/sci/ - Science & Math

To fully answer your question, I need to explain a bit of the history behind IQ testing.

It all started at the end of the 19th century. Universal education had just been introduced in most european countries, and social scientists soon discovered that, despite having similar socio-economic backgrounds, students varied a lot in their academic results. They thus postulated that there was an "innate" intelligence, and devised many different (and often flawed) intelligence tests to try to measure the intelligence of students.

Social scientists quickly began noticing that students who scored well or badly on an intelligence test, would also score well or badly on another intelligence test, even if one test was maths-based and the other one english-based. They thus postulated that this positive correlation in the ability to take tests which tested different things was what could be called "intelligence". By deploying a statistical analysis tool known as factor analysis, they isolated a quantity which they called "g", or general intelligence.

Modern IQ tests are said to be "loaded in g", which means that they're designed to measure g.

So to answer your question, someone with a high IQ score will be better at everything requiring intelligent thought. This could be academic disciplines, such as maths, but also more mundane tasks, such as plumbing. Social studies have found that g, and not socioeconomic background, is the best indicator for success in life. Studies have also found that for a same job, such as plumbing, workers with a high g score are usually much better at their job than people with average or low g scores.

So basically, the higher the IQ, the higher the g, the better you're at everything intellectually demanding.

>>7588430
Thank you.

>>7588473
If you want to read the authoritative text on the subject, read "The Bell Curve" by Murray and Herrnstein.

>>7588473
Also IQ is only relevant to white people, it is pseudoscience when other subspecies are tested except when they score higher.

>>7588527
Actually, it does become difficult to measure certain groups against other groups with IQ. For instance, many African groups register average IQs of 70. Does this mean that they are 2 standard deviations below the rest of humanity?

Not really. Considering with education and a different cultural/language upbringing, it actually goes to about 90. Of course there are differences between human groups. Asians tend to score higher than white people, white people tend to score higher than black people. But cross-cultural IQ comparison is full of systemic problems.

But why bother? You refer to races as "subspecies" so it's pretty clear you're just /pol/ and will dismiss anything I say unless I declare that niggers are unilaterally inferior.

>>7588530
Not him, but...

> For instance, many African groups register average IQs of 70. Does this mean that they are 2 standard deviations below the rest of humanity?
No, IQ testing in the third world is unreliable because of illiteracy and malnutrition.

>Not really. Considering with education and a different cultural/language upbringing, it actually goes to about 90.
...but let's not overexaggerate. The IQ of black americans is at most 85, and they're mixed. The IQ of pure blacks is probably in the high 70s low 80s.

> But cross-cultural IQ comparison is full of systemic problems.
Which is why only IQ testing done within the same country make sense. Most IQ studies only focus on americans (and rightly so).

>But why bother? You refer to races as "subspecies" so it's pretty clear you're just /pol/ and will dismiss anything I say unless I declare that niggers are unilaterally inferior.
His comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek, refering to the leftist's tendency to disregard IQ tests in the case of white/black IQ differences but tout them as absolute truth in the case of asian/white IQ differences. If you took off the outrage goggles you might have not missed his point.

>>7588424
Current IQ tests still have vocabulary as questions. You have to understand that IQ tests originated from psychologists, not scientists. Yeah there's a bell curve, but that bell curve could represent other aspects about persons rather than raw intelligence.

>>7588530
>But why bother? You refer to races as "subspecies" so it's pretty clear you're just /pol/ and will dismiss anything I say unless I declare that niggers are unilaterally inferior.
Proving my point.

>>7588539
Psychometrics is rather rigorous.

>>7588546
>Psychometrics
First result on google for "is psychometrics a science" is a scientific publication that it is not.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15366360802035489?journalCode=hmes20

>>7588556
Ironically, the author of that publication is a psychologist.

Anyways, if you base your entire opinion of a field off an article written by a member of the field which you ironically consider "unscientific", then there is little left to discuss.

>>7588424
>>7588430
Er...kinda.
The theory is sound; e.g. there is a (more-or-less) quantitative measure of an individual's capacity to learn and to perform cognitively, and this capacity can be estimated by performing a battery of tests.

However, the material used to perform IQ tests and the particular cognitive functions that are evaluated do have a cultural bias.
Granted, modern IQ testing does focus on measuring more-or-less "empirical" measures of cognitive capacity; pattern recognition, general data interpretation, spatial awareness, capacity for synthesis and abstraction, etc.
Unfortunately, these aren't all things that all cultures are saturated with, and therefore individuals from those cultures won't have internalized them as much as cultures that do.

