/sci/ - Science & Math

>Can one make IQ higher?
Yes, just practice IQ tests.

You can train yourself to be better at iq tests but will you actually be smarter? No.

>>9749343
>it's impossible to become smarter

Can we all just agree that "smarter" is ill defined and IQ tests are a terrible metric.

>>9749347
>IQ tests are a terrible metric
Wrong.

>>9749347
Wrong.
>>9749339
Im literally a psychiatrist and i would never say someone can increase their IQ. Even good days and bad days don't significantly change your IQ test performance.

However the usual advice of sleeping enough and drinking enough will keep you sharp.

>>9749356
*also more confusingly why did a psych talk to you about intelligence? It's not within our remit at all, im more inclined to believe you met a psychotherapist or counsellor than a medical psychiatrist.

I spend most of my time around A&E, not sitting in an arm chair talking about IQ.

>>9749339
Absolutes are pointless. You have to define "higher".

There is no reliable way we know of to improve IQ in the way you might improve physical strength or some other skill. Is it possible? Yes, with technology we don't have yet. Is there ways to improve the score? To some slight degree but it would not improve all things correlated with that score.

Stephen Ceci, professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University:

>Absolutely. And there's plenty of evidence documenting this.

>An article in November in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues is one example. It had 33 adolescents, who were 12- to 16-years-old when the study started. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then gave them IQ tests again.

>The fluctuations in IQ were enormous. I'm not talking about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points, one way or another. These changes in IQ scores were not random — they tracked very nicely with structural and functional brain imaging. Suppose the adolescent's verbal IQ really went up during that time; it was verbal areas of the brain that changed.

>There are quite a large number of other studies showing IQ can change. Many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in schooling. One way that school increases IQ is to teach children to "taxonimize," or group things systematically instead of thematically. This kind of thinking is rewarded on many IQ tests.

>There's also a number of studies showing that the brain changes after several kinds of regimen. London Taxi drivers whose brains are scanned before and after they start driving, and learning to navigate London's maze of streets, show changes in the brain as they use more navigational skills. Even young adults who take a juggling course show brain changes.

>If you put it all together, and the evidence is quite compelling, that life experiences and school-related experiences change both the brain and IQ. This is true of adults and children.

>>9749378
Link the study. One person can be pretty bias and he seems like a blank slate nut.

>>9749380
>Ceci participated in a task force sponsored by the American Psychological Association that published a report in response to the book The Bell Curve. This controversial book argued that race-based IQ differences are innate, rather than the result of environmental influences or testing errors. Ceci's bioecological theory of intelligence, by contrast, emphasizes the role of culture in shaping intelligence and argues that the intellectual capacities of people in developing countries are frequently underestimated due to cultural biases.

hahahhahahhahah

>>9749356
>Im literally a psychiatrist and i would never say someone can increase their IQ. Even good days and bad days don't significantly change your IQ test performance.
Ask me how I know you're not a psychiatrist.

>>9749378
>IQ test correlate with brain imaging scans

This makes sense. When you learn your brain is physically altered. it'd only make sense that you can train your brain and change it's structure just like a muscle physically grows in size.
>>9749343
>You can train yourself to be better at iq tests but will you actually be smarter? No.
Is there a study proving this or is it just a general assumption?
What if that's wrong? What if training yourself to be better at IQ tests isn't just giving the appearance of increased IQ but is in fact altering your brain structure genuinely increasing IQ?

>>9749378
Since you didn't link it. The study he is referring to is over N=33. A ridiculously small sample size for such an important conclusion.

>>9749406
You won't accept the study no matter how large the sample size is because it attacks your false sense of superiority.

>>9749339
A good diet and exercise can improve cognitive performance.

>>9749339
>IQ
not science

>>9749339
Transhumanism may make it possible one day

Why is it that a rabbit is unable to become as cognitively advanced as a Human? Could be perhaps because of, dare I say Genetics?

typo,*Could it be perhaps because of,

>>9749378
>life experiences and school-related experiences change both the brain and IQ
> is quite compelling
lol.
the absolute state of psychology as science.
its stuck in Medieval

But continuing on using the analogy of a rabbit, can a rabbit learn arithmetic? Can a rabbit study the genealogy of its peers? Can a rabbit read a book? If the answer is no, then why is that? Hypothetically lets say this rabbit had all of its biological needs met, what would be holding it back from cognitively advancing in the fields of mathematics and science?

>>9749534
language you fucking idiot

>>9749540 The answer was GENETICS, but you tried dumb ass.

>>9749540

>>9749339
Probably not

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29276344

>>9749596
kill me please

>>9749412
Ceci the person you quoted is on record saying he thinks subsaharan iq is around 85.

>>9749339
>Can one make IQ higher?
>psychiatrist says yes everyone else no
Whom so ever would say such a thing is intimidated by the intelligence of others. You can learn anything you set your mind to. why could you not increase your intelligence?

>>9749412
Read this.
>>9749390
And tell me he isn´t politically motivated in his "research" and public statements.

>>9749339

If you want to be the next revolutionary scientist you must not be influenced by prior knowledge. Prior knowledge confines your thinking to "in the box", rather than "outside" of it.

IQ doesn't mean much provided you aren't two digit. The difference between 106 IQ and 130 is insignificant.

>>9749718
intelligence is quality, not quantity. either you have intelligence or not.
the idea of measuring intelligence is absurd. you measure anything-memory, knowledgem ability to solve puzzles etc.-but intelligence.

We can change the way we think.
letting go of Emotional responses can broaden your perspective in life.
But it seems to me just like the Prime colors.
You can Broaden your Knowledge base but in the end you might never know more ways to combine it.

>>9749727
The difference between 106 and 130 is very siginficant. You are either ignorant on the subject, or fail to understand the importance of thinking speed.

>>9749732
I had an iq of 146 at age 15. Purely because as a child i was just interested in learning new things and didn't have TV to watch. All that is tested in IQ tests are things that can be learned.
I don't understand why people think you can't increase IQ. Its just an illogical assumption, i mean your forming new neural pathways all the time.

>>9749742
>I don't understand why people think you can't increase IQ
Empirical study on the subject has proven that claim. Your anecdote is utterly worthless in a serious debate.
> Its just an illogical assumption
Why does the majority of the populace behave like imbeciles? Do they all read too little? Are we to cure literal retards by forcing them to do arithmetic and read books?

Your claim is much more absurd than the one you´re attacking and calling false.

>>9749412
Its a N=33 sample size on a study that just requires an IQ test at 3-4 years apart.

Are you not skeptical when you see such stupidly small sample size published like that? It's not an expensive test and the ages of the tests was extremely varied (of the 33, it was from a range of 12-16 year olds).

Every fucking alarm should go up if a simple and low cost study only uses 33 samples all of varying ages. A 16 year old -> 20 year old IQ test is a very different than 12-16 year old, yet they mixed them all together.

It very much shows they just hacked the test to get the result they wanted, possibly doing multiple of these studies and picking the one that had a good p value

>>9749339
Yes; you need to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. But it is possible to not understand Rick and Morty but then be able to understand it later. So it must follow that your IQ increased, so that it is very high but was not very high before.

>>9749339
Science says yes
Idiots on the internet say no

>>9749722
Race science is politically motivated. Liberals desegregated schools and spawned a generation of right wing think tanks.
But seriously anon what's the point of your little IQ crusade? You ignore facts to the contrary and repeat your talking points ad nauseum in thread after thread. But what's the endgame? What do you get when you "win"?

>>9749393
People taking multiple IQ tests have been shown to exhibit little variability of result.

>>9749965
IQ measures your performance at the time of the test. Your score is effected by your mental state, and will fluctuate throughout the day.

>>9749965
Is that why the mere fact of being asked vocabulary questions that weren't in my mother tongue made my WAIS score significantly lower than the other ones?

>>9749339
You can only increase your knowledge.
Not your IQ.

Use basic common sense. Stop being fucking retard science monkey braindead tards.

If we had a way to increase IQ we would be pushing it hugely. The increase in GDP of the higher IQ would be worth huge investments.

Not to mention look at education spending over time worldwide, it's getting higher. Korea would be all 130 IQ if it was about education emphasis.

Fucking, shit, you fucking MORONS.

We would have fucking FACTORIES all tuned ot create these 150 IQ adults if it was environment. Instead we don't. We spend more on education and the reward is literally marginal to nothing.

stop being so fucking stupid and pointing out N=33 cherry picked bullshit. Fuck yourselves.

Trust me, no one is scared of fucking "Optimized Schools" creating endless geniuses, but they are scared of genetic engineering a million einsteins.

>>9750012
If these theores of environment = IQ we would fucking see it. It wouldn't be controversial, it would be fucking trumpeted everywhere. If it was true the entire world would look different. The amount of delusion and stupidity required to think it is, is unbelievable.

Just fucking wait you shitstains. Wait for PGD for intelligence and see what happens. We have had the ability to control environment for at least 50 years to a high degree. We will soon have the ability to control genetics to some degree.

