/sci/ - Science & Math

humans who do well on IQ tests will trust the legitimacy of IQ tests.

>>6248343
Because they correlate well to all 'success factors' of interest. Statistically speaking if you have a higher IQ you can learn carpentry, cooking, mathematics, blackjack, motherhood, creative writing, social nuance... Literally any activity faster than your lower IQ counterparts, and you will outperform them in all activities.

Seems like a compelling reason to put at least some trust in it to me.

Certain IQ tests will have tests for several types of intelligence.

IQ tests are a pretty good indicator of intelligence. They include tests for different skills such as language, math, spatial, creativity, etc. While they could include more diverse skills, they really do reflect the person. People who score low actually are stupider than people who score high. I've never met anything that truly contradicted the results of the tests.

Just because the test isn't perfectly reliable doesn't mean it isn't useful.

IQ tests are bunk. Everyone knows that all people are of equal intelligence. There are no differences in cognitive abilities and if you disagree your a racist from /pol/.

>>6249107
Exactly. Well put.

>>6249107
IQ is extremely trainable. Look up the Flynn Effect.

While it's certainly *possible* different races could have different intelligence, it's confounded with social factors.

The only way to confidently claim there were purely racial reasons for intelligence would be to take 100 white and 100 black kids and raise each one in a completely controlled, isolated environment for 18 years. Failing that, there are such large differences between prosperity and education for ethnic groups that you simply can't claim it.

>>6249128
Why are you talking about race? Go back to /pol/, shitposter.

>skills such as language ... spatial
not a valid point imho
these can change quite significantly during personal development
and repeated tests to check for improvments are always flawed
>People who score low actually are stupider than people who score high
that is real bullshit
seems you have you never heard of emotional intelligence or stage fright
>I've never met ...
so you are NOT intelligent?

>>6249128
Try reading what I said, meta-shitposter.

>>6249138 here again

Math tests are unfair and biased. I can still be intellectually talented even if I can't solve a linear equation. You cannot force me to accept the rules of algebra. All exams should be abolished in favor of the natural human right to get any degree you want.

>>6248688 here
I score high on tests because my parents are rich and provide me the basis for learning

>>6249150
stop impersonating me
do you even measurements

>>6249162 here

IQ tests are bullshit. I was asked to complete the sequence 1,1,1,1,1,... How the fuck am I supposed to see this? Do I look like a mathematician or something?

>>6249168
you seem to have low self esteem
do you often cry at night?

>>6249175
I cry whenever I see dumbfuckery like yours.

Yeah I got 65 on my IQ test, I work as a pizza delivery boy, don't they even realize how smart I be? Sure maybe my average in high school was a D but I tried very hard. IQ tests be bullshit, yo.

>infantile tv characters

>>6249186
/pol/ you try hard you

>>6249222

>>6248386
[citation needed]

>>6248386
you are confusing something
it is an inversion of arguments
fast learners can score higher at the tests, yes
but not all high scorers learn fast
and not all fast learners actually learn fast all the time and some slow learners can 'jump' suddenly
also the correlation is valid only if the test is in close temporal distance to the learning situation

>>6249232
That's a nice argument for a downie.

>>6249277
>considers that an argument
And right here folks is a real live example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

>the penguin can't fly
>it fails the bird test

>>6248343
At the beginning of each semester:

'EY GUYS GIWE ME SOME Ai-Qiu TESTS I WANT TO SEE HOW I MEASURE UP BAHAHAHA HA I AM SUCH A GENIOUS LEL MANLETS BATHE IN MY GLORY111!ONE!'

Around the end of semester, in the holidays, when all should be working but goof off online:

'OY HOW DO YOU EVEN MEASURE HOW EVEN RELIABLE IS THIS EVEN MAKE SENSE I WANT MY WHATEVER BACK MUH BUZZWORDS MUH BUZZWORDS I PICKED UP IN SOCIOLOGY 101 TO INTELLECTUALIZE MY DISCOMFORT COMFORT ME !!!eleven!one!oneone'

>>6248353
and we should trust them...
because they a have high intelligence, proven by the test that shows they have a high intelligence, which works because they say it does, and we should trust them because they have a high intelligence, which is proven by...

IQ tests have predictive validity. For example they're very useful in predicting job performance, which is why the army uses them in assigning jobs to new recruits.

Personally, I'm happy to say it's a good way to measure intelligence, maybe one of the best we have. But all I can do is point to the uses that this instrument has, and you can say "But that's not INTELLIGENCE", and there's not much I can say because ultimately it's just semantics.