Think of it this way: if you lived in a culture that heavily emphasized Transformers lore, where an individual's value was measured by their capacity to internalize and dissect Transformers lore, how well do you think you'd perform on an IQ test that focused on your ability to build structures out of building blocks?
Not well.
Meanwhile, a someone raised in Lego General Country would bomb just as bad on the "story structure and worldbuilding analysis" IQ test.


Basically, there is a genetic component to IQ, but the way that IQ is measured is heavily influenced by cultural factors.

>>7588527
>subspecies
Mortonfag pls go

>>7588562
Yeah, typo on the "scientific" publication. As indicated a quick google search indicated that psychology is not a science. Of course this isn't actual evidence but merely humorous. In any case, psychology does not use the scientific method ergo is not a science. There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies for over 99% of the shit that comes out of psychology. Once neuroscience becomes advanced enough, psychology would be regarded as useless as phrenology was.

>>7588575
top elk

i don't think anyone's taken non-experimental psych seriously since the 50s. granted, you're working on some shit theoretical bedrock but what can you expect from a pretty new field?

>>7588575
>In any case, psychology does not use the scientific method ergo is not a science.
Psychometrics does use scientific methods. Had you even heard of the word "psychometrics" before we started having this conversation?

>>7588565
>However, the material used to perform IQ tests and the particular cognitive functions that are evaluated do have a cultural bias.
They don't.

>Think of it this way: if you lived in a culture that heavily emphasized Transformers lore, where an individual's value was measured by their capacity to internalize and dissect Transformers lore, how well do you think you'd perform on an IQ test that focused on your ability to build structures out of building blocks?
First of all that question is fallacious, because modern IQ tests don't contain "cultural" questions but rather rely on basic mental exercises such as pattern recognition.

The beauty of g is that it explains differences in any kind of activity. For example, when modern iq tests are administered to the Kalahari bushmen of South Africa, who still live as hunter gatherers, it is found that those tribe members who are considered to be the best hunters have higher IQs than the tribe's average.

>>7588601
he's not arguing that it asks cultural questions, he's arguing that certain forms of reasoning are more emphasized in certain cultures. a pretty well documented case of this is westerners performing better with absolute reasoning where easterners do well at relative reasoning.

>>7588670
>a pretty well documented case
Go on.

>>7588670
>Gets what I'm trying to articulate in one go
THANK YOU.

>>7588601
Let me try another tack:
>Different cultures normalize different modes of thought
>Individuals will utilize the modes of thought that their native culture is more entrenched in
>Therefore, when an individual from Culture (A) is administered a test designed to measure their ability to utilize the modes of thought that Culture (B) normalizes, they will score lower than an individual native to Culture (B).

My point wasn't that Transformersbro wouldn't be able to recite the names of certain Lego bricks, or that Legobro couldn't differentiate between Starscream and Thundercracker.

It was that Transformersbro would be less capable at construction and less savvy at spatial reasoning than Legobro, and that Legobro would be less able to generate abstractions from and recognize patterns in a given narrative structure than Transformersbro, because their respective cultures don't give them experience with the cognitive tools necessary for those types of thinking.

>>7588670
>well documented
>not posting source material
Where do you think you are?

>>7588601
>the material used to perform IQ tests and the particular cognitive functions that are evaluated do have a cultural bias.

As one example, there's the Draw-A-Person test, which is exactly what it sounds like. If you've never held a pencil or drawn something before, you're going to be shit at it, and register as lower IQ. And yes, this actually has been used in some IQ studies of tribes - I did not just make up a strawman example.

There's a lot of cultural assumptions in IQ tests. The particular kinds of abstract reasoning about shapes, numbers, and figures on paper that seems obvious to us is - like language - a fundamental cultural element that is also a fairly unnatural learned and practiced skill.

If somebody from way outside that cultural context who is totally unfamiliar with it is tested, it fucks everything up and you get crazy low results.

That said, racial IQ tests in America, which eliminates these confounders, also show a much smaller but real discrepancy, which we ignore because it's uncomfortable. I don't know how much is just down to "minorities are more likely to be poor, poor people are more likely to have low IQ due to lack of educational access/poor nutrition/etc", but it is real.

I was under the impression that the IQ test was originally a learning disability test designed for small children, that some guy then almost directly applied to measuring the intelligence of normal adults and gave it a cooler name.