Wait and fucking see which works you fucking retards. we will all hopefully live to see and you monkeys can delude yourself however you want at that point. Although justice would be if you retards jumped off bridges.

>>9749941
>You ignore facts to the contrary
There are no facts to the contrary.
>But seriously anon what's the point of your little IQ crusade?
Crusaders rally around faith, which is not needed to realize that IQ is highly heritable, non-malleable and distributed very unevenly in the population.

>>9750012
take a chill pill

>>9750020
Nah, just no sleep. Don't worry about it.

The big problem with people is they focus entirely on studies when for this scenario there is far more evidence outside of scientific research than within it.

>>9750025
>The big problem with people is they focus entirely on studies when for this scenario there is far more evidence outside of scientific research than within it.
Anecdotes are not evidence.

The big problem is brainletism combined with cognitive dissonance. If you were to have a working brain and a willingness to challenge your dogmatic opposition to the concept or heritability of IQ, we wouldn´t be having this banal conversation.

Here´s a riddle for you: why is it that obviously biased studies (such as the N=33, age range 12-16 one mentioned earlier in the thread) earn your attention, while obvious facts - such as the continual existence of retards who never contribute anything to society, despite years of mandatory public schooling being made available to them at great cost - do not interest you one bit?

>>9749347
But if I can't pretend my 140 IQ makes me smart in spite of the fact that I'm a failure how will I live with myself?

>>9749339
I want to fuck her pusy so bad

>>9750017
i think its logical that IQ is partly environmentally determined but it may not be the factors you expect. It might be alot more subtle and involve factors around health and environmental enrichment during development. I also wonder if non-developmental factors have transient effects on IQ like how much you read or exercise short term - i.e. they arent keeping their brain active enough to work at its most efficient and its sluggish. I do suspect IQ isnt very "trainable" though for long term gains. Maybe only short term with a ceiling affect like i said two sentences above..

>>9749342
This, there's a guy on Belgian TV who increased his IQ from 121 to 126 by preparing himself to take IQ tests

>>9749339
IQ tests measure intelligence.
Some things can really depress your intelligence, like:
malnutrition, disease, not sleeping enough, mental illness, etc. By fixing these things someone can raise their intelligence a lot.
A normal person who does not have the above ailments also can increase their intelligence. You could increase your IQ test score by practicing IQ tests, but I assume that's not what you mean.
https://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ

>>9749339
You can raise your IQ score by a few points, mostly from the least g-loaded subtests. You cannot raise g itself, which is the thing IQ tests attempt to measure.

I.e, you can stretch or shrink the ruler, but that doesn't make your dick any bigger

>>9749406
its actually not low.

>>9749771
Even if different ages the test might be fine depending how they did it. and the majority of psych tests have participants of varying ages.

its not a low cost study. they tracked them for 4 years. it wd be costly to do multiples of this test.

>>9749756
Not that dude but it seems obvious to me that you can increase IQ just using a few logical implications.
IQ comes from intelligence.
Intelligence comes from efficiency of connections in the brain.
The brain is a plastic system (connections can change).
Some brains do not exist in their most efficient configuration, therefore, IQ can increase.

>>9750107
So flawed. You put forward a hypothesis but there are tangible differences in above average intelligence vs normal intelligence in how the brain works.

see
http://news.rub.de/english/press-releases/2018-05-17-neuroscience-smarter-brains-run-sparsely-connected-neurons

Good luck "learning" your way past such biological differences. The genetic influences on intelligence are high and not something we can simply "learn" our way over.

Your example of the brain, as just plastic and about connections is far too simplistic and stupid compared to the complex operations actually going on, of which only a small percentage is influenced by something like practice.

>>9750088
>You could increase your IQ test score by practicing IQ tests, but I assume that's not what you mean.
If that's the case, however, it means almost all "intelligence" data is suspect.

>>9750019
>There are no facts to the contrary.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2901267-X

The posterior hippocampi of average-IQ adult subjects who passed the difficult Knowledge exam for London taxicab drivers showed significant enlargement as opposed to before they began studying for it. The posterior hippocampus is associated with memory and spatial navigation, both of which are strongly correlated with g. Similar effects were not observed in the control group or in those who failed. Pic related.

This was actually a repeat experiment with a larger sample size, i.e. the results are reproducible. You can find the pilot study in the citations. And because all subjects were grown adults, normal brain development did not confound the results.

This is hard evidence that the brain PHYSICALLY restructures itself in response to focused training.
Therefore intelligence, which is a manifestation of the brain's cellular organization, is malleable and can be improved.

>Crusaders rally around faith
Which is what you will now resort to rather than refuting the above article and pic related.

>>9750012
>stop being so fucking stupid and pointing out N=33 cherry picked bullshit. Fuck yourselves.
yet you find yourself convinced by lynn/meisenberg surveys which admitted data from multiple studies with n<10
confirmation bias is an interesting thing. 2 cents has been deposited in your account faggot

>>9750088
sorry, I didn't make myself clear
you can increase your actual intelligence by doing things like n-back and other things that the article talks about.

>>9750098
n-back might be able to increase g
https://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ

>>9750145
You attacked a strawman that was not my position at all. I simply stated that IQ could increase. I did not say there was no difference between average and above average intelligence brains. I did not say there was not a genetic component. I did not say by what amount or that there were not limits. I can't answer the question on what the limits are, neither can you and neither can Steve Smale. I do know that the chance a reconfigurable system with 2^(10^10) possible connections is at its global min/max is nearly zero.

I think your assertion that connections are not the defining property of our brain is incorrect. Are you a biologist by chance? I've noticed most biologist hold this view. They all seem to be searching for some 'special' operation the brain is doing or some 'special' part that will tie everything together while ignoring that the connections between units are enough for complex dynamics to emerge.

>>9750199
I don't wanna do some retarded brain training game 8 hours a day.

Can we just admit it's heavily genetic and that genetic engineering is the future of intelligence. Instead of making it taboo or being scared, start funding huge biobanks for blacks, hispanics or whatever other shit we need to fix humanity.

>>9750237
case A: It doesnt work
Case B: IT does work

If environment people are right it won't even matter if it's tried, we will hit some unknown wall in trying to improve it. Not a bad worse case. If it does work though the environmental sjw fucks are just holding back huge progress and hurting the people they are arguing for.

The genocide threat is unfounded. Stop using it as a fulcrum and instead realize Genomics is going to be too huge and important to bother trying to block progress and studies on it. Right now there is basically no funding or studies going on fo black genetics / bio banks and all the nutcase SJW can cry about is that some fucking scientist said genetics might be important.

get your heads out of your asses already stupid leftist trash

Your fighting is equivalent to commies talking about helping the poor (who then starved to death in the millions). You are not helping the people you are coddling and defending.

>>9750237
Intelligence isn't genetic, my paradise fish simply isn't trying hard enough.

>>9749521
>Transhumanism
*tips*

>>9749347
It's not completely useless but it's not the be-all-end-all like some people make it out to be.

>>9750168
He's lying, practice makes a negligible differencr.

>>9749339
>psychiatrist says yes everyone else no
It's a psychiatric test, so...

Anyone who says "no" is an idiot, and probably has never had an IQ test, and thus doesn't realize how simple they really are.

You can get better at memorizing number sequences, no one denies this. You can get better at organizing patterns on a timer - no one denies you get better at Tetris with practice. In the end, that's all the test ultimately covers, So... Who is this "everyone", other than a few IQ /pol/ fags who would never call psychology "science" in any other circumstance?

Whether you can raise your actual intelligence is another thing, but you can certainly get better at any task that involves intelligence with practice. The brain specializes itself for certain tasks, that's just how learning works.

>>9749402
>Is there a study proving this or is it just a general assumption?
Yes, it's specifically why IQ tests are only valid when taken once a year. You can actually expect a steady rise of ~10 points per day of repeating the test. Granted, you can also expect your IQ results to vary by +/-30pts, even when taken annually. (In my case, personally, I actually have a 41 point spread between three tests over 20 years.)

Goes further than that though, individual IQ varies pretty wildly with what time of day the test is taken, how long since you last ate, what you last ate, and even with who gives the tests. Younger female test givers, for instance, get consistently higher results from their subjects than do older male test givers. (Maybe a matter of intimidation or enthusiasm.)

IQ is just a shit metric in general, and really only useful when comparing huge swaths of population and detecting specific learning disabilities - also for boosting the ego of behaviorally troubled students, which is what they were originally used for in anycase.

>>9749971
Not demonstably, you aren't familiar with what is contained in an IQ test and the way it is taken.

>>9749975
Don't take exams in other languages then you absolute shit case.

>>9749339
Fucking hell. This fucking post. Why is sci so retarded ? Can't you use your greasy little fingers to google it instead of asking anonymous people on a math imageboard?
First fucking link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>9750458
Speaking as someone who gives IQ tests several times a week, separating general special education students from SED students, I can tell you, he's right, and you're wrong. Your physical condition, state of alertness, and emotional state do indeed have severe consequences for your ability to memorize and analyze. IQ tests are not magically excluded from this simple fact, nor in any way designed to compensate for them being one time annual tests. (Unlike say the MPII, not that Myers-Briggs isn't equally bullshit.)