>>6248343

because Jacob Barnett is the most intelligent human alive and has a 170 IQ

>>6248343
>Why do humans trust the legitimacy of IQ tests.

Because they're valid and have been proven to correlate with a number of intellectual skills and intelligent behaviors.

> In my opinion, there is no true way to determine intelligence - yet!

Your opinion is worthless because you're an imbecile and don't know all the facts.

>>6251545
> typical faggot-got-mad-coz-tested-below-average syndrome
pretty much proved it with your worthless post, stay down simple jack

>>6249107
Gr8 b8 m8

I assume you mean interpreting the score IQ tests provide to indicate "high intelligence" and not simply gauging mental retardation or developmental disabilities, i.e. the jocks on a bodybuilding forum who claim to be mega geniuses after receiving a 150 on the WAIS-IV. Probably the same reason humans believe in other bullshit the so called soft sciences spit out with non-absoluteness, limited explanatory power and poor correlations, like personality types.

Oh, for crying out loud.
IQ tests are based on 2 propositions:
>Intelligence is quantifiable and can be estimated by a scalar
>This scalar is normally distributed
Both assumptions are highly suspect. But, even if they are correct, such a value only specifies current state of mind (say, distance), not how it evolves (say, speed). Intelligence isn't a rubber stamp people are marked with at birth, it's very malleable.
Why do people trust IQ estimates? Because there is a concept of being a smart guy and regular folks want to have a linear scale to apply to it. There is as much sense in it as in "favorite book", or "top 10 movies of the decade" bullshit

>>6251883
>implying malleability isn't variable between differently structured brains.

>>6251888
And what does that have to do with IQ scores?

>>6251898
It implies certain brains are limited by how intelligent they can get.

>>6251883
Meh, its a monkey test of logical intelligence performed on monkeys by other monkeys, most of the time to see how well they will fit into a cubicle for 20 years.

>>6251898
It implies brains are limited by how intelligent they can get.

>>6251904
I was talking about IQ tests as they stand at this moment. Because they give no estimate on how intelligence (again, provided it's quantifiable) changes with time.
But even if you take malleability as a metric, there's no guarantee it'll work. What if it changes non-linearly? What score should people who smart up as fast as they dumb down get? How many non-physiological factors affect it? There is no immediately obvious way to use such a score.

I can't find the answer to this one

>>6251918
>What if it changes non-linearly?
Then it's a nonlinear model.

>How many non-physiological factors affect it?
You would just model the physiological so it can take input and run it. Give it many different kinds and degrees of kinds of inputs to see which brain develops the most with least input or most period or whatever.


Why should brains me more different than any other kinds of system that they can't be evaluated?

>>6251930
They shouldn't. And you are correct, standard tools are sufficient. But IQ score implies that such a system can be described by one number. Such claim is pretty far fetched in my opinion.

>>6251939
IQ definitely doesn't give the whole picture, but some of it I would say.

>>6251945
Obviously, it gives some idea. What I'm saying, is it's really rough, to say the least. Pretty much like trying to figure out time till destination by distance travelled.

>>6251957
Can be pretty bad, especially if you don't have traffic trends that update the ETA. Often when done right it's a good enough approximation.

>>6248679
No.

>>6248386
>>6249270
Pic related.

>>6249128
IQ is trainable. General mental ability (GMA) isn't. IQ is of no theoretical interest, it is the construct that's interesting.

>While it's certainly *possible* different races could have different intelligence, it's confounded with social factors.

All the typical social theories have been disproven long ago. Try 4 decades ago (Jensen, 1973).

It is inarguable that they are different in phenotypic GMA, what remains is how much of it is genetic.

>The only way to confidently claim there were purely racial reasons for intelligence would be to take 100 white and 100 black kids and raise each one in a completely controlled, isolated environment for 18 years. Failing that, there are such large differences between prosperity and education for ethnic groups that you simply can't claim it.

You arent being very imaginative. There are many ways to study it. Pic related. In fact, we are finding the genes for GMA right now, and when we find a number of them, we can easily compare their relative frequencies in various populations because the genes are already published (e.g. HAPMAP).

>>6251758
This is why researchers often /shrug at semantic discussions and just change to a technical term free of the contamination of Gardner, Sternberg, "emotional intelligence"/EQ etc. etc.

>>6251883
Neither are assumptions since they have been rigorously tested for 100 years now.

GMA is not very malleable. It is very stable, and we know this because we have data sets that include people measured 70 years ago and remeasured recently.

>>6251917
I'm unsure but I see a pattern by counting the number of triangles in the columns from left to right.

First line: 1-1-1, 2-0-1, 1-0-2
Second line: 1-0-2, 0-1-2, 1-1-1
Third line: 2-0-1, 1-1-1, ?