>>7588424
It means niggers are dumb.

>everyone always told me I am really smart
>go do iq test
>i really am smart

>>7588696
>I don't know how much is just down to "minorities are more likely to be poor, poor people are more likely to have low IQ due to lack of educational access/poor nutrition/etc", but it is real.

This is a strong component, yeah.
My dad's worked as a guidance counselor and a gifted-ed teacher in schools from the rich-as-all-hell parts of town (where the schools were private in all but name) to the literal, honest-to-god ghetto.
One strong tendency he noticed was that the poorer the area, the fewer students were placed into gifted ed.
>inb4 there were less placement opportunities in the poorer areas. the district uses EEE, which offers placement screenings universally

It wasn't that there were fewer colored kids from impoverished areas in the program than white kids from the same area, there were fewer kids, period.
However, the lower-income areas also had a larger black and latino population than higher-income ones, and because math is real (which, ironically, this board tends to ignore a lot) this meant that a lower overall proportion of black and latino kids were going into gifted ed than white/asian kids (this is a college town, so the asian kids had parents rich enough to attend grad programs and decided to stay).

(cont.)

>>7588430
>the higher the IQ, the higher the g, the better you're at everything intellectually demanding.
I feel this is rather vague.
With general intelligence we consider intellectual tasks on a general level, this is, a person with a high IQ is expected to perform better in tasks intellectually demanding regardless of their nature - this is, it is expected to at least be able to perform proficiently on math, physics, literature, philosophy, biology, etc.
The individual opposites are not true - namely, talented people in mathematics or physics can and often perform poorly in literary activities, and writers quite often are not very good at math or sciences either.
Then it seems possible that a talented mathematician could perform better than a high-IQ person at mathematics - the first performing better on mathematics but the latter performing better overall.
Going through all disciplines one at a time, it'd be impossible to determine what people have the higher IQ since each discipline doesn't apply all the cognitive capacities of any person.
If what it is needed is to evaluate all the possible innate capacities of each person - math, literature, music theory, etc. -, then the possibility of creating such test seems to me virtually impossible.

>>7588727
>(cont.)

I asked him what he thought the reason was, and this is what he told me (paraphrasing because this was years ago)

>When you're a poor kid in our society, you have the entire culture pointing at caricatures of trailer trash and shit and saying "See that? That's you in twenty years! That's all you'll ever be!" So growing up, you have this constantly reinforced idea that you'll never go anywhere or do anything, so why bother trying to?
>On top of that, you have this whole "learning is gay" mentality hammered into boys, and the "girls can't math" mentality hammered into everyone.
>These kids grow up never achieving anything or trying anything. Not because they're lazy or are actively disinterested in learning, but because they've been conditioned their whole lives to believe that they'll inevitably fail at anything other than being bums. So they grow into adults that work low-paying jobs, living in the same poor-ass areas as their parents, and raising poor kids of their own who're embogged in that same "poor and dumb grows up poor and dumb" mentality.
>It's even worse for poor black kids, because on top of all the other shit, they've got the cultural expectation that they're all thugs and criminals and crap, and they're gonna grow up that way.
>Not only that, but take a look at what kinds of role models they have. At least white kids have Bill Nye and Steve Jobs and every positive role ever to aspire to (this was in 07 or 06) to look up to and tell them that they can achieve something.
What do little black kids have? One Martin Luther King Jr. and a hundred Rappers that cash in on the whole thug stereotype. Shit, even if they had a black Bill Nye, a black Steve Jobs, or a black president to look up to they'd be crowded out by all the negative black stereotypes and literal White Noise.
>Society shows these kids that all they'll ever be are bums and thugs, so that's all they try to be.

>>7588741
>>7588762
...fuck that makes a lot of sense...what district did your dad work in?

>>7588741
>Going through all disciplines one at a time, it'd be impossible to determine what people have the higher IQ
Isn't that why IQ test are mostly done with kids? Because they haven't really "specialized" their brains yet so general aptitude tests are more useful?

>>7588762
>Society shows these kids that all they'll ever be are bums and thugs, so that's all they try to be.
I have a different theory.

Being poor is not the cause of lower intelligence. Lower intelligence is the cause of being poor. What happens is you get dumb people having kids despite being poor, imprinting their stupidity on their offspring in form of upbringing and genetics. These dumb offspring then perpetuate this cycle of uninhibited mediocrity until someone from outside notices them as a source of profit through empathy exploitation or mere novelty introduction, producing entertainers with negligible intellectual requirements. This continues to reinforce the already moronic people to further spawn more imbeciles.