Tests that are randomized and track your progress over time, such as those at Lumosity, on the other hand, might be able to make a claim like that, and probably tell you more about the makeup of your intelligence than an IQ test ever could - but alas, they are not expedient.

>>9750107
We dont know where intelligence comes from mostly.. i think thats a very premature statement.
I think IQ can change but im skeptical of how much IQ training work.
Also if by intelligence we mean this G factor then i doubt doing any particular skill or even set of them repeatedly would have a particularly big long term impact on G. It might improve certain skills and even transfer but not necessarily G.

>>9750145

you could also argue in a different context that environmental influences act the same way.. that in a poor environment (e.g. child raised in isolation in a dark room) there is an essential threshold which cannot be overcome, even with good genetics.

your idea works on the assumption that people are in ideal environmental situations. if they arent then they willl have IQ less than their potential and can improve it potentially. possibly it could inform policy on early education or childcare etc etc.

>>9750107
>The brain is a plastic system (connections can change).
That doesn´t mean that anyone can increase their processing speed by doing arithmetic and solving puzzles.
>Some brains do not exist in their most efficient configuration, therefore, IQ can increase.
You´ve been drinking too much hollywood popsci kool-aid - your brain exists in one configuration and it doesn´t change for the better during your adult life.

>>9750175
>This was actually a repeat experiment with a larger sample size, i.e. the results are reproducible.
The study found IQ "increases" that are negligible enough to be attributable to test subjects being slightly luckier and more focused during the testing.
>This is hard evidence that the brain PHYSICALLY restructures itself in response to focused training.
It doesn´t restructure itself enough to raise make morons average or average folk smart, which is what you´re so desperately trying to "prove" by citing studies of little significance.

>>9750221
>I think your assertion that connections are not the defining property of our brain is incorrect
Neuron signal transmission speed is what dictates whether you end up a garbage man or a world-renowned scientist.
>>9750241
>case A: It doesnt work
That´s the correct conclusion, based on over 70 years of wide-spread public schooling in every western country. No matter what the state does, a majority of the populace remain simple-minded, which results in asinine policy decisions and, ultimately, a world built to cater to the lowest common denominator.

>>9750474
> Your physical condition, state of alertness, and emotional state do indeed have severe consequences for your ability to memorize and analyze.
Slight tiredness will not result in a significanly lower (i.e. over a standard deviation lower) score.

>Tests that are randomized
IQ tests are randomized, you lying faggot. You´ve never administered nor taken an IQ-test, have you?
>and track your progress over time
Tracking progress defeats the entire purpose of an IQ-test, which is to gauge a person´s ability to solve problems on the spot, without preparation.

>>9750199
the evidence here is extremely mixed. transfer seems to be low and performance on these tests is very noisy individually.

interestingly, the latent cognitive factor thought to underly possibly most of the meaningful n-back performance (atleast spatially) was found to be 100% genetic.

they found IQ to be 75%
on twin studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762790/

>>9750371
irrelevant.

>>9749339
many iq puzzles has same underlying structure. if you know they made you can solve them very easy.

And in this is how you bait the most pretentious side of /sci/

>>9750764
>Slight tiredness will not result in a significanly lower (i.e. over a standard deviation lower) score.
You can expect several deviations just by changing the color of the room, and any large study always involves such, fairly predictably, based on the time of day the tests are administered over time, which some try to compensate for. Unlike some other tests, there are no mechanisms to avoid this effect.

Further, you can also expect several deviations each year the test is administered to the same individual, and not always in the same direction. The best you can get out of an IQ test is a "ballpark" figure.

>IQ tests are randomized
Randomizing the selection of numbers or patterns is not a "randomized test", and as it's an annual test, such variant randomization is meaningless to the subject, unlike the others mentioned, which randomize the type of tests. (Plus, with some IQ test kits, you're looking at 3-12 options on the same part of some tests.)

>Tracking progress defeats the entire purpose of an IQ-test, which is to gauge a person´s ability to solve problems on the spot, without preparation.
No, it's to gauge specific processing deficiencies and aptitudes in short order, where a longer term test would give you a more complete and more nuanced picture. Most people have had preparation, as all variants involve tasks commonly employed in education from a young age (though the variants are there to help prevent fraud).

The old reaction tests suffered from a lot of the same issues, and were less nuanced, but all in all, much more objective. There are other tests that provide much more in-depth analysis and avoid many of these issues, but they aren't as easy to apply quickly and on large scales. IQ tests are, however, bottom of the barrel, the "quick and dirty" of intelligence tests.

Sadly, the most objective test I've ever heard of, a neurological test, can only be used on the dead.

>>9750806
That immigrant Cat is an Animal!

>>9750842
>Most people have had preparation, as all variants involve tasks commonly employed in education from a young age (though the variants are there to help prevent fraud).

where does the line go from merely practise to an environmental influence on G?

desu regardless of the variability, its known that IQ measures G to some significant degree. The question of improving it is irrelevant to the extraneous factors.

>>9750444
>It's not completely useless

No, it's misleading. It's misinformation. Which makes is WORSE AND MORE DANGEROUS THAN USELESS!! If it were just useless like phrenology then it'd be OK. But people actually believe IQ is an accurate measure "sometimes" and believe that "sometimes" just means it has an acceptable margin or error, when really it means it's just pseudoscience.

perfect is the enemy of good

Too many leftist shitbrain monkey arguments in here that the best and most valid measure we have right now is not absolutely perfect.

>>9750982
IQ is not the best nor the most valid measure of individual intelligence - it is indeed, amongst the worst. In terms of objectivity, pretty much the worst of all intelligence tests. It's just among the most convenient and most easily administered, that gives you a more complex and useful answer than simple reaction time, while still giving you a single number to brag about.

Thus, like so many things in psychology, it's popular because it's quick, simple, and stupid, with just enough illusion of authority behind it to make it sound good. More complex tests are more expensive and time consuming, and more objective tests are either too simple or involve expensive neurological procedures that can't be done on the fly by psychology undergrads.

>>9751032
See I didn't read your reply. I just glanced at the words and explanations.

They are stupid. We will see soon. The genetics side of the argument is soon going to have tangible tools to alter said aspect. GWAS, PGD, designer baby type of shit.

We will soon (lots of years but soon relative to history) have the ability to change our side of the argument in reality.

Let's simply look at how well genomics works, instead of arguing. As you should know, biobank and genetic sequencing is heavily european, I've seen as high as 87% in recent past. Meaning your argument and skepticism while defending minorities like a true SJW virtue signaller, is NOT helping them get sequencing and GWAS information.

So basically when your dumb shit-filled brain awakes in 10 years to reality, you will see the lack of GWAS info on blacks/hispanics and kill yourself hopefully, because your skepticism and making it taboo is why such things didn't happen.

LEADING TO MORE INEQUALITY THAN OTHERWISE

all because you dumbfucks can't admit reality might work how it actually fucking does.

>muh goddamn plastic brain

YOU HAD CONTROL OVER ENVIRONMENT FOR DECADES NOW

WAIT TILL WE HAVE CONTROL OVER GENETICS YOU STUPID FUCK WATCH!

>>9751055
Why enrage?

Why get mad?

BECAUSE I HAVE PREDICTIVE POWER YOU DUMB FUCKING BRAINLETS

IF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS TECHNOLOGY AND WHAT IT MEANS

THEN SEE FUCKING ABSOLUTE RETARD SJW TELLING YOU BULLSHIT

THEN REALIZE THE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY, THE INCREASE MURDERS, THE LOWER ECONOMIC OUTCOMES, THE NEEDLESS SUFFERING,

YES GWAS ON BLACKS IS GONNA LEAD TO GENOCIDE

BETTER NOT SEQUENCE THEM
BETTER NOT FUND THIS "EUGENICS"

MEANWHILE NIGERIA HAS 2,000 DOLLARS INCOME A PERSON

FUCK OFF SJW

BE SCIENTIFIC AND DOUBT YOUR FUCKING CONCLUSIONS ESPECIALLY WITH THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SHIT AND HUGE BIAS TOWARDS WANTING IT TO BE HOW THINGS WORK

I am going to spend my energy fighting against genomics and GWAS.

Instead of trying to get the technology as widespread as possible. When it's only available to the elite and Chinese that will be a really good outcome. It's not like genetics can effect intelligence so I'm totally safe.

>this is what brainlets strategize

Even basic fucking 80 IQ game theory would tell you how stupid this idea is. It's like saying "Well nuclear weapons probably won't work so lets not invest in that", which is what politicians thought during WW2 and had to begged to let scientists do it. Do you not have any fucking doubt that maybe, just maybe you might be fucking shit up by demonizing genomics and the other side?

I mean, what benefit to society or humanity's future would black GWAS be? Why would we want to distribute this technology more? NO, lets fucking demonize and scratch and claw against it while underfunding it so it EXCLUSIVELY goes to the rich.

>>9749339
I think so. According to tests every few years, my IQ was significantly growing during whole education. I think it might be because I was doing tons of math and programming back then, basically occupying my whole free time.