So it's missing 2-1-0 sequence. The only option is A. All the other options are of the other patterns:

A: 2-1-0
B: 1-1-1
C: 2-0-1
D: 1-1-1
E: 1-1-1
F: 1-1-1
G: 2-0-1
H: 0-1-2

Anyone found another solution?

>>6251939
IQs from tests are made some summing up the individual test items (or subtests). Since all such items/subtests measure g to some extend, summing them up increases the measurement of g, but error cancels out. Hence, the more items summed up like this, the better proxy for g.

>>6251945
No researcher thinks IQ is 'the whole picture'. IQs are a proxy for g, and g is the most important mental ability.

>>6253211
"Measured low intelligence is causation for negative behaviour" /=/ "high intelligence is causation for skillful behaviour".

Literally pursuing skills causes skillful behaviour and making analogies and/or understanding that relation to good causes good, etc.; and "you are what you think" (the literal definition of character).

>>6253213
Again, geometrical and numerical sequence recognition /=/ overall pattern recognition, simplification in analysis, an understanding of universal analogies.

In the same way, geometrical and numerical pattern tests and study subjects are none so interesting to allow earnest learning.

>>6253524
What are you trying to say?

>>6253565
Following up, >>6253564

>>6253567
>>6253564
I don't know what you are trying to say.

I'm glad OP's opinion is irrelevant to science.

>>6253222

interesting. by wrong reasoning you came to the correct solution. if there was any other 2-1-0 sequence among the possible answers you would have failed.

actually the correct solution is much simpler: the symbols change in a specific order (x -> o -> triangle) and move right every image. symbols on the right re-enter on the left (also morphed in the order given above), except that they are shifted 1 row down.

>>6254625

well actually the middle row in a does not match my pattern. x and triangle would have to be swapped

>>6254625
>>6254679
This doesn't seem right.

Here, your proposed solution.

It matches the first row of A, but nothing else.

>>6256005
>It matches the first row of A, but nothing else.

That wasn't true. It also matches the second row of B, and third row of D. :p

>>6256005

that's not true. it matches the first column of A, the 3rd column of A and the first row of A.

only the elements 2.2 and 3.2 are swapped.

>>6257123

I wonder if that is the shopped version of an IQ tests that floated around the last days on /pol/ and /sci/.

>>6257180
It's from iqtest.dk i.e. Mensa Denmark. But it might be shooped. I don't know. Anyone can check by taking the test and going to the later parts. This one is one of the last items.

>>6257398

yes it's shooped.

pic related, the original version.

the rat has shooped B (the original correct answer) and swapped 1.1 and 3.3 :D

but still interesting you found a correct answer for that. the original has two 2-1-0 answers though.

>>6251917
They move to the right and go from x > o > triangle. If they get to the end of a row they start at the next one. If they get to the end of a row on the last one they move to the top left one.

>>6257461
Good job. However, the choice of triangle is arbitrary. If you repeat that analysis for circle and square, one gets:

∆'s

111, 201, 102
102, 012, 111
201, 111, ?

Missing 210.

Matching answers: A, B.

X's

210, 111, 120
111, 210, 201
021, 120, ?

missing 111

Matching answers: A, B, D, F.

O's

012, 021, 111
120, 111, 021
111, 102, ?

missing 120

Matching answers: A, B, E, G.

A and B are the only possible answers from all sets. Unfortunately, the right one is apparently not predictable from my analysis.

A slight further analysis reveals that item (3,2) is the only one with 3 of one type of symbol in a row, meaning that B is the right option. But still, further analysis was necessary. :/

The only skills needed to be successful and enjoy life are self-confidence and interpersonal skills. If you have those two, you don't need an IQ higher than the average. That's the reality, stupid autistic fucks.

YOU ALL FAILED AT LIFE

Number of citations of your articles is way better IQ metric than any IQ test..

>>6248353
I have and I know definitively it's bullshit

>>6257624
You do know that # of cites varies both over time and from field to field wildly?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/415643.article

According to you, physics math are among the least intelligent.

Why are you guys so self-conscious and obsessed of intelligence?

>>6257862
it's a maymay/epic troll

>>6257862
The study of intelligence is the most interesting academic field I've come across yet.

That's not the reason why it gets posted on 4chan tho.

>>6257862
its spam.

>>6248353
>humans who do well on IQ tests will trust the legitimacy of IQ tests.
Wrong.

Source: myself

>>6257590
>jelly low IQ pleb detected

IQ is defined in terms of what you'd score on an IQ test. So yes, IQ tests do determine your IQ, the better question is how useful that quantity is...

