims still stands completely unchallenged. You are 100% low-IQ.

>>14866119
I only scored 120 on the wais iv which made me resign to being a neet since i can't contribute meaningfully to society because of it, but i guess you're sort of right

>>14866131
I mean, you said a person doesn’t fully rely on their working memory to solve a problem, they will break it down to sub-problems and use tools. This is true. I’m trying to explain it’s IQ and working memory that explain how complex problems a human is able to solve, they might use technology to assist them, but these assisting tools aren’t the determining factor. What do you think?

>>14866142
>you said a person doesn’t fully rely on their working memory to solve a problem, they will break it down to sub-problems and use tools.
That's not even what I actually said, but whatever, let's go with that.

>I’m trying to explain it’s IQ and working memory that explain how complex problems a human is able to solve
You haven't provided any examples of a real world problem that can't be tackled with an average WM. You made the claim that WM is a major limiting factor on the complexity of the concepts someone can grasp, but I've already refuted that.

>>14866151
>You haven't provided any examples of a real world problem that can't be tackled with an average WM
Okay. It seems reasonable to expect a person should have a very high IQ to be a theoretical phycisist, considering how cognitively demanding the job is, only a very high IQ person could do it. If we accept that IQ and working memory correlate at 98% it’s not unreasonable to expect they should score very high in working memory too. The theory behind working memory and it’s relationship with IQ might not be perfect, but in light of what I know about the subject, I don’t think I’ve said anything unreasonable. What do you think? I wouldn’t bet on an average WM person being able to work as a theoretical phycisist. Does this make sense

>>14866167
>I wouldn’t bet on an average WM person being able to work as a theoretical phycisist.
Neither would I, since most of them have average intelligence. That doesn't prove that theoretical physics is WM-bound and you still haven't provided any examples of a real world problem that can't be tackled with an average WM. lol. I don't know, anon. It honestly just doesn't look like you can keep up with this simple conversation. Am I the retard here? What am I missing? We are having a disagreement about the role of WM and the meaning of the correlation you keep bringing up, but whenever I challenge the notion that there is causation, you circle back to arguments conflate the two, or just reassert your opinions over and over again.

>>14866174
At least one explanation of the causal relationship between WM and IQ is that in IQ tests, at least the raven progressive matrices test, resembles a working memory test in that solving it requires you to hold different information in your head (shapes, colors, transformations etc.) and that’s what working memory is about

>That doesn't prove that theoretical physics is WM-bound
Well I don’t have data to prove that it is, but I would imagine there’s something of a floor. A person scoring well below average would never be able to do it.

>>14866186
>At least one explanation of the causal relationship between WM and IQ is that in IQ tests, at least the raven progressive matrices test, resembles a working memory test
You haven't shown that there even is one, and this explanation doesn't make sense in light of the fact that some people with mediocre working memory (myself included) do well on Raven matrices. The Digit Span Backwards test is pure WM and I'm shit at that. If you think pattern recognition is WM-bound, take acid sometime and try to do something that involves complex patterns. You're not gonna try to tell me it enchances your fucking WM, are you?

>Well I don’t have data to prove that it is, but I would imagine there’s something of a floor. A person scoring well below average would never be able to do it.
>well below average
Sure, I'll give you that. You probably need at least a normal WM but I remain completely unconvinced that you need extraordinary WM to do it.

>>14863512
The point of IQ tests is something like to test intellectual proficiency (originally with Alfred Binet to test deficiency). Spearman made/discovered the theory that the kinds of tests used in IQ tests actually correlated with each other to different degrees. The subtests labeled "vocabulary" are often the most correlated individual subtest with the so-called "general intelligence factor", or g-factor or g.

>>14866209
>The subtests labeled "vocabulary" are often the most correlated individual subtest with the so-called "general intelligence factor", or g-factor or g.
Source?

>>14866203
>The Digit Span Backwards test is pure WM
Yeah, I know, and I’m complete shit at that too.

Solving raven’s matrices does seem to involve working memory though. Sometimes there’s a pattern that you see in a flash of insight and sometimes you have to work it out step by step, which seems to be a WM loaded task.