>>9749342
>>9749343
That wouldn't increase your IQ. It's cheating, just like cheating on exams doesn't increase your knowledge or skills.

>>9749732
It just werks. That's all that matter.

>>9749339
>Can one make IQ higher?
one can certainly make it lower

>>9751055
Not even defending the SJW shit - everyone knows niggers are stupid - don't really need science to tell you this. Even if you wanted to use science for that, for some reason, there's a thousand better methods, most of which involve sciences more objective than psychology.

It's also a stupid way to prove you yourself are smart - you'd be amazed how many homeless MENSA members there are (albeit, in part, as it doesn't measure wisdom or emotional stability either). The owners of the Fortune 500 have below average IQ for their race and economic status. Poor undereducated blacks have a higher average IQ than poor undereducated whites. Phone operators in the 70's almost universally scored supra genius levels, cuz memorizing numbers and plugging in patterns is all they did all day. Folks defending IQ as some sorta magical sacred standard, when your performance in half the video games on the market could tell you more about your intellect, and there are hundreds of better more thorough and objective tests, just ticks me off no end.

And really, the only reason folks defend it, is either because it told them that they were smart, or told them some group they hate is stupid - that's a shit standard for scientific validity.

>>9751074
How low can it possibly go?

>>9751076
This argument is stupid

>wahhhh IQ isn't everything on an individual level
I can just smell your low IQ wafting off your post. There have been enough posts in this thread about it. Your autistic arguments against IQ validity are equivalent to autistic people in WW2 complaining about how the hydrogen bomb could exist so the atomic bomb is really a bad weapon.

If you come up with a better, more convenient measure for intelligence then go ahead fuckface. Till then IQ is good enough and works amazingly as you increase the number of people, aka on an individual it's okay, but when we are talking predicting outcomes of a million people it works amazingly.

>>9751088
Reaction time is more objective and more convenient, but it doesn't give you hints towards specific learning disabilities. Beyond that, yes, IQ is hard to beat for quick and dirty. Not saying it isn't without its uses, but it breaks down in a lot of areas, and shouldn't be defended as objective by anyone, simply because it's telling them what they want to hear in some instances.

It's a lot like measuring overall health by BMI, and claiming that's the end-all-be-all measurement of health. Not many would defend that, but /sci/ will defend IQ tests as absolute truth all day, while simultaneously putting up 100,000 posts as to why psychology isn't science.

>>9751112
>simply because it's telling them what they want to hear in some instances
Always found it a bit odd how /pol/ defends IQ so vehemently, despite the fact that it doesn't even put Aryans in the top 4 most intelligence races. It also doesn't put the variety of African Americans that make up the majority of the US blacks in the bottom 4.

It puts some Jews pretty close to the top, but I guess the idea that they are stupid doesn't really fit their ideology. I guess maybe they mean to say only those with average IQ should be allowed to survive, and everyone else is either savage or machiavellian.

>>9751127
wow you really made an amazing point, especially when it comes to countries with hundreds of millions of people.

>>9751112
wrong

>>9750107
>Intelligence comes from efficiency of connections in the brain.
There's all kinds of brain activity though, and most of it is distracting. Caffeine reduces bloodflow to the brain but helps you focus. I'd imagine you're oversimplifying things.

>>9749339
>taking psychiatry seriously

>>9751055

dude what you dont take into account though is that genes are pleiotropic and ones associated with intelligence are associated with myriad other traits. plus gene effects are probably related to their genetic environment - the other genes they exist with and interact with. maybe we will be able to change to some extent but there large risks in that genetic effects are going to be non-linear and just plugging in and out genes may have lots of unanticipated side effects on cognition.

youre also a fucking idiot.

>>9751032
what are these tests youre talking about that are more complex? and neurological? im unaware of any neurlogical indices of intelligence. im confused because most of these indices would probably be derived from iq correlations right?

i also think theres conceptual reasons why iq tests are used in terms of factor analysis. i would also be skeptical in saying that iq and processing speed measure the exact same thing even if they correlate.

>>9751076
>The owners of the Fortune 500 have below average IQ for their race and economic status.
What is this supposed to mean? Surely you lumpe together all the stockholders and calculated their average IQ? I can assure you that no F500 company was started and led to prosperity by an averagely gifted person.
> Phone operators in the 70's almost universally scored supra genius levels, cuz memorizing numbers and plugging in patterns is all they did all day.
They didn´t become geniuses at work, you imbecile; rather - assuming that your claim is at all factual - their employment as phone operators can be explained by the slightly worse access to higher education in the 70s, which mayt have prompted many intelligent people into the most demanding non-academic jobs.
>Folks defending IQ as some sorta magical sacred standard, when your performance in half the video games on the market could tell you more about your intellect, and there are hundreds of better more thorough and objective tests, just ticks me off no end.
What makes you think you´re in the right and the FBI/CIA/top corporations/armed forces/academia are in the wrong? These institutions have very important reasons to screen job applicants/recruits for giftedness.

>And really, the only reason folks defend it, is either because it told them that they were smart, or told them some group they hate is stupid - that's a shit standard for scientific validity.
Wrong, you utter brainlet. The scientific consensus on IQ is very clear: it is a useful measure for gauging an individual´s capacity for abstract thinking.

You sound like a double-digit IQ troglodyte who failed to make the cut while applying to an institution that values non-morons.

>>9751720
>>9751670
low iq post

Your assumptions can be tested by analyzing existing examples. Just look at existing high IQ people and their life outcomes. What do we notice? They have better life outcomes, live longer, etc on average.

Your low IQ shit about "oh god it's going to create monsters" is insane. literally insane.

Taking a PGS and choosing a higher IQ (probability) embryo has literally no negative side effects.

Add in the fact the screening also removes health risks and complications and you get it.

I seriously can't stand such low IQ fucks like you who make up 1 possible downside, with no thorough inspection, and act like you discovered some amazing thing that no one thought of.

>>9752249
didn't mean to quote
>>9751720

Was responding to the tired and lame argument "oh god the complications though!!!"

They don't accept the reality a PGS-based embryo selection is actually healthier than a natural one.

It's always shocking to me that shitbrains like >>9751670 exist. People who really have mediocre thought patterns and spew retarded incoherent theories.

In their world we would see deformed fuck ups in about half of babies with all sorts of monstrous 30 IQ mistakes because oh god genetics is so prone to failure.

Their "intellectual" theories fail the most basic common sense inspection. It's actually downright pathetic but comforting to know such arguments will not exist if we move up +30 IQ avg some day. The only great comfort is knowing such thought patterns have no future and that the future will not be defined by such moronic shit. As the natural competitive drive of humanity thankfully forces society to accept genomic intervention or the society dies. As a society that does do genomics and accept them rightfully commences with darwinistic forces against them.

Natural birth uses the amazingly safe methodology of pure fucking chance. In such a system of pure chance the combinations expressed must be safer than choice.

So let's eliminate all known genetic disease and choose for healthiest embryo

If we do the above, it's definitely going to have a higher chance of genetic disease and defect than random. Once we eliminate certain bad possibilities from being "rolled" and the chance of a good outcome increases.

Then if we do the same for intelligence, removing known bad choices and weighting the dice to results associated with high IQ, we of course must have more bad outcomes too, right?

Why? Because genetics are complicated.

No Further explanation needed. I can just state "Well lots of shit might happen and even though your association studies show these improved outcomes in actual examples, and that you eliminate huge genetic disease risks, well "Unanticipated effects" might happen.

NO, I won't admit that pure random natural birth has the EXACT same or HIGHER likelihood of bad results. Instead, "May have bad results" is enough of an argument.

>>9749515

Who would want to play craps or roulette when you are allowed to place the dice down or place the ball down where you want?

DONT YOU FUCKING KNOW YOU COULD FUCK UP.

Jeez, fucking retards, I'm going to be natural and roll the ball instead of placing it down on the number I just bet on. Wouldn't want to mess up God's Plan by influencing things.

I bet no one involved in genomics or genetic engineering thought of this yet.

What if something went wrong?

So of course we can't ever do it. Wait you want an explanation of why? Well, it's complicated, see.

Horrifying example

Someone gets a PGD result and has to choose an embryo. The absolutely insane lad chooses based on astrology readings, picking #4.

Oh fuck, this is a disaster, he used a completely nonsensical method to choose his embryo. It must be such a disastrous risk as compared to natural birth.

IQ. A known metric with strong predictive power and well studied correlation with all sorts of outcome probabilities.

Genetic Engineering / Embryo Selection. Applying intelligence to embryo creation versus using a random process.

The strangest thing about this thread is that it's not 70 IQ religious people going "Durr God's plan". Instead it's relatively average or so intelligence people opposing it with terrible arguments amounting to outright denial and weak arguments with no evidence behind them.

The worst part is that a thorough intellectual pursuit into the subject would arrive almost anyone 90 IQ or higher to see the positive aspects of these things. Instead the leftist thought bubble creates these officially backed "explanations" of why IQ doesn't matter despite being a working predictive function that out performs whatever else they put against it. That genomics is already coming to conclusions through GWAS into intelligence as well and technology exists to put it into practice.