For intelligent black people to be born out of these ghettos you need to introduce better genes and segregate the offspring from the debilitating environment.

>>7588793
>Isn't that why IQ test are mostly done with kids? Because they haven't really "specialized" their brains yet so general aptitude tests are more useful?
Talent can be innate as well. A talented kid in some area may perform better than someone with a higher IQ, with the latter being more capable in general learning.
Going to the very extreme, autistic kids have below average IQ with highly specialized brains. You are smarter than any autistic person, yet for each activity it could be possible to find someone who perform better than you in that particular activity, and each one of them is only proficient in their particular interest.

>>7588845
>you need to introduce better genes
>implying that an influential genetic component exists
Please read some peer-reviewed literature published after 1912

>>7588901
I would love to be proven wrong, but alas statistics speak for themselves.

shud eat bread

>>7588913
>statistics speak for themselves
You mean the ones that show no concordance between posited racial classifications and the traits that allegedly support those classifications? Cuz those are really the only ones that exist, chum.

But this is /sci/, so please, link your sauce.
>inb4 "hurr bdurr burnden of proof isn't on me"
Yeah it is. You're making the claim that statistics exist which not only supports the existence of a genetic component that empirically consolidates blacks as a racial group, but also correlates a lower average intelligence with that racial group.

Literature or it didn't happen.

>>7588424

Essentially, It's an indicator of a persons intellectual potential.

>>7588901
I thought there was consensus that intelligance is inherited

>>7588938
Ok Anon.

>>7588994
Thats just lazy

>>7588997
>http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
>According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008
>12.2 % of population responsible for over 50% homicide

>>7589010
>2015
>not controlling your confounding variables in the fridge
ISHYGDDT

>>7589010
How much of that population is responsible for the percentage homicide?

>>7588993

It is.

>>7589034
19.6 per 100000 in 2008 for black.
Compared to 3.3 per 100000 for white.

>>7589048
>>7589034
Do note that the rates are in fact declining, which is a good sign that the average negro is becoming more civilized.

>>7588994
>asked to provide concordance for "blacks" as a racial group
>asked to provide support for low average intelligence within that group
>asked to give evidence for a genetic factor that allegedly controls all of these
>posts one pic of incarceration stats

Can't say I'm surprised.

>>7588993
>>7589043
>I thought there was consensus that intelligance is inherited

Give the source linked from here a read:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/

If you're too lazy, what's demonstrated in Kan's dissertation is this:
>No evidence supporting genetic component determining IQ difference between whites and blacks
>The reasoning behind there being such a genetic component is bullshit
>The observed differences in the tested IQs of blacks and whites is 100% cultural in origin

Also
>intelligance

>>7589065
>Give the source
Anon, that's a blog post by an under grad teacher on a pop science website. He is seriously comparing pattern recognition test with memorization tests. There is not one iota of credence to any of those words.

>posts one pic of incarceration stats
Do you wish to posit that criminal behavior and inability to not murder peers are somehow signifying higher intelligence in a subspecies rather than lower?

I'd be very interested in hearing your thought process on how why you think it does not point to intellectual inferiority when one is capable and the other is not.

>>7589065

How do you explain this then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk

>>7588670
>he's not arguing that it asks cultural questions, he's arguing that certain forms of reasoning are more emphasized in certain cultures
Well, it just so happens that world culture is now a technology-based culture, not a hunter gatherer culture.

> a pretty well documented case of this is westerners performing better with absolute reasoning where easterners do well at relative reasoning.
The fuck is "absolute reasoning" and "relative reasoning"??

>>7588687
>Different cultures normalize different modes of thought
That's not true. There aren't hundreds of different ways to detect a pattern.

Your post is entire speculation. I suggest you read the literature on the subject.

>>7588696
>As one example, there's the Draw-A-Person test, which is exactly what it sounds like. If you've never held a pencil or drawn something before, you're going to be shit at it, and register as lower IQ. And yes, this actually has been used in some IQ studies of tribes - I did not just make up a strawman example.
First of all, I've already stated that I don't support testing random african tribes, but only support testing in westernized industrialized countries.

Second of all, get with the times. It's the 1920s anymore. IQ tests don't consist of "draw a person" questions.

