/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9468438
>tells people to stop spamming IQ threads
>does it in an IQ spam thread

>>9468443
To be fair, silencing a crowd requires a loud voice

>>9468438
Wrong, nice try though, jealous brainlet.
IQ and academic success:
These also include non-STEM:
>High school dropouts: IQ 85 (U.S. white norms)
>University grads: IQ 108 (U.S. white norms)
>PhDs: IQ 119 (U.S. white norms)
>Harvard students: IQ 125 (U.S. white norms)
>Tenured professors: IQ 127 (U.S. white norms)
>Academic Nobel Prize winners: IQ 148 (U.S. white norms)
Source:
>https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/01/17/iq-academic-success/
For just STEM alone, I imagine it would be higher and more in-line with:
>Pic related

>>9468449

>>9468453
iq =/ intelligence, you complete brainlet.

>>9468457
Read the paper then.
Read the book then.
But you wont, because either you're too lazy, or too scared of being proven wrong.
Either way, you're an intellectually dishonest retard and who shouldn't listen to a word of your bullshit.

>>9468451
>>https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/01/17/iq-academic-success/
>According to a recent meta-analysis, the correlation between IQ and school grades in the general population is nearly 0.55. Meanwhile the correlation between IQ and years of education in the U.S. is also 0.55. Given the similarity between these two correlations, we can think of them both as just the 0.55 correlation between IQ and academic success.
>0.55
LMFAO.
You are a fucking brainlet that hasn't even done a basic stats course. An r value of 0.55 is utter irrelevant garbage.
If actual scientists started making a big deal out of such r values they'd get laughed at, meanwhile meme psychologists promote this garbage. Further evidence that psychology is a shockingly awful field.
Now don't come back until you've completed statistics 101.

>>9468467
Read the article, you're such an intellectually dishonest piece of trash you make me really mad. You just read the intro, or don't bother to read it at all, read the whole and TAKE IT IN, he does the math for you. -.-

>>9468464
Go do stats 101 before you start promoting things you possibly can't understand, moron.

>>9468438
List time I made psychological tests, I almost cried.

>>9468471
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, HE DOES A BREAK DOWN FOR YOU, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND NOT JUST THE INTRO YOU DISHONEST PILE OF SHIT.

>>9468470
>IQ brainlet getting butt mad for being a brainlet
I quoted directly from the link, you utter brainlet.

>>9468475
Yeah, from the fucking intro. :'D
READ. THE. WHOLE. ARTICLE.

>>9468451
social status has correlations with some quiz test results, and? the more intellectual work the more smart the average worker is. i don't need any quizzes to tell you that

>>9468443
IQ is the big question of our time. You can't stop people from being drawn to the subject.

>>9468479
You really are a piece of utter shit, aren't you?

>>9468479
>le everyone is the same, you can teach yourself to be a genius too, no one born with any ability :DDDD
Kill yourself.

>>9468483
>IQ is the big question of our time.
IQ is going to be replaced by real science soon, kiddo.

>>9468490
>inb4 IQ2

>>9468487
Nobody is claiming that you complete clown.
Dismissing IQ as meme nonsense does not mean you believe everyone can be equal or that there is no difference in intelligence between people. Brainlet.

>>9468493
>proves relationship between academic ability (INTELLIGENCE) and iq
>retard dismisses it, because le based maymay
>gets btfo out so just spacs out without even reading the article
IQ is the measure of that inherent ability, my dear boy. Just like the kilometre and the distance it measures.

>>9468501
>>proves relationship between academic ability (INTELLIGENCE) and iq
All you've 'proved' is a correlation value of 0.55 and the fact you've never studied basic statistics. And you've identified yourself as a /pol/tard brainlet, now it's time to go back to your brainlet board.

>>9468453
Are you sure that you responded to the right person, anon?

>>9468505
How? How is accepting IQ anything to do with /pol/? If you're the one inferring race, then YOU'RE THE RACIST, not me. And if you'd read the article, he proceeds to go through it and calculate the mean IQ for the various tiers of academia using the 0.55 value and you can see that the difference in IQ is still CONSIDERABLE.
>High school dropouts: IQ 85 (U.S. white norms)
>University grads: IQ 108 (U.S. white norms)
That's calculated with the 0.55 value, dumbfuck.
For "Le Stats Maestar" you sure as a disingenuous piece of shit.

>>9468509
Ehm... no.

>>9468487
you lack the knowledge of the actual sources of differences between human's personalities (protip: it's not genetics). that's why you think IQ is a big thing, because it's the only thing you can think of.
i suggest you read some entry level philosophers to expand your knowledge on that topic. personally i recommend you "existentialism is a humanism" by Sartre. it's short.