It's bizarre the intellectual cowardice of leftists at this point in time to cling to such braindead and mentally broken thought patterns as they do.

The first point of disgust is that the intellectual institutions created these mind-prisons on purpose. That they would not understand the huge problem ahead of time of putting into practice extreme lysenkoism to protect against something that wouldn't have happened.

It's just insanely bizarre and disgusting. The greatest outcome would be that a contrarian society such as China utilizes such technology to gain a massive edge and destroys them just like Communist Russia was destroyed.

I really doubt that outcome happens but it seems the just one. That or at least a complete wipe-out of everyone responsible in these instiutions.

The actual degree of the sickness is beyond acceptable and the harm it does is comparable to high crimes.

IQ is not equal to intelligence. It's a test which correlates with actual intelligence, but it's not the same.
Would you say someone who has an IQ of 150 but can't speak is intelligent? What about people who play 7 different instruments perfectly but suck at math? There is no universal definition of intelligence. IQ only tests a certain subset.

>>9751127
so basically /pol/ have nuanced views and aren't the boogeymen you make them out to be. good job dickhead

>>9752423
having a good IQ doesnt mean you cant be good at somethings and bad at others, despite misperception it doesnt actual measure an overarching measure of intelligence. it measures general intelligence. a cognitive factor which contributes to performance universally. but this doesnt mean that it accounts for all the variance of those skills. it just measures a shared intelligence or general mental ability.

>>9750766
>they found IQ to be 75% on twin studies.
You're confusing "what can be done" with "what is".

75% heritability of IQ in the USA today. It's not some universally true fact. Go to Africa, the heritability is lower because the range of environments is more extreme, you have things like war, famine, etc.

If we forced every second baby in the USA to drink mercury the heritability of IQ in the USA would drop a lot, because you now have this huge environmental effect on IQ.
But babies aren't drinking mercury.

And similarly, people aren't doing n-back. Or more accurately an insignificant number of people are doing n-back. So to say "IQ is 75% heritable in the USA" or whatever to claim that n-back is not effective doesn't make any sense.

>>9752261
i didnt say anything about what you think i said. you literally just read what you want to hear and youre not hear for debate. youre a troll.

and desu if you knew anything about science, youd know common sense doesnt cut it. which is why your posts come off as such dogma. its not even that youre necessarily wrong, youre just a dick and you refuse to consider there might be some environmental input to IQ and desu none of your arguments are any good for it.

I did post a study where they found IQ had 75% heritability.

And desu even if we increase peoples IQs theres gna be a ceiling effect. there will still be massive competition for jobs and many people will be overqualified for some which dont even need a high IQ. i guess youd wna try manipulate genetically other traits too like conscientiousness and neuroticism etc?

>>9752320
are you drunk?

>psychiatrist says yes
Bitch, when?

>>9752624
yes im aware that heritability heavily depends on the population you use and heritability doesnt speak to the malleability of a trait either. that last point is one ive thought myself before.

theres lots of mixed evidence in n-back studies in general. transfer seems to be very small and thats what id expect. i wdnt expect a small task like that to have such an effect on a very broad cognitive variable.

one thing id ask is the practicality of your point. we are discussing training. yes there may be environmental factors in iq but it doesnt mean n-back training necessarily works or atleast works all the time (it might be very context dependent). i also feel alot of those studies might not be very useful unless they can demonstrate that any transfer has an effect in peoples every day lives too.

>>9751670
>im confused because most of these indices would probably be derived from iq correlations right?
Unless you're in a situation where it's the only measure on record, no, you'd never use IQ test results in that fashion. IQ tests are for broad samplings and convenience, they are not deeply analytical. You might use an IQ test to find candidates for such a study, but not to find correlations with more comprehensive intelligence tests. That'd be akin to correlating BMI with upper body tensile strength and distribution - it might correlate some, but tells you nothing, and thus the correlation simply becomes a footnote.

More complex and comprehensive methods are usually reserved for studying individuals over time - most often problem youth, but also trauma or brain injury survivors. In such situations, you'd only use the IQ and reaction tests for a vague surface read (and, in the case of problem youth, to assure them they are smarter than they think). Then you go into more intensive batteries such as WIAT-III, Sternberg's various crystallized and Raven's fluidic intelligence tests, Woodcock–Johnson's comprehensive batteries, and likely couple that with MMPI, MDQ, HPD, GAD, etc. in an effort to discover underlying mental disorders.

Most IQ tests are for expedience only.

>im unaware of any neurlogical indices of intelligence.
I'm a psychologist, not a neurologist, so I can only speak to what I've read, but when comparing brains donated by extremely renowned individuals (such as Einstein or Oppenheimer), to those less successful and otherwise considered average, there's a very strong correlation with the number of neural inter-connections to glial cell ratios. I suppose one might be able to use such an objective test on the living via FMRI, but that isn't cheap nor convenient.

>>9751670
>i would also be skeptical in saying that iq and processing speed measure the exact same thing even if they correlate.
Reaction tests do have the advantage that they are unaffected by education and less affected by occupation, but, while there are some variants that can test spatial recognition, they don't measure memory or crystallization, so they are short at least one category that most IQ tests do cover. I suppose, back in the day, IQ tests were more convenient, as most reaction tests involved a fragile or electronic device, though these days you can just use a smartphone ap.

>>9752742
im pretty sure those tests you mentioned are all under the classification of IQ tests apart from the ones you mentioned which are personality tests if i searched them right.
wiat im sure has been commonly used to assess iq in studies.

im not sure u cd get a single, clean comprehensive index from fmri though there are correlates that have been looked at but then again these are correlated with IQ tests usually so if you dont think the tests are any good then the results arent. i imagine theres several if not many many structural or physiological correlates of intelligence. i guess the problem with postmortem is you cant link structure and function.

>>9752746
ive said this before but how can you tell when education has been a genuine environmental contributor to G and when it is a confound?

>>9751072
>It's cheating, just like cheating on exams doesn't increase your knowledge or skills.
Yeah This is why I always skip every lecture and all the homework and only go to the final exam. Going to class and learning the material is cheating.

>>9751720
>They didn´t become geniuses at work, you imbecile
They didn't become geniuses at all, they just got really good at memorizing numbers and solving simple patterns, thus fsking with the IQ test. They were mostly women, and largely ethnic from poor backgrounds, as this was considered a job of simple rote repetition. Occupations and hobbies of this sort dramatically affect IQ test scores, but not intelligence, which is core to its limitations.

>What makes you think you´re in the right and the FBI/CIA/top corporations/armed forces/academia are in the wrong?
You aren't getting into any of these positions on IQ alone, even if you've the highest on record, and similarly, if your academic standing is grand, and your IQ mediocre, it's not going to affect your chances at such a position.

>The scientific consensus on IQ is very clear: it is a useful measure for gauging an individual´s capacity for abstract thinking.
IQ doesn't measure abstract thinking AT ALL. It measures memory and pattern recognition, with only some of the more sophisticated variants testing verbal comprehension. For abstract thinking, you use conceptual reasoning and lateral reasoning tests, which no IQ tests covers, even though a lot of Compositor tests include IQ test elements. You'll sometimes see elements of these on web pages claiming to test IQ, but they do not appear in Stanford–Binet/Cattell, the most commonly used IQ tests and the MENSA standard.

>>9752764
Ideally, to measure potential intelligence, you'd have a test that wasn't affected by previous experience. It may be education does indeed increase G, but your goal may be to determine raw potential, without the need to capture subjects at birth.

I suppose, as genetics are better understood, we might one day have a better test for that which does not involve interaction with the subject at all. Most psychological tests, however, are highly contaminated by the subject's history, and this probably holds true for some neurological tests as well, and thus they don't really test raw potential, so much as they read potential from the point of testing onward.

There's no doubt that learning affects comprehension however (indeed, evidence points towards abstract reasoning itself being acquired rather than innate, as demonstrated by langueless individuals and the very young being incapable of said), so there's quite some debate as to whether it's at all useful to even look for raw potential G at the biological level. It would, however, aid in determining where to focus efforts - but so do many already readily available factors.

>>9752776
Well apparently IQ correlates quite robustly with abstract reasoning tasks so...

>memory and pattern recognition
youve made this up. never seen this anywhere. even so why cant pattern recognition be part of intelligence? careful not to reduce intelligence to a mysterious homunculus.

>>9752814
>even so why cant pattern recognition be part of intelligence
It is... Who said it isn't? If you think IQ tests don't test memory and pattern recognition, you've never had one.

And only verbal sections of IQ tests correlate well with abstract reasoning tests. Folks who have a lower overall IQ due to scoring poorly on memory, often accel at conceptual/lateral reasoning tests - and visa versa.

Not saying IQ tests are useless, only that they are not the end-all-be-all of intelligence tests and don't test what you think they do.

>>9752811
well desu you dont necessarily want to study raw potential or genotype in psychological and especially neurological tests. but it certainly would have predictive value.