>>14866267
>Sometimes there’s a pattern that you see in a flash of insight and sometimes you have to work it out step by step, which seems to be a WM loaded task.
You just stare at them until it clicks. The only "step-by-step", WM-loaded part of it that I can think of is double-checking that the pattern actually holds. Maybe if you only have faint or partial ideas of what the pattern may be, it will take your WM for a jog. It for sure doesn't feel anything like trying to keep track of the digits in the DSB test.

>>14866289
>Maybe if you only have faint or partial ideas of what the pattern may be
In my experience, after staring at the problem and discovering the pattern, working out the answer can feel like it strains my resources in the same way a DSB does and it’s exhausting too. But this seems to happen when I’m at the edge of my capabilities. Many times I just look and think, and it just ”clicks” like you said

>>14866315
Okay. I get what you're saying and I remain unconvinced that general intelligence and WM are as closely tied as you make them out to be. My guess is that it's only true when you actually have to hold all the data points in your WM to make the connections and see the patterns, but if you reflect on it, I'm sure you can think instances where you suddenly realized a pattern in a flash of insight, concerning a bunch of information that you've already internalized, that's been sitting in the back of your mind for a while. It seems more like a long-term process of letting your mind digest and integrate information until you suddenly see the forest from the trees. That's my experience with solving complex real-world problems.

Intelligence grows as a logarithm with increase in compute. This applies to all physical systems.

>>14866368
Yeah, there is processing that happens over time and also on a sub-conscious level. Sometimes you understand things in a revelatory fashion, a burst of inspiration or something like that. it’s impossible to tell exactly how that happens. You also organize your thoughts during sleep.

Anyway, to return to the IQ and working memory question, it has to do with the initial information processing and the speed at which it happens, that’s why IQ tests are time limited.

>>14866472
Uh huh. To return to the IQ and working memory question, you haven't shown that WM is the main limiting factor for general intelligence, and IQ tests are time-limited because they deal with toy problems.

>>14866500
>IQ tests are time-limited because they deal with toy problems.
They are time limited because they measure speed, and real world problems are often time limited too. You can’t spend a year on a project, you have to deliver results in six months. When something goes wrong in an airplane the pilot must solve the problem ASAP, otherwise people die. Even if the problem isn’t time constrained faster is arguably better, because you can move on to new problems.

>you haven't shown that WM is the main limiting factor for general intelligence
Some theorize it is, I can’t prove it on 4chan really

>>14863514
Taleb is a racist who thinks he's clever enough to hide his racism as anti-racism.

>>14866510
>They are time limited because they measure speed
They are time-limited because they deal with toy problems that only correlate with g well under those time constraints. There is nothing more to it.

>Some theorize it is
They can theorize whatever they want. It's contradicted by empirical evidence.

>>14866531
>only correlate with g well under those time constraints.
Considering they attempt to measure g, what’s the problem exactly?

>contradicted by empirical evidence
There is evidence that supports the theory, I’m not sure it’s absolutely conclusive though

>>14866553
>what’s the problem exactly?
There is no problem. You were apparently trying to imply that real problem-solving doesn't correlate with g as well because it gives you enough time to internalize all the details of the problem, unlike a time-limited IQ test... which is absurd nonsense.

>>14866553
>There is evidence that supports the theory
It doesn't matter how much evidence supports a theory if it's contradicted by other evidence.

>>14866566
I’m not sure I implied that, there is the notion of time constraint built in the concept of intelligence (speed of comprehension, time is a factor) the less time dependent a problem in the real world is, the less g dependent it should be, would that be reasonable way to put it?

>>14866618
>there is the notion of time constraint built in the concept of intelligence
Not really...

>the less time dependent a problem in the real world is, the less g dependent it should be
... and when you put it this way, it should be especially apparent that it's nonsense.

>>14866626
>Not really...
How so? Intelligence is described as speed of comprehension. If you were given unlimited time for an IQ test while the control group is given limited time, your results would be inflated. Time is a factor in intelligence.

>>14866655
>How so?
Because you have this dumb notion that less intelligent minds will slowly chug along towards a solution to any problem given enough time, which breaks down as soon as you leave the realm of toy problems.

>Intelligence is described as speed of comprehension
By whom? This is nonsense.