>>9468532
*looks anon in the eyes*
He's actually serious!
*pinches nose and giggles to himself*
Painful, truly painful.
Ah yes, those ineffable ideas of the intangible without any data to back them up. Whereas, we have data here that shows the difference between mean IQ and level of academic attainment and you'd rather I turn to the inexact and some could argue subjective world of philosophical literature.
How about you fuck off?

>>9468532
>genetics aren't real / the brain is not influenced by genetics
>philosophy changes reality
Are you for real right now?

>>9468549
>correlation of 0.55
>therefore IQ is capable of completely describing all of innate cognitive ability with a single number

>>9468562
READ. THE. ARTICLE.

>>9468570
I did. Does it prove that IQ is capable of assigning a single number that captures all of a person's innate cognitive ability? Did I just miss that part or what?

>>9468600
No, but it shows that IQ increases with academic complexity and therefore is a predictor of academic intelligence. So will you at least admit that?

>>9468562
>>>9468549
>>correlation of 0.55
>>therefore IQ is capable of completely describing all of innate cognitive ability with a single number

just for the record, its .55 globally. 1st world is ~ .85 as negative environmental factors are removed

>>9468438
>These plebs getting assmad about IQ and claiming it doesn't measure intelligence

IQ tests are what is referred to as "g-loaded," meaning they correlate strongly with raw intelligence, "g." Of course no measurement tool is exact. Stating that IQ is useless because it cannot measure g in exact terms is like saying a yard-stick is useless because it cannot provide length in terms of picometers.

>>9468926
Yup. After many environmental factors have been removed, the importance of IQ becomes much clearer.

>>9469309
G itself is just meme approximation.
Until you have something better than an approximation of an approximation, shut the fuck up and sit down. Until then, don't claim you have a scientific understanding of 'intelligence'.
>>9468926
>.85 as negative environmental factors are removed
Stop lying.

>>9468610
It shows the increase is marginal.
Whereas you're claiming it's substantial.

>>9468438
t. IQlet

>>9469902
T. brainlet with no achievements that needs a high score on a bullshit test to make him not feel like a loser.

>>9468451
PHILOSOPHY MASTER RACE REPORTING IN

>>9469904
>projecting this hard
lol

>>9468457
A real IQ test is whether you can get a degree or not in your relevant field.

>>9469915
Wrong, a rote memorizing brainlet could get a degree in almost everything too

>>9468474
Nigger, the claim is still wrong.

intelligence is relying on the actual knowledge. you can't solve a problem without having the complete information required to solve that problem.
this means that intelligence doesn't matter at all. all what is actually matter is the knowledge that you have.

checkmate, IQ fagets

>>9469936
t. retard who can only rote memorize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapper_orientation

>>9469940
>This trait is one of a pair, referred to in a post on a software programmer's blog.

>>9469963
Here you go, brainlet.
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r0/Day1.html

>>9469968
This is you

>>9469978
You're still a rote memorizing brainlet who behaves exactly like predicted on that website. Congratulations!

>>9469987
You're so smart dude XD

>>9469992
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9469992
As I said, enjoy being on top of the bell curve

>>9469998
Found you again.

>>9469998
Nigga, iq is not science. Stop forcing that bullshit.

>>9469998

>>9470003
Top of the bell curve. Enjoy living in denial.
>>9470004
>>9470000
You should go back to r/iamverysmart now and continue masturbating about how YOU are the actual intelligent one, unlike all those brainlets. Because that's a sure sign of intelligence, making fun of dumb people.

>>9470013
I'M A SUPER GENIUS GUYS XDDD
MY IQ SAID SO

>>9470013
>denial
Except iq is still not science, bud. Why are you still forcing that bullshit?

>>9470019
>still not science

>Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][56][57] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[58]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

Inb4 "lol but psychology is not a science". Enjoy living in denial.

>>9470018
A sure sign of intelligence, making fun of dumb people.

>>9470022
>Inb4 "lol but psychology is not a science"
Psychology is a social science.
Social science =/ science. Sorry brainlet.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate
>The reason many are rightfully skeptical about its status is found in the body of scientific knowledge—psychology has failed to produce a cumulative body of knowledge that has a clear conceptual core that is consensually agreed upon by mainstream psychological experts. The great scholar of the field, Paul Meehl, captured this perfectly when he proclaimed that the sad fact that in psychology:

>theories rise and decline, come and go, more as a function of baffled boredom than anything else; and the enterprise shows a disturbing absence of that cumulative character that is so impressive in disciplines like astronomy, molecular biology and genetics.

>>9470029
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>9470022
>what science means
The definition you are spouting is applied in social sciences where fenomena isn't even described but implied elements based on the psychology theory of the decade, are used for statistics and thrown in the archive without any kind of physical or direct phenomena explanation.