Every cognitive faculty is affected by environment in some sense but when looking at the hereditary of individual differences, they are concealed when you have homogenous environmental influences in the population.

>>9752824
i want a scientific assessment of what iq measures, not common sense or intuition.

>>9749339
If you could everyone would have an IQ f plus infinity

>>9752889
There's a lot of different IQ tests, but the standards are memory and pattern recognition, usually tied to time. Some of the more elaborate ones test fluid reasoning (usually verbal only), or even academic stuff, like vocabulary.

A typical test might go like so:
>Arrange blocks to match image (timed)
>Recite the following series of random numbers (each set larger than the last until 3 consecutive fails)
>Determine which of these objects completes this series of images (timed)
...and so on and so forth.

It's psychology, so there's no "scientific assessment" somuchas there is a lot of debate, but the goal is usually to detect specific learning disabilities and aptitudes. Like most things in psychology, it's not meant to be an absolute end until itself, so much as open opportunities for further analyses.

>>9752814
>abstract reasoning tasks
'no'
anyone who knows basics of how ai works, both strong and weak, knows that the 'intelligence' is generally defined by the ability to recognize patterns. any iq test can be boiled down to finding a pattern, wether its 'which word fits' or 'wich puzzle piece matches' or 'which number is next'.
> they are not the end-all-be-all of intelligence test
nobody claimed that. they still are great to detect cognitive ability and categorize people.

also to the dude who said that iq cant be trained;
i took the iq test on mensa.no 4 times now, scored 128, 135, 139 and 141 in that order, so you can add that to the 'useless anecdote' part i guess. someone who took the sam e test multiple times, read through the correct answers and therefore had a chance to get into the 'style' of these questions will perform better than someone who didnt do that, why is that so hard to understand?

There is evidence of a massive Flynn effect in Cap Hornian africans(Eritreans, Ethiopians, Somalis etc) that were adopted or are 2nd generation immigrants that their IQ was 20-30 points higher on average than from their own country, so yes it's possible. But it's mostly dependent of the environment that an infant is growing up in.

>>9749339
>129 posts

Oh well. Yes, psychostimulants and cholinergics. That's literally it. Disregard the rest of this thread.
>iodine, tyrosine, allicin, b-complex, antioxidants
>caffeine, amphetamine
>galantamine, memantine

>>9752939
what do you mean by it measures memory though? something that requires memory doesn mean its testing or is sensitive to memory which i dont think the iq tests are.

and you could argue that pattern recognition is a crucial part of cognitive ability. i dont see why it devalues it at all. abstract reasoning can be argued as essentially pattern recognition.

but i originally meant i wanted a consensus from psychology of what kind of construct IQ tests measure and my point is that there isnt one. youre using intuition to categorise what IQ tests measure. and i think its dangerous to intuit because sometimes intuition is wrong. maybe you could say iq tests can be broadly or vaguely described as pattern recognition but then why isnt that intelligence or why isnt it tapping into it.

>>9752972
no? its not my opinion, its statistical findings from psych papers. and again i would argue abstract reasoning is essentially pattern recognition unless you can give me a better definition...

practising and getting better at an IQ test isnt the same as improving your G factor.

>>9750741
>The study found IQ "increases" that are negligible enough to be attributable to test subjects being slightly luckier and more focused during the testing.
You didn't even read the study and you're trying to dismiss it as insignificant?
The study found, via fMRI, an increase in grey matter in the area of the brain responsible for spatial processing. Only the ones who studied enough to pass the test showed the increase.

>It doesn´t restructure itself enough to raise make morons average or average folk smart
Now you're introducing some arbitrary degree to the discussion? Leave the goalposts where they started, please. Everyone who participated in the study started at the same place: an average IQ of about 100.

The facts are what they are. What we have is physically observable, causally-linked, reproducible evidence of the malleability of the device responsible for intelligence. Are you going to now argue that brain structure is not correlated with intelligence? Perhaps you are the desperate one here.

>>9753058
>its statistical findings from psych papers
... aaand no sources. if some plebs who wrote some papers think that iq tests need 'abstract reasoning' who am i to question that, right?
>i would argue abstract reasoning is essentially pattern recognition unless you can give me a better definition
to complete an iq test you dont even need to 'reason', no one can prevent you from picking an option at random, or just 'learn' the answers to do well. i wont give a better definition 'abstract reasoning' can be a placeholder for anything.
>practising and getting better at an IQ test isnt the same as improving your G factor.
sure, but that was not my point. if you do better in iq test due to practicing, your score will be higher, higher score means higher intelligence. whatever intelligence is supposed to be^^

>>9749347
They're not a terrible metric, they test your ability to spot patterns in novel information. Which is pretty close to what people colloquially define as "intelligence". It's also highly correlated with just about every metric of success there is. Of course it's not fucking everything - other factors exist - and high IQ fuck-ups as well as low-IQ success stories exist, but it's damn near the best predictor there is, and it presents what is essentially a barrier of entry to many highly intellectually taxing tasks.

Nobody with an IQ of 80 has ever or will ever make a breakthrough in theoretical physics. The main reason people are so butthurt over IQ tests is because it kills the "you can be anything you want if you try hard enough" lie. We aren't blank slates. Some people are simply genetically superior to you and me in every single way. Neither of us will be remembered in 200 years.

>>9749378
>school related
oh wow human brains aren't wholly mature until about 25 years of age in males

How about you
1) link the study (which probably has a very low n-count if he's talking about 20+ fluctuations)
2) do an actual correlation analysis between environmental and hereditary factors on the individuals, rather than comparing their relative rankings at various stages of mental development

>>9753097
>They're not a terrible metric, they test your ability to spot patterns in novel information. Which is pretty close to what people colloquially define as "intelligence".
Seems like a rather incomplete definition considering a brainless LISP script now performs above average on Raven's
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-ai-world-humans.html
>"The model performs in the 75th percentile for American adults, making it better than average," said Northwestern Engineering's Ken Forbus. "The problems that are hard for people are also hard for the model, providing additional evidence that its operation is capturing some important properties of human cognition."

>The main reason people are so butthurt over IQ tests
The reason people are butthurt over IQ tests is because their flawed results are selectively used as a weapon.
>Some people are simply genetically superior to you and me in every single way.
And here you unwittingly show the real reason brainlets cling to muh IQ.
Their crabs in a bucket mentality and their need to be absolved of any guilt for their own lack of achievement.

>>9753049
>what do you mean by it measures memory though?
>Recite the following series of random numbers (each set larger than the last until 3 consecutive fails)
Usually involves a series of numbers of differing numbers of digits (up to 7, on the one I give out). There are others that involve nonsensical words of various sylobyl length.

It doesn't test long term memory, but memory capacity, and it's key to the IQ test and its function of detecting learning disabilities, making up about a third of your IQ score.

Psychologists advocate adding abstract reasoning to IQ tests, specifically because they don't generally contain said. You might define abstract reasoning as visual pattern recognition, but psychologists do not. There needs to be a sequence, and again, while a lot of online IQ tests contain that sorta thing, the certified standard tests do not. (Even then, those online tests generally only contain lateral reasoning, not conceptual.)

Psychologists also advocate for conceptual abstract reasoning, such as place-and-placement of self within a context and compartmentalization of memory of actors in hypotheticals. For instance, If you show a very young child a storyboard, where Sally leaves her doll in a box, exits the room, and then Sam comes in while she is gone and moves her doll to another box, then ask the child, "In which box will Sally look for her doll?", children under a certain age will almost invariably answer incorrectly, as will many individuals who learned language late in life. Even individuals entirely incapable of this sort of abstract conceptual reasoning may accel lateral reasoning, and including such tests would allow for a greater range of learning disabilities to be detected in a single go, rather than requiring a separate battery.

>>9753078
if you cant define abstract reasoning or even reason then why are you arguing. desu looking at the iq questions, they dont seem specifically memorizeable to me unless you repeat the same iq test - even if its based on knowledge gained in the past. and i imagine that shouldnt apply so much to fluid intelligence.


infact fluid intelligence iq tasks seem to be very similar to many reasoning tests in psychology and id argue that most reasoning tests in psychology are abstract. and the link seems to be well accepted in the literature.

>no one can prevent you from picking an option at random, or just 'learn' the answers to do well.
applies to any abstract reasoning test too

>higher score means higher intelligence.
not necessarily. IQ tests only correlate with G by .5. there are other contributing factors to the test, some of which can be practise and also other cognitive skills.

>>9753170
Unrelated question from a different anon. How do you measure the intelligence of a gifted child with low processing speed but high abstract reasoning abilities, or one that is gifted with a learning disability?

If given extra time they may score in the 130-140+ range but otherwise in the 90-100 range. These are people that would score very high in the raven matrix part but low in parts like image related >>9752939 due to time pressures.

>>9749450
This.
Add a good night's sleep to that.
Still not going to make one smarter though, just running at your peak.

>>9753078
theres actually loads of sources out there linking reasoning and intelligence but 4chan keeps thinking im spamming so i give up.

>>9749378
>>9753101
so true, would like to see study name/link.