As it turns out, it is a very useful quantity in the sense that it is correlated to a number of social factors. For example, it has a stronger correlation with job performance and wage than work experience. It has a negative correlation with crime, and a positive correlation with a number of positive social factors. So from that point of view, I'd say that IQ is a good *statistical* quantifier of intelligence or at least the potential to be successful.

>>6259136
One thing that is worth mentioning is that the definition of IQ has nothing to do with say, some mythological genetic-only intelligence.

You can train for IQ tests, and people who got equal scores on IQ tests young, will have different scores as they age, correlating postively with people working in a career that requires intellectual activity. So in a sense, IQ rewards intellectual work. But so does the real world. From the point of view of a measure of how likely an individual is to be successful... this is actually a very desirable trait.

Correcting for other factors, lazy bums will get a lower score than hard workers. Just like in real life.

>>6259160
>One thing that is worth mentioning is that the definition of IQ has nothing to do with say, some mythological genetic-only intelligence.

"IQ" is not so interesting, and the definition of that i.e. Intelligence Quotient, is not used anymore. The original IQ was based on mental age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_age

Modern IQs are deviation based.

Genetic-only i.e. genotypic intelligence is not 'mythological'. Both environment and genetics contributes variance to intelligence and the amount of variance contributed by genetics is called genotypic intelligence.

>ou can train for IQ tests, and people who got equal scores on IQ tests young, will have different scores as they age, correlating postively with people working in a career that requires intellectual activity. So in a sense, IQ rewards intellectual work. But so does the real world. From the point of view of a measure of how likely an individual is to be successful... this is actually a very desirable trait.

Training for IQ tests does not make you smarter. It just introduces error into the measurement. People who train for tests do not get better results on things that correlate with IQ. The gains are hollow.

But really, IQ is just the vehicle. The interesting thing is the construct one is measuring, i.e. g factor.

>>6248353
>lel
Fuck no

>>6248688
>I've never met anything that truly contradicted the results of the tests.
IQ tests are modelled on Western culture, and therefore Westerners will score best, while some other cultures will score miserably despite high intelligence.

>>6257862
>Philosophy
Needing a IQ higher than 100.

Top lel

>>6260298
Thank you for this informative high quality post. It was truly enlightening.

>>6260459
>IQ tests are modelled on Western culture, and therefore Westerners will score best, while some other cultures will score miserably despite high intelligence.

... except that they don't. Ashkenazi Jews and Asians do better.

>>6260479
Philosophy is very intellectual. Only the smartest and most evolved individuals can tackle questions as profound as "How can we know anything if our brains aren't real?"

>>6248688
>>6259668
They're mostly based on low-quality patterns (greyscale is rarely relevant) and mathematical principles. Math is literally only useful in jobs which the math necessary can be provided; and as a basis of overall relations which is surely completely received from HS Calc.

It has no prediction, as a test, of social constructs - like vastness of knowledge for conversation and the ability to have freedom without views; or of analysis of trends or universals.

>It has no prediction
>>6262097

>>6251777

>literally didn't even look at the data

>>6264003
>no prediction
>of social constructs like vastness of knowledge and real trend recognition
Yes. Low IQ having correlation to low social status /=/ high IQ to skill and maybe necessarily anything more than good IQ test taking. It's mostly just mathematical principles.

>>6264033
You keep doing the not fake not equal sign wrong -.-. It's "=/=" or really, just ≠.

Your post does not make any sense. IQ predicts many things. Predictions work from the entire range of IQ. There is no threshold.

>>6264038
Yet, observers are unpredictable - maybe a supreme statement of the entire idea of observation.

So, what would be the counter-argument? What happens if all skills can be inferred to be meaningless? Surely intelligence is mostly related to the openness toward abundance.

>>6264168
This post reads like the kind of nonsense that postmodernists write.

>>6264430
What is postmodernism?

>>6266288
It's what comes after modernism.

Scored 115 first time then 105 the second on same test... what the fuck. I should accept that i'm stupid and work harder ( I don't even work.. procrastination )

>>6268133
What is modernism?

>>6264430
Is quantum mechanics postmodern?

>>6248679
What types of intelligence?

>>6251862
Do not post undecipherable text outside of /b/.

>>6249128
>IQ is extremely trainable. Look up the Flynn Effect.

How? Tell me me how!

>>6276346
He was lying.

Humans can't even agree who the best pure shooter in the NBA is, let alone who the smartest person is.

>>6277361
>let alone who the smartest person is.

That's me.

>>6248353
This is true.

>>6277361
Who cares about NBA?