Iq is included in the social "" science "" topics and research.

>>9470031
So much denial just because you got a low score.
>>9470036
Yeah, maybe you should read that instead of posting retarded shit.
>>9470038
>implying actual science has phenomena explanations on the microscopic scale

>>9470043
>science has phenomena explanations
Iq lacks fundamental explanation of phenomena. Scientific facts and laws are direct correlations that are explained in the most coneivable and fundamental way. Iq cannot even solve these three basic questions.
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is not science. Iq is pseudoscience.

>>9470050
As I said numerous times, believe in whatever makes you feel good and enjoy living in denial. Most people do that.

>>9470059
>believe
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the kind of people who keep forcing iq as "science"

>>9470043
My IQ makes me super smart and enlightened!

P.s. if you actually spent time taking an IQ test, you're a brainlet.

>>9470066
That's great, but it doesn't change that you're a brainlet if you rote memorize.
>>9470063
For the list time: enjoy your denial. I bet you seriously believe that everyone has the same brain capabilities

>>9468451
>estimated from GRE scores
I hope that's not the same "IQ score" used to show correlation between IQ and academic success.

>>9470079
>you x
Except iq is not science. You keep throwing around irrelevant "sentences", yet you still can't demonstrate why iq is science.
Therefore iq is not science. Thus iq is pseudoscience.

>>9470004
>net worth is 6 figures at the age of 31
Holy kek, this has gotta be a joke.

>>9468451
I was tested to have an IQ of 132 on 3 hours of sleep and dealing with a lot of anxiety. I'm a middle school dropout

>>9470388
You're proof that IQ doesn't raise with education and that it doesn't guarantee that one wouldn't do retarded shit

>>9470673
why the knowledge how to solve IQ quizzes should raise after studying completely unrelated things?
does learning math in any way increases you knowledge of history, for example?

>>9470695
I don't know, it's just that's what someone else said in this thread

>>9468453
So you backpedaled from "academic success" to "school grades" now?

>>9470036
ACADEMICS PLS RESPOND

>>9470081
Read the fucking article, not just the picture attached the post you fucking prick.

>>9468471
>bruh I'm basically an expert in my field -- statistics
>No, you can't use statistics to analyze human populations or approximate human intelligence because that hurts my fee fees
>I mean, I'm practically Von Neumann here, why can't you see this?
>I practically OWN statistics

>>9468451
>We overestimate once and underestimate once, but if we average, we get exactly what we wanted
Wow

>>9469834
The most likely IQ for a PhD is 119, that's pretty significantly rare.
And the most likely IQ of Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate is 125, that's also even more significantly rare.
In other words, if you want to be in academia, as most on /sci/ do, having a high IQ is important.
I'd call that pretty significant.

>>9470780
READ. THE. ACTUAL. ARTICLE.

>>9470782
>The most likely IQ for a PhD is 119
I've read 130

>>9470794
According to: >>9468451
But that includes PhDs from shitty universities, and also includes non-STEM PhDs.

daily reminder psychology today is pure pseudoscience and iq is as scientific a metric as are horoscopes

>>9468467
0.55 is massive. I think you're the brainlet here. Using the BESD, r = 0.55 is equivalent to an increase in success rate from 22.5% to 77.5%

Massive.

>>9470801
This.

>>9470794
Things like "critical sociology" and the like probably bring the average down. Never met one of those that wasn't a authority-worshiping brainlet.

>>9468467
>An r value of 0.55 is utter irrelevant garbage.

>>9470783
>The central finding of our meta-analysis for the full sample is a substantial mean correlation of ρ = .54 between intelligence and school grades which can be regarded as significant since the respective confidence interval does not include zero.
Going from "school grades" to "academic success" is quite the stretch, isn't it? And not only that, the website you posted didn't even get it's numbers right. Yes, there is a difference between the claimed 0.55 and and the 0.54 in the article, and the fact that the numbers differ is a hint that the author of the website is either dishonest or didn't even read the article carefully

What they also said in the article, which you and the website forgot to mention
>Nevertheless, it would be an oversimplification to generalize this finding because of substantial residual variance, which cannot be explained by the methodological artifacts for which we corrected (i.e., sample size, predictor reliability, range restriction).

>>9470830
also, the meta-data is global and education systems vary. in the us for example, where education is private, merit alone doesn't warrant a university education

>>9470830
Ah yes, I forgot being an Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate isn't some measure of academic success, that requires a considerable IQ.

>>9470832
Unless you're from a country that matters, where you'll need a gifted IQ to be successful in academia, you don't matter, cultural Marxism doesn't apply here.

