/sci/ - Science & Math

People don't like having their feelings hurt.

Because it contradicts the biological fact that all people are exactly equal. Take your racism back to >>>/pol/

Because the idea you can reduce the inherent complexity of the human brain to a 2-3 digit number is just silly.

>>7070380
Are you implying that the concept of "approximations", whatever the field might be, is inherently worthless because not exact?

>>7070382
no he's not
your IQ must be pretty low

>>7070386
I don't know, he was saying that reducing the complexity of the human brain to a 2-3 digit number was "silly". I was wondering if he shared this opinion in other fields as well, such as engineering, where approximations are widespread.

>>7070382
>Missing the point this hard.

>>7070382
Approximations are fine when you can mathematically prove that they are reasonable.
This is not the case for IQ.

Intelligence is a loosely defined parameter of which IQ tests are a poor measurement.

>>7070390
The difference here is that engineering approximations are meaningful. You can approximate and still get a bridge that carries weight.

If you attempt to approximate intelligence you have no proof you are acurately doing so other than saying it must be right because it confirms your own bias as to who and what is intellgient and who and what is not.

>>7070367
I think that people dislike IQ because they don't want to feel like their potential is limited to being only as much as the perceived potential of people who share the number.

>>7070380

> You can say that about any quantitative measurement we apply to different things, everyday. And by your logic, it should be silly. But people always use these measurements and statistics everyday and they have to.

IQ tests essentially collect data on someones ability to detect patterns, which is the definition of intelligence. It doesn't imply anything mean or insulting, it just means that you have less mental capacity.

Calling IQ tests silly or poor doesn't magically dismiss them. It's a universally accepted test to measure intelligence, and it will stay that way.

>>7070380

You can say that about any quantitative measurement we apply to different things, everyday. And by your logic, it should be silly. But people always use these measurements and statistics everyday and they have to.

IQ tests essentially collect data on someones ability to detect patterns, which is the definition of intelligence. It doesn't imply anything mean or insulting, it just means that you have less mental capacity.

Calling IQ tests silly or poor doesn't magically dismiss them. It's a universally accepted test to measure intelligence, and it will stay that way.

>>7070396
>If you attempt to approximate intelligence you have no proof you are acurately doing so other than saying it must be right because it confirms your own bias as to who and what is intellgient and who and what is not.
I highly doubt that IQ tests are constructed specifically to discriminate against a certain group of people.

>>7070396
Exactly. IQ measures an arbitrary definition of what "intelligence" is, disregarding the fact that there may different form of intelligence.

>>7070396
and then a dumb person finds that one golden moment and puts it all together and then a hundred years later we're still using his face on 4chan IQ debate threads..

>>7070413
What are the many different forms of intelligence? I would tend to agree with this anon >>7070409 who said that intelligence is someone's ability to detect patterns.

>>7070410
I'm not trying to imply this. I don't know enough at the history and origins of the IQ test.

>>7070419
What is the argument that intelligence is pattern recognition.

>>7070409
>ability to detect patterns, which is the definition of intelligence

>Mr. Webster
the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations

the skilled use of reason

the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria

>>7070425
Smart people pick up on patterns and make connections better than retards

>>7070430
>Muh personal bias on what is smart.

>What is intelligence?
The ability to learn and understand situations.
The ability to use cognitive skills to solve problems and achieve goals.
Et cetera.

>>7070409
>But people always use these measurements and statistics everyday and they have to.
People do many silly things everyday, I don't disagree with you on that.

>IQ tests essentially collect data on someones ability to detect patterns, which is the definition of intelligence.
It's YOUR definition of intelligence. Many people would disagree with you and say there's more to it.

>It doesn't imply anything mean or insulting
I don't find IQ offending. I just find that it makes very few sense.

>Calling IQ tests silly or poor doesn't magically dismiss them. It's a universally accepted test to measure intelligence, and it will stay that way.
IQ is not universally accepted considering all the controversies it spawns, and rightfully so.
Also the fact that many people see it as a test to measure intelligence despite not knowing what definition intelligence is being used is silly as well.

>>7070434
Pattern recognition is correlated with other cognitive abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>>7070434
Do you think that there objectively "smart" people (fields medal or physics nobel prize laureates) who are bad at pattern recognition?

>>7070439
I would argue that it is not impossible though it is unlikely.