>>9753170

>It doesn't test long term memory, but memory capacity.
i guess working memory shows strong connections to fluid intelligence.

>There needs to be a sequence
not necessarily. not explicitely atleast. fluid intelligence tests are very similar to reasoning tests used in neuroscience/psychology.

your sally thing is considered "theory of mind" which is not the same thing as reasoning in the psychological literature and infact relies on different brain systems whilst reasoning brain systems seem to be shared with intelligence and executive function.

>>9753212
depends how you personally are defining intelligence but G seems to be a coherent latent variable in the literature. IQ tests load onto it but not 100%. if you can invent a test that does then thats your answer.

>>9753202
>if you cant define abstract reasoning or even reason
i never said that i cant, i said that i wont.
recognizing a pattern can either be trained or subconcious / inuitive. reasoning is somewhat the opposite of that since reasoning always requires active thought, reasoning is a process of active thinking (in a somewhat normed way). didnt think i had get so specific on that one.
>looking at the iq questions, they dont seem specifically memorizeable to me unless you repeat the same iq test
its not about memorizing the questions, but the approach on how to solve the questions which doesnt differ a lot from typical iq test questions.
>>higher score means higher intelligence.
>not necessarily
but generally speaking thats true, the fact that the argumentation appears flawed when picking out samples doesnt refute my point
>IQ tests only correlate with G by .5
cool, and that means exactly nothing.
btw i wouldnt trust statistics made from anyone whos in the 'social science' field, since people there have generally little to no understanding of mathematics, based not only on my personal experience, but a quick look in any 'science magazine' of that kind and especially how there statistics are used in argumentation, will reveal insight to you.

>>9753212
Part of the problem is that standardized IQ tests are much simpler than the on-line IQ tests hint at - to use the colloquial, a literal retard should be able to correctly solve any of the puzzles presented in them, given enough time. Hence the timer. Not all parts are timed, however (at least not in any test I've seen), though the spatial and recognition segments generally are. Some advocate hiding timers to reduce pressure, but most kits include a stopwatch.

There are other tests that don't involve timers, but they generally aren't certified. They nonetheless can sometimes point to specific learning faults and gifts in more nuanced ways and are thus employed quite often. Some tests take place over several weeks in multiple sessions, rather than once annually, like the standard IQ tests, and thus provide much more accurate and nuanced information. The standard IQ tests, again, are the way they are for expedience, not accuracy or depth - but still give you a bit more information than a reaction test.

>>9753259
>i wouldnt trust statistics made from anyone whos in the 'social science' field
You do realize what field IQ statistics fall under, yes?

>>9753259
youve dichotomized it way too much. reasoning is still recognition or the inference of a pattern. just more abstract. and if going by your way, then many iq items resemble reasoning alot more than pattern recognition. also you

>but generally speaking thats true, the fact that the argumentation appears flawed when picking out samples doesnt refute my point
yes higher iq test score means higher intellligence but it will over or underestimate it. like i said, IQ correlated with G by .5. i dont get your reasoning on it. because >if you do better in iq test due to practicing, your score will be higher, higher score means higher intelligence..< this doesnt make sense

>cool, and that means exactly nothing.
why does it mean nothing. and your prejudice is stupid. factor analysis was pioneered in the social sciences and ive also seen it used by mathemeticians and physicists. ive had it taught using psychometric examples. not everyone is great at statistiics i think you underestimate how much people know lol "science magazine"?

>>9753097

>Nobody with an IQ of 80 has ever or will ever make a breakthrough in theoretical physics

Debatable, assuming the Flynn effect is correct and that IQ test correction every generation is valid then the U.S. for example would have had an average IQ of 68-70 in 1900 as opposed to 98-100 now in 2018.

According to the study below the IQ for Industrial nations has rose nearly 30 points from 1900-2013.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx

Following this logic if we go back to 1800 which is when theoretical physics was coming into its own the average IQ would be 38-40. Now obviously this sounds way too low although the illiteracy rate was probably moderate back then. So let's assume that the IQ difference was 15 instead of 30 which sounds more feasible for all things considering. The average IQ in 1900 U.S. would be 83-85 while in 1800 it would be 68-70. If we assume that European countries (who were among the first to push the field) like England and Germany maintained the one to two point IQ advantage over U.S. as they do today.

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Then European countries like England and Germany in 1800's would be 70-72 on average. So if we apply modern standards of doctorial recipients having 20-30 IQ above average that means said average person working on theoretical physics would supposedly have an IQ of 92-102 back in 1800. Now that's still higher than an IQ of 80 but if then refer to the IQ by profession graph.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx

Which guages by range then a individual of doctorial "level" in physics back in 1800 would have a IQ range of 82-102 (low end) and 92-112 (high end) respectively. Of course this is assuming you believe that the Flynn effect is true, IQ test correction each generation is valid and that IQ by profession graph is accurate. If not then you don't believe IQ is a valid measurement in it's current state.

>>9753303
>You do realize what field IQ statistics fall under
i do. iq is a test with well defined correct answers and designated 'thought paths', a test that can, theoretically, be solved by nothing but applying pure logical thought. iq tests are desigend by people with a thorough understanding of human psyche, which gives them validity .statistical analysis is a field wich is ripe for fraud and manipuliation of all kinds. dont compare apples with bananas.

>>9753310
>reasoning is still recognition or the inference of a pattern. just more abstract
reasoning isnt necessary linked to recognition of any pattern, these both are not linked by default, your argumentation is flawed
>iq items resemble reasoning alot more than pattern recognition
yes, of course, such as dimensional thinking, stuff where you are required to tilt objects in your head etc. just picked that one out since its the most common / typical kind of iq test problem
>... this doesnt make sense
yes it doesnt, thats why i used it to hint that iq is not necessarily a concise representation for cognitive ability of an indiviual
>your prejudice is stupid
but there is no predjudice at all
>some historics that are not relavant for the discussion
very interesting
>not everyone is great at statistiics i think you underestimate how much people know lol "science magazine"?
if you do statistical analysis and want to deduce based on that then you need to know what you are doing, or else, what you are doing is completely pointless and holds no value. meaning that the results some med student got in his little ' number - fun ' after his one statistics / math class which he barely passed, which decides if a new medicament will go to the marked, isnt necessarily ' foolproof'. not sure how things ' work ' where you live but if a medicament doesnt makes the illness worse in 2 of 3 cases, then its considered ' helpful / ledgit '.

>>9753291
Your comment (while thoughtful and good) doesn’t address my question.

How do you measure the IQ of a gifted but learning disabled, or gifted but slow processing speed child/adult?

If given enough time these type of people could solve the problems on an actual IQ exam that others wouldn’t (I’m not discussing online exams like you mentioned), but don’t because of a timer and their slower processing speed/ LDs. If you remove the timer then these kids / adults (gifted ones with LDs) would solve those problems and have a much higher IQ than reported with the timed test.

These are kids / students that end up getting extra time on exams in classes.

So, again. Could you address my question? How do you measure the IQ of gifted people with LDs? Their 90-100 IQs would be 130-140+ with testing adjustments, but since IQ exams don’t have adjustments they would have a much lower score.

You may wonder why I care about this so much. It’s because such children, while gifted, are misidentified as being average and thus not admitted into accelerated / gifted classes.

Their score tends to be such that they don’t get the LD services they need and don’t get the gifted services they need. They look completely average due to giftedness masking LD and LD masking giftedness.

Please reply to my question of how you test their IQs. I don’t care about online test, so no need to mention that. I don’t care about people that are gifted and don’t have LDs or average people without LDs taking the exam. Please just address gifted children win LDs that underscore on IQ exams and how one could accurately assess their IQ

>>9753072
>citing a 33 person study with non-uniform age testing

>>9753459
I don't think you understand. Look for the functional effects on society.

Saying a 80 IQ can be useful to society wouldn't make you want a society that is 80 IQ average. When we talk about millions and millions of people it becomes like classical physics. We can use equations and simplifications that might upset a nuanced quantum physics professor.

In the case of a society, which is in competition with other societies and within the society, with regards to genomics advances, the impetus to increase IQ will be huge. The impetus to increase health will be huge.

Will there be some improbably example that might exist of a poor test taking phenotype that slips through the cracks? Sure. Just like there is probably neanderthal traits that we would love to have right now.

>>9753314
Would really recommend you watch this and look up some contrary theories with evidence like reaction time tests through time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

>>9753475
You replied to the wrong person in at least one of your (yous)

>>9753459
I remember as a kid I got placed in this gifted and talented program. They made me take some intelligence test for kids and I did pretty well. My father left, and I ended up failing every class. There's no point to my anecdote. I just wanted to share something vaguely related.

>>9753516
Thanks for sharing. Do you have touch with your father now?

>>9753516
>placed
That example proves IQ is a bad predictor. Thank you for posting it and destroying all arguments for IQ. I know someone high IQ who had bad common sense.

Of course IQ doesn't matter.

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

That probabilistic predictive function. It has bad outcomes possible. Someone with 180 IQ can get shot in the head at age 3.