>>9470842
>Unless you're from a country that matters, where you'll need a gifted IQ to be successful in academia, you don't matter, cultural Marxism doesn't apply here.

what an incoherent bunch of diarrhea you managed to type there. kudos

>>9470844
Sure thing, remind me that time when the Congo last was awarded a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal.
I am sick of this postmodernist bullshit.
Unless you're Occidental, or East Oriental, you aren't an academic powerhouse, fact.

>>9470842
>Ah yes, I forgot being an Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate isn't some measure of academic success, that requires a considerable IQ.
see >>9470783
Neither Ivy league nor Oxbridge are mentioned anywhere in the article directly

>>9470847
>postmodernism

stop using words you don't understand. wanna know how i know you're an undergrad or at best have a bsc? go in any research lab and you'll see at least 50% of the people are from abroad. I'm not saying congo produces research, but it does produce researchers that move abroad. that study in any case measured high school grades, not university grades, so i fail to see what your rumbling has to do with the validity of the "study"

>>9470865
>He didn't work at Bell labs where everyone is either white or Asian

Brainlet pls

>>9470864
How about you actually: >>9470783
>See picture attached for evidence of either your forgetfulness, or idiocy, I leave the dichotomy to the reader.

>>9470865
>stop using words you don't understand.
Rich, coming from you, you're so retarded you don't even understand rhetoric, let alone full-blown descriptivism.
>wanna know how i know you're an undergrad or at best have a bsc?
How is related to Bell Labs you bellend?
>go in any research lab and you'll see at least 50% of the people are from abroad.
See: >>9470867
>I'm not saying congo produces research, but it does produce researchers that move abroad.
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>9468438
carl jung

http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Greatest_Geniuses.html

>>9470865
Source:
>http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=ci&ord=desc

>>9470886
>first IQ test created in 1912
>Leonardo da Vinci

>>9470880
>Doesn't even understand the difference between a blog and an article
Here's the article, in case you can't find it:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-roth.pdf

And no, a blog is not a credible source, and "it's a good predictor in data sets hand picked by me" is not an argument for IQ, sorry.

>>9470897
>Mathematics was created 13.8 billion years ago, at least.
>Humans didn't start doing mathematics until a couple of thousand years ago.
Well, I guess mathematics is totally worthless then. :^)

>>9470905
Ah yes, because your academic approach would be totally different from high school to university.
You're such a fucking retard, you can apply stats to like-things.

>>9470906
>God creates math and is the only one doing it
>Humans take a lot of time to catch up
>This makes math worthless
I don't quite follow your line of reasoning

>>9470905
>>9470910
And just in case you don't understand that memorising and then interpreting information for tests is exactly the same, regardless of 'level'.
I found this for you, which does apply to universities:
>https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/08/21/average-iq-of-oxford-and-cambridge-students/

>>9470880
i didn't even read the retarded blogpost, but the article it quoted

layman aspie

>>9470926 see >>9470922, you're still more retarded than me (mostly because you lack any form of linear thought).

>>9470895
like i said, researchers migrate to the us and most us labs are 70-80% filled with immigrants. my m8 is in a NYU lab with 2 Brazilians, while he and the PI are Greek.

>>9468451
Can you say its the high iq that caused academic success or the constant schooling that increased the subjects ability to do well on tests.

>>9470930
>another blog

link source and the claim you're making or stfu

>>9470922
>Blogscience
It's actually a sad statement about your education that you give the same credibility to a blog as to an actual peer-reviewed paper

>>9470944
like i said, either undergrad or complete layman

>>9470932
Ah yes, but still no one from the Congo.
If you look at that Brazil is ranked 18th, so it isn't that shocking.

>>9470939
>>9470944
>Blog has link to article, still lacking the linear thought to check for such a link before posting.
Oh dear, anon, oh dear indeed. :/ *pat*
Since when did /sci/ become so stupid?
Seems around the 2015-2016 mark, I wonder why. *beard stroke*

>>9470951
congo nationals living in the us would show as "us" in what you posted...

you cannot be this stupid

>>9470951
>emoji
>**

ah you're b8ing. had me going there for 3 posts, gj

>>9470977
I guarantee that despite having a sizeable population (78.74 million), they still produce less researchers than a country with a considerably smaller one, like Switzerland (8.372 million).

>>9470977
>ah you're b8ing. had me going there for 3 posts, gj
There's nothing wrong with emojis.
Although, it is quite funny that you don't understand that memorising, interpreting and then reporting your perspective on the memorised information is EXACTLY the same, regardless of context.

>>9470951
>I wonder why
Plebbitors who wanted to be edgy and contrarian

>>9470906
>created
?

>>9471043
Indeed, I can see that now.

>>9471053