>>7070419
I don't view intelligence merely as the ability to detect patterns.
I think you can be perfectly fine at recognizing/identifying a problem, but pretty bad at providing a solution to it.
Pattern detection surely plays a role in defining what we mean by intelligent, but it's only one factor.

>>7070439
different guy but, we didn't have to physics at the insanely rapid pace with which we did, it could have been some other field- requiring its own flavor of seeming retards to develop it, who would only be recognized as retards in our physics period.

>>7070429
did a highschool dropout came up with these ?

> the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
what is 'trying situations'

> the skilled use of reason
another vague line that uses another unexplained term

> the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria
does that mean that if you are challenged in a way and you can't manipulate the environment, you're not smart ? I'm sure Mr. Hawkings would disagree.

>>7070436
> People do many silly things everyday, I don't disagree with you on that.
You have to explain why they are silly.

> It's YOUR definition of intelligence.
see this : >>7070438

> I just find that it makes very few sense.
again, why ?

> IQ is not universally accepted considering all the controversies it spawns
all the controversies it spawns ? By who some pothead liberal ? There is not a single sensible counter-argument against this.
There is a huge amount of controversy againt atheism as well. Does that magically make it invalid ?

>>7070367
because negroids and spics generally have low IQs and MUH FEELINGS

>>7070447
It clearly indicates who came up with them in the post. Are you a high school dropout Mr. Readingcomp?

>>7070367
The people who denounce IQ either

1. Cannot do ravens progressive matrices because they are retarded. So the test must be faulty
2. Pretend IQ is meaningless to garner support and sympathy. A form of white knighting.

135+ masterrace reporting in btw

>>7070444
Anyone can recognize or identify a problem. Providing the solution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intelligence.

Pattern detection is what allows you to be intuitive.

>>7070447
Mr. Hawking has armies of peons manipulating the environment for him.

If IQ tests were an accurate measure of intelligence, it would be impossible to train yourself for them.

>>7070456
> IQ is not universally accepted considering all the controversies it spawns, and rightfully so.
Also the fact that many people see it as a test to measure intelligence despite not knowing what definition intelligence is being used is silly as well.

I think I'm just dumb then. Can you tell me exactly where you indicated who came up with them in the post please ?

>>7070372
/thread

>>7070470
>if math exams would be an accurate measure of what you learned in your math class, it would be impossible to study for them

>>7070446
Do you have any historical examples of retards developping a retarded field which is recognized as being "intelligent" ?

>>7070367
'Cause it's pseudoscience, psicologist shit,

>>7070470
It's funny how only the people like yourself with low IQs deny IQ tests.

>>7070478
I was about to say that.

>>7070470
Why do you want to believe that intelligence is fixed and cannot be changed by training? Actually that should be a positive thing for you. You can hope that with a lot of training some day you will score 80 on the IQ test.

>>7070478
'Intelligence' is supposedly an inherent trait that one can't improve during their life.

>>7070470
Can somebody with an IQ of 80 actually train hard and score 140 on an IQ test? Genuine question btw, I've never taken an IQ test before.

>>7070471
Mr. Webster, ala Webster's dictionary, the eponymously named in fact.

>>7070486
I don't think that was something that was said in this thread.

You can learn how to learn. Maybe there are genetic limitations, but you probably haven't reached those yet.

>>7070484
>>7070485
>muh ad hominem

I've never taken an IQ test in my life, but go ahead andd stay salty just because your dogmatic test got spit on.

>>7070484
Anyone who is smart would agree that IQ tests measure intelligence.

In other news, that man is not a true scotsman!

>>7070482
No.. I was thinking about Swiss patent guy in BCA Rome and Egypt or a contemporary of Newton's.

What we need is more IQ threads on /sci/ to figure the answer out.

9654th time's the charm, eh?

>>7070497
> Still zero counter-arguments
That's what I though. Thanks for playing.

>>7070500
Irishman here. So..... is this a private fight, or can anyone join?

>>7070502
Different generations shouldn't talk about the same subject ? I guess we should remove StarWars series. Since so many people watched it already.

>>7070447
>> It's YOUR definition of intelligence.
>see this : >>7070438
Throwing a lengthy wikipedia link without a pointer to the citation supporting your claim will not prove you right, you know.