>There's a lot of cultural assumptions in IQ tests
No there's not. Modern IQ tests ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED NOT TO BE CULTURALLY BIASED. It's literally in their design specifications. If a designed test shows the slightest bias whatsoever it is dropped.

Jesus fuck, read a minimum of the technical literature before you go on talking like some kind of authority. You clearly know absolutely nothing.

>That said, racial IQ tests in America, which eliminates these confounders, also show a much smaller but real discrepancy,
A standard of deviation is not small, anon.

>I don't know how ...
Absolutely 0%. See : Transracial twin adoption studies.

>>7588741
>I feel this is rather vague.
It is deliberately vague. Intelligence is rather vague too.

The way intelligence is defined in the psychometrics community is "the factor which makes you good at doing things".

>With general intelligence we consider intellectual tasks on a general level, this is, a person with a high IQ is expected to perform better in tasks intellectually demanding regardless of their nature - this is, it is expected to at least be able to perform proficiently on math, physics, literature, philosophy, biology, etc.
Yes, but not only high level tasks, also mundane tasks. An intelligent plumber will be a better plumber because his thought process will enable to better think out of the box.

>The individual opposites are not true - namely, talented people in mathematics or physics can and often perform poorly in literary activities, and writers quite often are not very good at math or sciences either.
More likely because they are disinterested in the subject and don't bother studying for it. Good writers and good scientists alike, however, will be proficient at analytical skills and pattern recognition.

>Then it seems possible that a talented mathematician could perform better than a high-IQ person at mathematics - the first performing better on mathematics but the latter performing better overall.
Of course, I never claimed the contrary.

>Going through all disciplines one at a time, it'd be impossible to determine what people have the higher IQ since each discipline doesn't apply all the cognitive capacities of any person.
You've clearly not understood how IQ tests are constructed. I suggest you reread my post. Or even better, read the wikipedia page on the g factor.

>If what it is needed ...
It's very possible. That "innate capacity" to be good at something has a name : g.

>>7589065
>a blog post
I hope you don't actually take this seriously. If that's the standard of proof we're going with, I can post blog posts from stormfront showing that blacks really are unevolved monkeys.

>>7588993
Yes, the g factor is highly heritable. To quote wikipedia :

>Behavioral genetic research has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size. It is also a significant predictor of individual differences in many social outcomes, particularly in education and employment. The most widely accepted contemporary theories of intelligence incorporate the g factor.

>>7589091
>>7589125
>>a blog post
>Give the source LINKED from here a read

Christ almighty, you people don't even read the shit you reply to.
https://sites.google.com/site/keesjankan/KJKan_dissertation.pdf?attredirects=0

>>7589056
Or that the majority of black babies are getting aborted.

Which is the actual reason for the decline in crime rates (in addition to the war on drugs which locked up most unruly niggers).

>>7588845
This is correct. Poverty is the result of low intelligence, not the other way around. Of course, presuming the society permits social mobility (which despite what democrats claim, is the case in the USA).

>>7589132
I'll have to give it a look.

Keep in mind that a single study does not refute an academic consensus, especially considering the political importance of the subject.

>>7589132
I've googled a bit and that article is highly contentious. I've tried reading the refutations but to be honest it goes a bit over my head. Anyways, be wary of citing dissertations promoted by blogs in the future.

>>7589132
>thesis
>We conclude that nothing about genetic and culture-only theories can be inferred from
the vector correlations.
Deduced by abstract models without any actual data. Brilliant conclusion, and to think all it took was disregarding any tangible statistics.
>With respect to genetic influences, this requires the identification of genes that explain individual differences in intelligence.
The paper is a filled to the brim with word padding such as this. It's a students thesis so he can get on with his life and get a PHD for which he must have a sufficient page count.

What a colossal waste of time this was, there no peer reviews either.

>>7588705

Nu uh. They're just being culturally oppressed by math deductive logic. It's time to teach these special snowflakes some anti-racist math.

>>7588540
You can talk about the scientific differences between genetic populations without bringing in psuedoscientific nonsense like call them different subspecies.

>The IQ of pure blacks is probably in the high 70s low 80s.
What the fuck does "pure blacks" mean? You realize that Africans are extremely diverse, with populations of black people in the Horn of Africa even being caucasoidal, right?

>>7589581
How is calling them subspecies pseudoscience? It means the same thing as race or breed.
>inb4 races don't exist
Yes they do.