>If you were given unlimited time for an IQ test
Not a valid argument. We've already covered this like a minute ago. You consistently have trouble following a conversation.

>>14866672
>Because you have this dumb notion that less intelligent minds will slowly chug along towards a solution to any problem given enough time
What? I’ve against that several times in this thread.

>>Intelligence is described as speed of comprehension
>By whom? This is nonsense
By psychologists who study the subject. Are you serious?

> Not a valid argument. We've already covered this like a minute ago. You consistently have trouble following a conversation

Lmao if you’re given more time for the IQ test you’ll solve more problems indicating higher IQ than warranted.

>>14866713
Man, you are literally retarded and this is boring. I hope you take a real IQ test one of those days and find our your proper place in the world.

>>14866726
>I hope you take a real IQ test one of those days and find our your proper place in the world.
I beg your pardon but didn’t you earlier try to say real world problem solving has little to do with IQ?

I suspect you’re just butthurt about your low WM score and find it offensive when someone suggests IQ could be explained by WM

>>14866713
>I’ve against that several times in this thread.
If you accept that it isn't the case, then you accept that most problems have some threshold of intelligence needed to solve them, regardless of time, and that threshold is obviously related to the difficulty of the problem.

>By psychologists who study the subject. Are you serious?
Referencing some unspecified experts doesn't make your statement any less dubious. No one describes intelligence as "speed of comprehension". You could say that it's correlated with speed of comprehension, but that statement only makes sense in some narrow context of making snap decisions or solving toy problems.

>given more time for the IQ test you’ll solve more problems indicating higher IQ than warranted.
I wasn't disputing it but I've already explained why this is irrelevant. See >>14866531

>>14866740
I have no reason to be butthurt about anything. I'm in the 99th percentile IQ-wise, but more importantly, my competence is put to the test regularly in real life and I usually come out on top. You, on the other hand, can barely keep up with a discussion. The main thing that irks me here is how fucking tedious you are to talk to.

>>14866744
>you accept that most problems have some threshold of intelligence needed to solve them, regardless of time
I believe this true. If I’ve said something else then that’s my mistake
>No one describes intelligence as "speed of comprehension"
No one cares if you can solve all the problems in a test in a year, if you do it quickly, you are intelligent. It’s not irrelevant. The methods for measuring happen against time, so I think it’s clear ”speed” counts towards the IQ score, and you can see something like speed and quickness referenced in definitions

>>14865982
>and if you looked into it, I’m sure you’d find the evidence very convincing.
He probably wouldn't, considering how low his IQ is.

>>14866784
>If I’ve said something else then that’s my mistake
You said this earlier:
>the less time dependent a problem in the real world is, the less g dependent it should be
Do I really need to explain why it doesn't mesh well with the statement that you just agreed with?

>No one cares if you can solve all the problems in a test in a year
Yes, because the problems in the test are toy problems designed for a time limit. How many times do we need to go over this? lol

>>14866756
>The main thing that irks me here is how fucking tedious you are to talk to.
Sorry, I just like to talk.

What do you do professionally?

Can someone please just explain this shit to me in simple terms, no psychobabble.

Why do they have language, working memory etc on IQ tests?
They use matrixes and cube building because non verbal problem solving and pattern recognition is the base for what we refer to as intelligence.

Why the others?

>>14866792
>>the less time dependent a problem in the real world is, the less g dependent it should be
>Do I really need to explain why it doesn't mesh well with the statement that you just agreed with?
Well, what I’m trying to say is giving more time to solve a problem lowers the IQ requirement to do it. So for example, 5 min time limit, only a 135 person can do it, but given more time, someone with a 120 could do it. I didn’t mean to say there are no minimum requirements. Maybe some one at 90 could never solve it... hope that make sense

>problems designed for a time limit
Which is to say IQ and intelligence are about speed in some sense

>>14866807
>lowers the IQ requirement to do it
It obviously doesn't lower the requirements below the threshold that you just agreed exists, so your statement is generally false, and the further you stray from the realm of toy problems, the more false it becomes. The hypothetical fantasy of someone with an IQ of 120 taking a year to solve a problem that someone with an IQ of 140 solves in a week doesn't occur in reality. If you are below the threshold, you will quickly reach a dead end and realize the problem is above your pay grade. If you are above the threshold, you will make steady progress and solve the problem in a reasonable timespan. In any case, do you even remember how we got to discussing this? I said that solving complex, real-world problems involves some period of digesting and internalizing all the relevant information. This doesn't depeond on WM so heavily if you're skilled at it, and once that's done, you're operating in a different mode of thought altogether than the IQ-test-taking one where you may have to keep a lot of shit in your WM.