>again, why ?
Because the definition of intelligence is not as clearly defined as you think it is.
And no, redirecting me to this wikipedia page on the G factor thinking it will magically enlighten me on your opinion is not an option.

>all the controversies it spawns ? By who some pothead liberal ?
Come on. No one here will take you seriously if you start using the terms "pothead liberal" as a way to prove your argument.

Again, the main issue with IQ is that the "intelligence" it is meant to measure doesn't have a clear definition.
IQ tests measure an arbitrary kind of "intelligence". That doesn't make them useless! IQ tests are still useful to check if a person lack certain ability, or excel at certain kind of problems.
But you have to be a fool to think this approach on "intelligence" perfectly describes what we refer to when we speak about intelligence.

>>7070367
did Einstein even ever take an IQ test?

>>7070508
To provide a counter-argument you must first provide an argument to be countered.

>>7070501
Pretty sure the scientists who were contemporary of Newton are still considered smart today.

>>7070516
Yes, but he cheated without getting caught. And that's why he's so smart :^)

>>7070490
I got 115 is junior high drunk, took it after lunch on a friday. I remember because I thought I'd get that magical '80'. Then I got 135 in H.S., emphasis on high.

It's too easy to have the results fucked with, simply by reading the right books a couple weeks before a test without intention.

>>7070513

Because when I see OP's post, the first thing to come to mind is original content and quality discussion.

If you're new here, then all I have to say to you is
>lurk moar

>>7070526
Could it be that your IQ really is 135 and that your "low" score on your first test was due to the alcohol in your bloodstream?

>>7070486
No it isn't. Who told you that? Who told you you can't learn?

>>7070538
my spatial ed teacher told me I'm to dumb to learn

>>7070518
And in fact my premise needs an upgrade here. Going into the past to compare is crap, the transplants would- hopefully- know that old stuff already. Set them down just slightly ahead of their next big breakthrough, like the one they just made.

props to the Leibniz though!

Let's prove this, let's buy some downs kids have them take an IQ test, then train them in progressive matrices then have them retake

>>7070538
Who told you you can learn to be intelligent?

>>7070544
Their scores are going to be better.

IQ is the best measure of intelligence that we have, but it is a latent variable.

>>7070537
Dammit, I was stoned. Did that not come through in my post? Emph on high? wink wink? nudge nudge?

I was suggesting that the tests are too flawed to be discussing these threads rigorously but, they are vital to some day getting to that point.

>>7070541
"their" as the next one in their normal flow of time, not their personal next.

>>7070410
Ah yes, except how they originally were biased against women. It made them look stupid by including a section on spacial reasoning.

>>7070486
It can be improved but drastically only during childhood. Afterwards, there will be no notable change.

>>7070490
No. I have heard of some children that were given special therapy to increase their IQ by 20 points but they were children and they were put into special training.

>>7070515
>Throwing a lengthy wikipedia link without a pointer to the citation supporting your claim will not prove you right, you know.
So I'm wrong. OK.

>No one here will take you seriously if you start using the terms "pothead liberal" as a way to prove your argument.
Not that guy but neither of you has made a point.
>IQ tests are controversial. [citation needed]
>Only pothead liberals think pattern recognition is not related to general intelligence. [citation needed]

>IQ tests measure an arbitrary kind of "intelligence". That doesn't make them useless! IQ tests are still useful to check if a person lack certain ability, or excel at certain kind of problems.
Yes, some IQ tests are not very rounded-out and only measure certain specific intellectual abilities such as pattern recognition, thus only measuring intelligence based on the assumption that it must be correlated to general intelligence.

>But you have to be a fool to think this approach on "intelligence" perfectly describes what we refer to when we speak about intelligence.
Which approach are you referring to?

>>7070367
Social science isn't science

SJWs who want to believe niggers and women aren't retarded.

Butthurt millenials who don't like being told there are hard biological limits on their intelligence because mommy told them the sky

>>7070461
>Providing the solution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intelligence.
It is in my books.
Providing a solution to a problem isn't as dull as it sounds.
It involves many abilities such as the ability to plan from the starting point to the goal, the ability to reuse some previously gained knowledge, the ability to bend this knowledge so it can be applied on this specific problem, the ability to keep a clear mind on the variable involved...
And the list goes on.

That's why claiming that IQ tests are the true measure to intelligence is ridiculous.
Solving real problems you encounter in your career/studies that can take several months if not years to solve requires many more abilities than IQ tests do.