>>7589581
> Extremely diverse
What is your definition of extremely diverse ? They are very easily identifiable just by their physical appereance.

>>7589581
>What the fuck does "pure blacks" mean?
People with 100% subsaharan ancestry. That would disqualify Sahelians and Ethiopids, who have caucasoid ancestry as you have stated. It refers to a subpart of the original stock from which african americans derive (west african bantu).

There is a basic Truth that many here on this board do not understand. Correlation does NOT prove causation. That means, if you have a statistic that suggests "blacks" have lower IQ than "whites" or any "race" for that matter, it does NOT prove that race is the determining factor. It merely correlates race with IQ, and at that point more direct studies and genetic testing can clearify these initial assumptions. At this time, we not not found a "black" or "white" gene, and no evidence of a gene common in a "race" that has any affect on IQ or intelligence for that matter. In fact, intelligence is not solely, or even mostly, determined by genetics. Environment is far more influential in fostering intelligence.

>>7588565
Yes, that's why there are tests developed not to have cultural bias. Wonderlic tests have pretty equal scores for blacks and whites. Cattell, Raven's and other pattern based tests are symbol based, and therefore accessible to anyone who has eyes and visual cognition. It is verbal tests that tend to be the most culturally biased.

>>7588537
Illiteracy is irrelevant to matrix tests, but yes, iodine deficiency can depress a region's IQ by 10-15 points.

>>7588741
There are obviously those with lopsided IQ's, but they are the exception. Mathematicians tend to have at least average verbal abilities, and writers tend to have at least average mathematical abilities. This can be seen on the SAT, where physicists score 500+ on the verbal and 700+ on the math, and linguists score 500+ on the math and 650+ on the verbal.

Math is the most g-loaded cognitive task on the planet, so there is almost no way that a mathematician has a low IQ (below the high range of 120-130). Similarly there are almost no physicists and mathematicians with an SAT math score under 600.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) This link has many of the correlation coefficients

People like to believe that gifts are balanced by deficits, as it would be in their "just world," but that's not the case. Most smart people are globally intelligent, and have IQ subcategories within one standard deviation of each other. That not being the case actually indicates mental abnormalities. If a verbal IQ is significantly higher than a performance IQ (such as 135 to 95), the test taker has a predisposition to schizophrenia. If a performance IQ is significantly higher, than the test taker has a higher likelihood than normal of being autistic. In fact, global intelligence is one of the most experimentally replicated results in psychometrics, and g can be considered the summary of all of these correlation coefficients of these multifarious tasks. A balanced IQ profile indicates a healthy brain.

>>7588509
Isn't that book blasted for using biased sources?

http://strawpoll.me/5737784
canvasing /sci/ on their party preference
spread this around, gather votes
im making a site-wide infographic on party preference

>>7589833
>If a verbal IQ is significantly higher than a performance IQ (such as 135 to 95), the test taker has a predisposition to schizophrenia.
Do you think that could be used to explain the correlation between creative writing and depression? or to explain the so called Sylvia Plath effect?

Also, since most of the talking matter refers to things of which I am unaware of, what books could I read about the things you have talked of?

>>7589919
Some geneticists say that the genes for high intelligence/creativity are linked to mental illnesses similarly to how pale skin and red hair are close, hence they might be passed on together. On the other hand, creative people tend to think abnormally and might face alienation as a result, so environment has some role. Not to mention, having a high verbal IQ but a low performance IQ and/or working memory means that your brain will process information faster than your eyes, so your mind stutters whenever the senses have to catch up to cognition, which can cause ADD/ADHD/Dyslexia.

Mental and neurological disorders may also occur more in intelligent, and also creative people, because of the structural differences in cells and cell connections. For example, an increase of sphingolipids increases the durability and connectivity of neurons, but makes a person more prone to tay sachs or gauchers disease due to abnormal lipid metabolism. Perhaps intelligence people have these abnormalities in brain structure, down to a cellular or molecular level, that increases the function of the brain at the cost of some structural integrity.

>>7589919
There are definitely links between intelligence, creativity and mental illnesses. However, I don't think a verbal-performance IQ gap alone can explain the predisposition of gifted people towards these issues. Artists, scientists and philosophers are also more prone than usual. The gap definitely does have some impact though, as having a high verbal IQ but a low performance IQ and/or working memory means that your brain will process information faster than the senses, or at least have to wait for information, causing a bit of a disconnect.