>Which is to say IQ and intelligence are about speed in some sense
No, it is to say that solving toy problems fast correlates with high intelligence, while being able to solve them given unlimited time only correlates with not being a literal retard. You keep trying to extrapolate this to real problems but it doesn't work.

>>14866843
>someone with an IQ of 120 taking a year to solve a problem that someone with an IQ of 140 solves in a week doesn't occur in reality
But you do see this phenomenon in many places.. school, university, at work. maybe the time spans aren’t that extreme but you’ll see very smart 140 persons master a subject very quickly and someone lower taking a much longer time... and then some people simply give up because it’s too difficult and they’ll never be able to do it
>I said that solving complex, real-world problems involves some period of digesting and internalizing all the relevant information.
Some times it does, some times it doesn’t. In any case, the higher IQ person is likely to digest and internalize the information faster and arrive at a solution quicker than a lower IQ counterpart. It doesn’t need everything in the problem solving process to resemble IQ test taking, and other factors like skill and experience could be in play. The thing about IQ results is that they generalize across different domains because they measure g, the central factor behind general intelligence and ability to solve new problems

>>14866879
> the higher IQ person is likely to digest and internalize the information faster and arrive at a solution quicker than a lower IQ counterpart
How long does it take a lower IQ person to stop using IQ and WM interchangeably in a context where their interchangeability is what's being discussed? Does this question make sense to you? Are you able to grasp why that's a dumb thing to do? lol. I don't know. This seriously reminds me of talking to a chatbot. Have a good day.

>>14866896
>you're operating in a different mode of thought altogether than the IQ-test-taking one where you may have to keep a lot of shit in your WM
Is this what you are referring to?

IQ tests are constructed by midwits and for midwits.
It is impossible for a person of lesser intelligence to fathom, understand or estimate the inner workings of the mind of a more intelligent person.

>>14866902
No. I'm referring to your response here, anon:
>the higher IQ person is likely to digest and internalize the information faster and arrive at a solution quicker than a lower IQ counterpart
Did I say or imply that someone with a higher IQ won't be able to get it done quicker? No, I just said it doesn't have to be WM-intensive if you do it intelligently. But whatever. The other stuff you wrote is also dumb and I'm honestly just bored. I don't think we can salvage this.

>>14866927
>No, I just said it doesn't have to be WM-intensive if you do it intelligently.
>you’re operating in a different mode of thought altogether than the IQ-test-taking
This depends on the circumstances very much.
there are lots jobs where you solve new problems every day, and you IQ is put to use constantly.

>>14866927
>I said that solving complex, real-world problems involves some period of digesting and internalizing all the relevant information.
This just isn’t true in many cases. What kind of world do you live in. Try working a high level business job, things are changing constantly and you adapt to new information every day. Very taxing on IQ

>>14866879
>>14866902
>>14866927
>>14866951
>>14866972
>Some times it does, some times it doesn’t. In any case, the higher IQ person is likely to digest and internalize the information faster and arrive at a solution quicker than a lower IQ counterpart.
This just isn't true. Higher IQ people tend to have big trouble figuring out what to even think about, and get lost in thinking about something irrelevant, while the low iq counterpart has already fixed the problem.

>>14867280
Well, having high IQ doesn’t mean you’re a well organized person in general. IQ and conscientiousness (this would tell how hard working a person is and do they tend to keep promises etc.) are not correlated at all (it’s zero) so you can’t tell anything about that personality trait based on IQ...

>>14867280
You have no clue what you’re talking about

>>14866655
>If I give you a ruler with closer width lines and a control groups a normal ruler, you will measure an object's length as longer. Therefore length of an object is correlated with the ruler