>>7070567
Psychometrics is science. More than social sciences anyway.

>>7070559
One could argue that spatial reasoning is one of the facets of intelligence, regardless whether women are worse at it than men.

>>7070576
Not all processed diamonds are cut with the same level of craft.

>>7070562
>So I'm wrong. OK.
I didn't say you were.
I just don't see the point in reading a whole wikipedia article when you could have directly posted the informations supporting your claims right here.
Throwing wikipedia links around is a rude way of getting rid of people without even proving your point.

>IQ tests are controversial. [citation needed]
This very thread offer a glimpse of how controversial IQ tests are.
Googling "IQ controversy" also provides a fair amount of articles on the matter.

>some IQ tests are not very rounded-out and only measure certain specific intellectual abilities such as pattern recognition
I would even go as far as to say ALL IQ test are not very well rounded.

>>7070589
kek, thanks man

>>7070570
even if you take iq tests as accurate the connection between genetics and intelligence differences is rather limited within a species, our genetic differences are usually not big enough to impose real limits to the average person, its mostly a matter of motivation and how you were raised (including education). talent is only a small part of it. you can get better and worse at IQ tests. its better to disregard IQ tests and judge people on what they archieve than holding people up high who scored well but are "just to lazy to make something out of themselves" or having people excuse their lazyness with "I guess I am just not smart enough for math/random subject". also --->/pol/

"IQ tests are the only real science. Everything else is just stamp collecting" - Stephen Hawking

>>7070604
I genuinely think that post clarity and the correct use of punctuation correlates with IQ.

I'd say you're somewhere in the mid 70s

>>7070570
if there are biological limits on my IQ tests how come my IQ went up after taking 8 different ones

take that biology. muh gainz

>>7070603
dam I thought I was being poetic, not talking to a girl

I personally believe there are a lot more facets to intelligence than just pattern recognition and all of the other areas covered by IQ tests. The human brain is just so complex that a quantitative approach to measure one's intelligence just seems sort of wrong. I'm not going to lie and say that IQ tests aren't credible or anything- but what actually distinguishes somebody who scored a 120 from somebody who got a 135? Isn't it quite possible that Mr. 120 is a a lot more insightful and bright than Mr. 135? This is a genuine question, so pardon any ignorance.

>>7070679
No, the person with the 120 IQ is objectively less intelligent than 135 in every possible way. They will never be as great as the person with the high IQ and should hardly be considered "people" in relation. IQ tests are perfect. Go away tumblr.

>>7070367
Because faggots use it as some sort of be all end all and obsess over it like it's proof of something. Internet "news" sites still lose their shit every time a kid's IQ exceeds Einstein's, as though the kid'll get accomplishments to match, despite the fact that these expectations have not once been met.

>>7070679
People with higher IQ have more potential than others.
But I've seen a lot of potential go to waste and I've met some people who are definitely more insightful and bright than those with higher IQ's.
Still, toe to toe, using the same methods, higher IQ's outclass those below.

>>7070679
Let me explain why you're wrong:
>I personally believe that a set definition can be interpreted however I want it to be

In other words:
>I personally believe that guns are actually apples even though the dictionary defines them as projectile weapons

>>7070679
sure

but if you compare someone with an IQ of 100 to the guy with 120 it will probably be a more obvious difference and if you find someone with an IQ of 80 they will be a total fucking moron next to them

bear in mind IQ only measures how smart you are not how much you know so there are plenty of high IQ people who are ignorant as fuck

>>7070372

you know this works both ways right?

as in

>IQ tests are an absolute perfect measure of intelligence
>I scored 130, therefore I am not a lazy unproductive piece of shit, and have very good reasons to feel superior over anyone who scored lower
>you should never doubt the validity of IQ tests, of course this has nothing to do with my feelings

>>7070704
>starred at a trivial PROGRESSIVE MATRIX PROBLEM in utter confusion and cried himself to sleep because the test said '105'

>>7070692
In what objective way is there "more potential", though? Maybe between fucking 80 and 120, but there comes a point when it pretty much boils down to "I have more numbers than you, so I am therefore superior".

>>7070693
There is no 'set definition', you fucking faggot.

>>7070712
Not him but you're coming off as somebody who's done extremely well on an IQ test and now makes it his duty call out others in the most arrogant way possible.