Geneticists think that the genes for high intelligence/creativity are linked to mental illnesses similarly to how pale skin and red hair are close together. Hence they are passed on together. On the environmental side, creative people tend to think abnormally and face alienation as a result. Structural differences in cells and cell connections. For example, an increase of sphingolipids in nerve cells increases the durability and connectivity of neurons, but makes a person more prone to tay sachs or gauchers disease due to abnormal lipid metabolism. Perhaps intelligent people have abnormalities cellular and molecular neural abnormalities that increases the function of the brain at the cost of some structural integrity.

>>7589919
There are definitely links between intelligence, creativity and mental illnesses. However, I don't think a verbal-performance IQ gap alone can explain the predisposition of gifted people towards these issues. Artists, scientists and philosophers are also more prone than usual. The gap definitely does have some impact though, as having a high verbal IQ but a low performance IQ and/or working memory means that your brain will process information faster than the senses, or at least have to wait for information, causing a bit of a disconnect.

Geneticists think that the genes for high intelligence/creativity are linked to mental illnesses similarly to how pale skin and red hair are close together. Hence they are passed on together. On the environmental side, creative people tend to think abnormally and face alienation as a result. Also, structural differences in cells and cell connections. For example, an increase of sphingolipids in nerve cells increases the durability and connectivity of neurons, but make a person more prone to tay sachs or gauchers disease due to abnormal lipid metabolism. Perhaps intelligent people have cellular and molecular neural abnormalities that increases the function of the brain at the cost of some structural integrity.

>>7589833
>If a verbal IQ is significantly higher than a performance IQ (such as 135 to 95), the test taker has a predisposition to schizophrenia

what

that's exactly me

I'm slightly above average in math but in the top 1% for verbal

where can I read more about this?

>>7588424
How fast your brain processes information

>>7590271
Well google obviously.

http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/430.abstract

>>7590365
I was kind of hoping for a book or something like that. I've read plenty about the connection between schizophrenia and creativity but the connection to verbal intelligence is news to me

>>7588509

> authoritative text

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHHAAHA
This fucking faggot.
kill yourself.
Fucking meme book

>>7588673
>>7588690

Not that anon, but since he has disappeared, and since there are papers on differences between European American and Asian American visual processing I'll provide a source

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894690/

>IQ of 120 psych-tested
>still feel dumb as fuck compared to my peers

Are universities just full of smart people?

>IQ of 130
>I never graduated high school

It means literally fuck all.

>>7590747
>IQ of 105
>probably true
>everyone else feels positively retarded

Schizoid is suffering.
BTW, does anyone else have problems estimating IQ scores in others?

>>7589877
No, it was blasted for "being rayciss".

Which is funny because racial differences in intelligence is but a small chapter in the book.

>>7590721
What are you trying to say? Your anti-racism is clouting your ability to type clearly.

You're not one of those persons who bases his opinions off of abstracts, are you?

>>7590822
Given your inability to understand what IQ means, I doubt your IQ is that high.

>>7590858
>IQ of 105
>probably true
>everyone else feels positively retarded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>7588537
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU

>>7588539
>Current IQ tests still have vocabulary as questions.

Protip: The vocab sections are the ones blacks do BEST at.

>>7590822
Achievement can't be directly linked to IQ in every case, just a general correlation. A lot of achievement is linked to willpower/motiviation as well as other uncontrollable factors. You can be as smart as euler but if you have insomnia, or are deaf and blind, or too depressed to get out of bed in the morning, etc, then you aren't going to go far.

It's the old saying about other people being smarter but you work harder or something like that.

>>7590911
wew /pol/, spontaneously bringing race into a conversation that has as so far been irrelevant

>>7589709
>Environment is far more influential in fostering intelligence.

Completely untrue, genes account for 80% of adult g. And while a single correlation proves nothing, racial IQ differences remain even after you eliminate all other variables such as economics or country of birth.

>>7590916
>spontaneously
Nearly entire thread is about differences in subspecies intelligence.

What puzzles me is why there even is a debate about subspecies superiority in certain areas. It is already established by myriads of recordings that blacks are statistically more violent, criminally inclined, poorer and less intelligent than whites.

The debate should be about how to correct this and devise learning methods better suited for blacks rather than putting them through a system which doesn't work for them. Spouting petty egoistical politically correct arguments that are more focused on making the speaker look good than solving a problem is not helping anyone.

Science is not about feelings.