>>7070718
Wrong. I never did an IQ test because I'm afraid it will tell me I'm not as smart as want to feel.

It's just an undeniable fact that IQ detractors are not truth seeking, they are rationalizing. Some of them are the "everyone is a unique special snowflake with unique talents everyone is the same" tumblr fucktards.

Ok OP please stand and sum this thread up, bring the board up to speed, inject it in the arm. Or a brave anon willing and with IQ sufficient for the task, please.

>>7070367


Because a retarded quantum physicist is still smarter than an above average social worker, healthcare professional, school teacher or psychologist.

>>7070713
If you can learn things faster, you can learn more things at once or just go super high in one area. In either way, it's just pattern recognition applied in all areas of your thinking and because it is on a higher level than other's, you may attain a higher status in a quicker and firmer way.

I know a lot of people with high IQ (proven). Some of them are plain retards, delusional etc.
But those who use their mind correctly are quite successful and insightful.

In the end, it all boils down to your own decisions and thinking. Your genes cannot be changed, so your IQ is pretty much fixed, but that doesn't mean you can't attain your goals if you approach them methodically.

>>7070731
I agree, but it has no relevance to this thread.

>>7070367
>Why is the notion of IQ so controversial?

Because as soon as you establish that a variety of IQ tests produce a general range of score, you find out that Blacks fare quite poorly. Universally. Without regard to socio-economic sector. And so you get slapped in the fucking face by the Liberal Narrative that says our dusky brethren are somehow perfectly equal to ourselves.

IQ testing is controversial ONLY because Liberals insist we don't notice the racial difference.

>>7070725
Or maybe some of them see through the pseudoscientific nature of the tests and would prefer a method of defining intelligence that isn't so arbitrarily conceived.

Alright, maybe not 'pseudoscience' or 'arbitrarily conceived'. I'm not going to act like I know something about a subject I couldn't care less about. Regardless, the adamant IQ detractors may be from the tumblr "special snowflake" crowd, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some doubts about the tests and the testing process. For example, aren't there some variables that need to be accounted for, like anxiety or mental fog or whatever? When I took a test back in middle school I scored 128 I think, but I imagine if I took it now I'd get a 105 at the maximum. I'm a fucking nervous wreck now.

>>7070731
IQ is suddenly okay now. :^)

High IQ doesn't mean you are intelligent, necessarily. But if you are very intelligent, you will have a high IQ. People assume that we mean the first sentence, and then say that IQ is not true because the sentence is obviously not true.
When people say smart people have high IQs, they mean the second sentence.

>>7070744
Don't mix what you think intelligence is and what IQ represents.
Yea, it depends on brain fog and stuff, but it doesn't vary that much.
Your notion of intelligence isn't on the same page as intelligence tested by IQ tests.

I support the view that there are different kinds of intelligence, but you cannot deny the fact that we can measure pattern recognition.
Again, that doesn't mean that the view that different types of intelligence exist is wrong, because pattern recognition is 'general'.

>>7070712

>starred

wow, you are wasting your potential here in /sci anon. why don't you go suck some cocks at your local mensa??

>>7070743

>Because as soon as you establish that a variety of IQ tests produce a general range of score, you find out that Blacks fare quite poorly. Universally. Without regard to socio-economic sector. And so you get slapped in the fucking face by the Liberal Narrative that says our dusky brethren are somehow perfectly equal to ourselves.

But folks like you absolutely refuse to realize that with incomplete information, people are still prone to making wrongful assumptions, for example that Africans as a whole are 'genetically stupid' or some such.

Africans may score lower on average and IQ test scores may be hereditary, but that's not empirical evidence for Africans being 'genetically stupider'.

The only way we can come to that conclusion is by understanding how particular genes interact to translate into proteins and their interactions in producing various biological phenomena.

>>7070750
Pretty much this. People mix intelligent and smart.

Smartness doesn't depend on IQ, it's way of thinking, behaving, pretty much living too.

IQ is your brain's ability to recognize patterns, which has proven quite useful.

But again, there are a lot of shitheads and dumbfucks who actually have high IQ.

>>7070766
Can we really though? Can IQ tests measure pattern recognition as applied to real life?

I'm not denying they can measure it. I'm just asking, what with how "set" the tests tend to be.

>>7070750
>High IQ doesn't mean you are intelligent, necessarily. But if you are very intelligent, you will have a high IQ.
Correct. It implies that if you don't have a high IQ, you are not intelligent, which is true.

We test some people. 135, 130, 150, 142, 106.

The last person will never have any cognitive achievement of note.

150 over 130, on the other hand, does not alter our prediction over those people's cognitive future much.

>>7070750
Why has səˈman(t)iks been the single largest contributor to this board's thread count since.? This single fact suggests philosophy is critical to science, and any reasonably unbiased observer could see it, even with a normal IQ. Am I the only human in here? I this all bots?

>>7070367

People just like to believe that they can do anything.

I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that one person is smarter than another. I accept every day that there are people that are taller than me, stronger than me, and just in general more athletic. If I worked hard, I could become more athletic, but there are some people that are just straight up built to be faster, or stronger. Their bodies have literally developed to have mechanical advantages that if we put the same effort into training, they would be superior. For some reason, people find this MUCH harder to swallow when it comes to intelligence.

With that being said, I believe that straight-up measuring of intelligence is also flawed. For a really loose analogy, it's like comparing the best strongman of all time with the greatest tennis player. They're just different athletes with different abilities. It would be very hard to say who was definitively "better" in terms of athleticism, or skill.

>>7070775
Well, pattern recognition is viewed as a general ability.
Everything you interact with has a pattern of sorts, we connect the concepts we previously knew with the ones we are learning.
Seeing how they are connected is application of pattern recognition in learning. As you view some similar themes, you will notice some repetition and general mold of the ideas, which will make it easier for you to learn them.

>>7070789
If this world needs a metric to go by it should be the GF test. Who gives a fuck and just how much? I'm kidding but it's as absurd to talk about as intelligence.

>>7070789
But what makes somebody 'smarter' than somebody else?

It's harder to determine the answer to that question than it is to "how is somebody more athletic" or "how is somebody taller".

>>7070793
Speed, endurance, quickness, power...

I agree with most of the people here saying IQ does have a use. I think what makes talking about IQ most controversial is that people with high IQs seem to have a sense of entitlement when they haven't actually accomplished anything, and people look down on those they see as "dumber."

I personally have taken 2 professionally administered IQ tests, one as a child, and one as an adult. I scored over 150 both times. Sure, I don't consider myself stupid, but I don't have many accomplishments either. I was always outperformed in math competitions in High School, didn't do too hot on the Putnam, etc. I'm in a math PhD program now and some of the kids here have done way better research than I have. A lot of people with high IQs in my situation still keep some sense of superiority. That, I think, is what annoys me about IQ test. I have nothing against IQ as an assessment of intelligence, but many people take it too far, allowing their high IQ to give them a bloated sense of self-worth. IN response, many with lower IQs go to the other extreme--saying that IQ means nothing. Both of these extreme positions are wrong.

>>7070372
>>7070398
>>7070460
>>7070502
>>7070679
>>7070773
>>7070800

/thread
>>7070470
>>7070470

>>7070382
wrong

>>7070793

I guess I didn't make it clear that's what I was hinting at with the strongman v. tennis player analogy. I was implying a generalized "athleticism" score between the two couldn't take into account the massive different between their skill sets despite both of them being at the top of their respective fields, and that the same problem comes up with comparing intelligence.

>>7070502


I don't think your pic is worksafe anon,

>>7070806
But a strongman would be more successful in other disciplines than a tennis player.

>>7070380
>Because the idea you can reduce the inherent complexity of the human brain to a 2-3 digit number is just silly.

Just like you can reduce the inherent complexity of the biomechanics of running into a simple numerical number representing all it entails (i.e. how fast you can run in mph) is silly right?

>>7070800
Why not just go with the evidence. IQ is predictive of some things but not others.

Low IQ? You are a fucking dumb moron who will never have any cognitive accomplishment of note, with overwhelming probability.

High IQ? Nothing but potential. Differences in high IQ (150, vs say 138) are not predictive of anything.

>>7070811

But there are other disciplines where the tennis player would outperform the strongman.

>>7070806


a strongman would be better at far more other athletic things than a tennis player

>>7070815
Yes.
But again, strongman is generally more athletic and he would outperform in many more areas.
Would you agree that he has more potential than a tennis player to play sports?

>>7070813
That's what I'm saying. There is evidence for IQ being predictive of some things, and I'm okay with that.

I'm just annoyed by people with high IQs who look down on others just because they have "potential." Self-worth defined by pattern-recognition abilities seems ridiculous, but many high-IQ folks do exactly that.

>>7070818
>>7070816

You guys are kind of missing the point here. The idea was that it's difficult to compare people on a broader, generalized concept like "athleticism" when both of their aptitudes are very, very high in a certain area.

I'm not going to begin debating strongmen v. tennis players because it's completely irrelevant.

>>7070821
I used the word 'potential' in this thread, but just to be clear, I agree with your view.
People who have nothing to be proud of, cling to their traits which they weren't responsible for.
>muh height
>muh riches
>muh IQ
>muh dick size
>muh tit size

Yea, it makes a difference in certain areas, but bragging about it tells a thing or two about the person who's doing it.

>>7070824
But you brought the analogy yourself and I'm explaining my view with it.
Yea, strongman can lift a lot of weights, it requires power and endurance.
That also means he would excel in any other area that would involve power.
On the other hand tennis player has a particular skill which isn't that broad.
IQ = Athleticism

>>7070821
I don't why self worth defined by pattern recognition is any more ridiculous than literally all other sources of self worth.

People feel good about themselves if they are superior to others in terms of attributes society values. The end.

>>7070826
As opposed to clinging to their accomplishments, which are a function of traits and environment they weren't responsible for.

Yes, that makes much more sense.

>>7070838
We make decisions in our lives. We decide how hard we work and what we want to achieve.
We are born with what we have, but ultimately, it's all on us.

>>7070800
Is there a correlation between earnings and IQ above a threshold of say 110? I have to guess that high test scores and better loot have evolved together.

>>7070848
Are you a dualist? Does the nonphysical self somehow take over our brain and force our mortal body to do our bidding?

Or is the thing that makes decisions, our brain, a biochemical process with properties determined by nature and nurture?

Preferences, willpower, commitment ("hard work") are just further properties of the brain. Like the ability to see how to continue those progressive matrices.

>>7070838
Asking people to not be proud of anything is too much.

>>7070881
Asking people not to be proud of their dick size or IQ etc is also too much, and there is no fundamental difference anyway, as I illustrated.

Just accept pride to be an emotion we experience, as opposed to a choice we make. If you ask someone not to make a choice, that at least makes sense. Asking someone not to feel what they feel makes none.

The typical reason why IQ is controversial,

>we are all equal, no individual, group, race or population is more intelligent than another!

The real reason why IQ should be controversial,

>lets measure a individual's intelligence by comparing it to another individual/group and say that this is a good measure of said individual's intelligence rather than simply being a difference in intelligence!

Basically the numerical results given to the individual who takes the test is useless. There is no point to the numbers like 80 IQ or 130 IQ. Having a 130 IQ tells you nothing about your own intelligence other than saying you are more "intelligent" than x amount of people and less "intelligent" than y amount of people. If you're not some narcissist you already knew this information without taking the test. Thus the test has purpose than stating an obvious fact to the tester.

Also by assigning these arbitrary numbers another problem arises. What is the difference between two individuals who receive the same exact IQ number? Is the test implying they are the same in intelligence? If yes, then how can it make this assessment? If no, then why allow this result to happen in the first place?

>>7070380
>Because the idea you can reduce the inherent complexity of the human brain to a 2-3 digit number is just silly.
>is just silly.
retard pls go, leave the science to the people who aren't retarded.

>>7070392
you dont need to mathematically prove it. simply showing through statistics that the approximation is useful in some way at predicting whatever you want to predict is more than enough.

>>7070398
in other words muh feelings.

>>7070886
The decrease in value of personal property is equal to the decrease in the prevalence of instances of destruction of materials due to pride in a population, or something like that according the marx and heigl. Maybe there is a heavy handed approach to making people smarter like that. of of

>i scored 150
>still a loser
>not according to this test I am not

>aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy

the only measure of intelligence is pragmatic application, and only time and life itself will tell a person's true abilities

>>7070396
>If you attempt to approximate intelligence you have no proof you are acurately doing so other than saying it must be right because it confirms your own bias as to who and what is intellgient and who and what is not.
>If you attempt to approximate intelligence you have no proof you are acurately doing so
>you have no proof
I guess thats why all science nobel prize winners dont have high IQ's on average right? fuck off faggot.

>>7070409
>IQ tests essentially collect data on someones ability to detect patterns, which is the definition of intelligence.
I agree with most of what you are saying but pattern recognition is only a part of intelligence. However is is definitely an important part of intelligence even if its not all of it.

>>7070413
>implying any of those other different forms of intelligence are useful.

>>7070704
Intelligence without diligence is worthless, yes.
But you're still a low IQ nitwit.


No offense.

>>7070367
Because the only people who want to take a test to "prove" their intelligence are going to be arrogant shits who are too lazy to prove it through actual accomplishments.

>>7070377
but op didn't even mention race

Bump

>>7070924
Do you have any proof that people that score the same points in an IQ test don't behave similarly in real world application?

>>7070526

>getting drunk in middle school
>135 IQ

>>7071186
kobayashi maru

Because people can't deal with the idea of their inferiority/stupidity being quantified.

>>7070731
>computer science that low
damn web devs....

>>7070377
>Because it contradicts the biological fact that all people are exactly equal

So does visual appearance of apparent physical fitness and attractiveness, and people don't enjoy being judged on that either.

IQ tests are one way to judge a persons capabilities. It is an indication of the ability to understand complex information. But understanding something doesn't automatically mean you will be able to practically apply it. And other measures of capability, such as physical strength and endurance, are important in many ways an IQ score will never represent.

>>7070380
I agree with you anon, all the other anons are providing examples that are no where close to the abstract nature of the human brain. Measuring it with one number is silly. We should really devise a way that uses more numbers, giving a better picture as to how a person thinks. Five people with the exact same IQ score will each perform the same task very differently, with varied results.

>>7071267
The classic standoff. I don't think you're willing to pull the trigger, pilgrim, but I know you know I am. Blam! Dead pilgrim, and the 'wrong' genes make it back to the pool. IQ had everything or nothing to do with this.

>>7070430
Picking up on patterns and making connections isn't all there is too it. Your eventual solution to the problem is important as well. Experience and knowledge, with a strong emphasis on experience, is the only way to be sure that your solution will work effectively. So an IQ is starting point, but without knowledge of a persons past experiences and specialized knowledge/skills, using that IQ score to judge someones intelligence is pointless.

>>7070367
There are many reasons.
1. Some people have used IQ to claim superiority over others and oppress others.
2. The notion that intelligence can be represented by a single number is absurd.
3. It hurts peoples feelings.

>>7071280
But, if I know that you will pull the trigger, won't that entice me to want to pull the trigger before you do? Or would I consider that as something you know, and think this will make you pull sooner? Or would it make me not pull at all?

Shit, if someone has a gun pointed at me I'm not thinking twice. I'm going to pull that trigger as soon as it's aimed at a spot that will kill or disarm. All that talk and stare bs you see in movies is just that, BS.

>>7070367
So if some random online test told me my IQ was 120 does that make me smart?

>>7071291
When it happens you better hope they miss with the first couple shots and you don't. How smart are your bullets?

>>7071113

>Do you have any proof that people that score the same points in an IQ test don't behave similarly in real world application?

Do you have any proof that they do behave similarly? Because from history alone we have had populations who lived in the same regions and had similar IQ's as defined by today's standards and measurements who worship under different religions, built different architecture, obeyed different law systems and perform different methods of logic and proofs.

Now listen I could buy into the idea of people behaving similarly based on IQ, but the problem here is IQ tests show results that people could have the same numerical intelligence. And if we use that numerical intelligence as a proxy for behavior variance then it's also implying that they behave the same too.

Technically what your asking for, IQ theoretically already answers through the guise of comparing for example individuals with IQ's of 129 and individuals of 130. But it doesn't answer for comparing individuals who have exactly 129 with other individuals who have 129.

Unless now you're implying there's an even more finer level of results at play here like individuals with 129.1 and individuals with 129.2 that IQ test and scales don't talk about. And even if they did, it still doesn't completely deal with the totality of the question I originally asked since you could still have individuals who are group together in the 129.1 value and individuals who are group together in the 129.2 value who aren't the same intelligence or behavior wise.

>>7070367
IQ is pseudoscience, and people who obsess over theirs are generally cunts with a lack of real accomplishments.

I'm not even writing this out of cognitive dissonance. I'm IQ 140 and it means nothing to me.