ALERT ALERT ALERT

180 IQ doesn't mean you become a billionaire.

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

Guess what, someone with 180 IQ can end up being a carpenter.

Since NO ONE EVER knew this before. I'd like to thank everyone in this thread who mentioned that there are bad outcomes for high IQ people and good outcomes for low IQ people. NO ONE EVER IMAGINED that was possible. Thank you so much for posting it over and over in your arguments for why IQ doesn't matter.

>>9753459
wow it's almost like solving problems quickly is a valuable trait or something

The people against IQ should be against High school education, college education, and everything else correlated with a good outcome.

If IQ is meaningless so is all of those things.

>>9753555
>wow it's almost like solving problems quickly is a valuable trait or something

Not one that is purely indicative of high intelligence.

>>9753555
You missed the point.

Person A may solve problems very quickly but get stuck at harder problems.

Person B may solve problems much more slowly and never get through all the problems, but each problem they solve is correct. If they had enough time and made it through all the problems, then they would solve the problems Person A solved and the problems Person A didn't solve.

Person B is smarter here, even if slower

>>9753555
I'm ignoring your comment, it still doesn't address my question.

>>9753558
Have fun with a society full of learning disabled.

You just don't really think all that well and are looking for weak contrarian arguments. The point is if we can double how many people in a society are over 130 IQ, the results are predictable.

We are not using any bias, just looking at positive outcomes and trying to increase such outcomes. It's the same for health selections. It's all probabilistic.

There is also no evidence that whatever "strange intelligence" you talk about wouldn't be found more in a society that for instance improved intelligence via embryo selection. The underlying reason for the higher intelligence could simply be neuron health related and not effect "types" or architecture.

>>9753539
I'm in my fourth year of a Mechanical Engineering degree at UC Davis. Things turned out fine in the end. IQ is a fine predictor, but it can mask underlying issues; as the other posted said, it can mask LD. In my case, it masked severe emotional issues hindering my potential.
>>9753518
Yeah, I resolved my issues with him around the end of high school and moved on.

>>9753475
>a 33 person study
Actually the study cited is >>9750175 had n=88
The study with n=33 was the pilot study, whose results this study reproduced in a larger sample.
>with non-uniform age testing
See Table 1 in the post linked which shows the uniformity of ages: all adults over the age of 30, effectively removing the confounding variable of natural brain development.

These "I didn't even look at the data"-tier rebuttals are getting tiresome. Is this really the best you pseuds can muster?

Also let's imagine it's more similar to horsepower or nutritional health type of effects. Meaning whatever things become more common in the population generally increase "brainpower", or even if they do. Doubling or quadrupling the number of people with that amount of brainpower in society is going to lead more intellectual diversity. Especially because there are other influences on intelligence and frameworks for how people think. Its very very hard to imagine a situation where you wouldn't want to use positive eugenics (embryo selection / engineering) on a population. Using IQ as a metric makes a huge amount of sense simply because it is so predictive for a good outcome compared to any other variable.

>>9753569
>Yeah, I resolved my issues with him around the end of high school and moved on.

Glad it worked out.

>>9753580
I really don't care. These low sample size examples are not interesting and the methodology is too low. The bar for proving something about intelligence must be higher, (at least 100,000)

>>9753566
Ok, think this way. Having an LD lowers your IQ. We can define it that way. When considering intelligence, which is defined operationally and effectually (literally as in measuring and defining intelligence by its effect, not a synonym for efficacious), instead of causally or mechanically, we can define different parameters that are the "measure" of intelligence. This is an IQ test, i.e. someone has said in the past that "if you answer these questions and get a good score, you are intelligent." What I'm saying is that since we (in real life and society) place value in solving problems quickly, and solving problems quickly results in other successes, we can add a time component to the test and say "if you answer these timed questions and you get a good score, you are intelligent." If you have an LD which inhibits you from getting a good score on a timed test, you are therefore by definition less intelligent because a factor of intelligence is nimbleness and quickness of mind. We already measure these people's intelligences dude

If it was easy to improve IQ we would do it. If we could create an environmental condition to create endless einsteins we would do it. It would be a matter of intense competition between nations.

Instead we rely on usually families with good genetics to produce our geniuses that ultimately conforms with a bell curve.

The arguments on environment and IQ just fall apart. Creating geniuses would be all any country focused on if that was the case. The geniuses for the most part show their talent by virtue of genetics. Not after 20 years of intense studying do they develop their talents or is it visible.

>>9753599
You are completely and utterly wrong.

>>9753600
This is the flaw. If it's this environmental conditional thing we would see it. It's not a matter of proving it or not. Countries would necessarily have fucking "people factories" designed and tuned to create 180 IQ children if this was how it worked.

Yet, something tells me no one would be worried or is worried North Korea has Genius education factories that copy the environmental conditions of Einstein's youth.

Yet, I have a feeling countries would be pretty freaked out if it was discovered North Korea had 10,000 Einstein clones working on weapons development.

>>9753604
not an argument

>>9753606
>Yet, something tells me no one would be worried or is worried North Korea has Genius education factories that copy the environmental conditions of Einstein's youth.

I don't have an opinion on the nature-nurture debate but I like your style.

>>9753604
It really doesn't matter

Black box, what creates good outcomes for the embryo? Let a ML optimize it out, pick the embryo, have a good day. We don't even need to say IQ, health, or anything. A completely black box algorithm could tell us which to pick with no reasoning known.

Having IQ as a measure is nice for now though since I doubt you'd want a black box selector when you get an embryo handed to you.

>>9753599

Check this shit out

>Have LD
>IQ 130

Result: I always check and double-check my calculations (work in laboratory)

Overcame my LD with learned techniques before receiving confirmation.

>>9753589
>I really don't care
I guess that's really all you can say now that you got caught bullshitting.

>the methodology is too low
The methodology was physical observation via fMRI before and after the test period.
The increase in grey matter occurred only in the 39 subjects that passed, and not in the 31 members of the control group or the 20 of the fail group. I suppose you'll handwave it away as pure coincidence?

>n=100,000
You realize this invalidates the entire body of sub-Saharan African IQ studies?

>>9753599
>Having an LD lowers your IQ
Richard Branson suffered from dyslexia. Fortunately for him, he came from a rich family, so he was able to get the schooling he needed.

>>9753614
Ok, now try having a (C;C) genotype and do the same learned techniques you used and see if you have an IQ higher than 130 or if it comes out the same.

Good job overcoming adversity though bro

>>9753615
it actually invalidates almost every iq study ever conducted

>>9753610
A child that is performing at a high level in mathematics but has issues with slower processing speed on an IQ exam is not "retarded".

These people are classified as "twice exceptional".

You can read about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional

https://www.understood.org/en/friends-feelings/empowering-your-child/building-on-strengths/gifted-childrens-challenges-with-learning-and-attention-issues


An example would be (made up but illustrates my point of the particular example):

Person A answers 20/35 questions right under timed conditions

Person B answers 10/35 questions right under timed conditions

Person A scores higher on an IQ test than B, but B always outperforms A in real life when it comes to math, science, etc.

If Person B were given extended time, then Person B answers 35/35 questions correct.

Looking at Person's B breakdown in the WAIS there is several levels of standard deviation between scores where they score 99% in certain areas and 55% in other areas.

Person B is probably 2e. With adjustments (such as time) Person B scores in the 99 percentile on the WAIS. Without adjustments B scores in the 49 percentile.

In this example Person B aces all upper division math courses, Person A barely gets by. There is a difference between Person B's academic. performance and aptitude testing.

Person B gets extended time on the standard GRE, takes the GRE and scores in the 99 percentile range. Person A takes the GRE and gets in the 85 percentile range.

Person B is more intelligent than Person A, but Person A has a higher IQ score. When Person B has adjustments they would have a higher reported IQ score.

>>9753615
>>9753615
>subsaharan african IQ studies
you act like this is an area that gets funding and isn't considered forbidden

see the problem is you are pretending as if there is a real discussion going on. The biggest "bio-ecological" environmental nuts even acknowledge this
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/20/stephen-j-ceci/chilling-effect-iq-taboos

The above article is by someone who wrote the counter-argument to the bell curve. The point is I don't care about small sample sizes, yes, by virtue of probability there are studies that exist that support the predominantly supported narrative.

>>9753610 can reply to >>9753627 if you want, but I won't respond. I have too much work to do.

>>9753627
"retarded" comes from the Latin "tardus," which literally means slow lmao. Literally if you can't get a good score on a test without a time extension I'm calling you a retard.

Just how likely is it that B would outcompete A in real life? That's a BIG assumption, even if it is just an example. Also, for every situation like this, how many more people are there like A who beat B in timed, but also in untimed tests? I'm not entirely disagreeing with the fact that person B is gifted in some ways, or anything like that. I'm just saying that it is POSSIBLE to define intelligence, g, with a "time" component, and an IQ test reflects that if it is timed.

>>9753638

Q. Whats the true measure of intelligence?

A: The lesser of Wisdom or intelligence

>>9753648
>. Literally if you can't get a good score on a test without a time extension I'm calling you a retard.

You might be the retard because you keep missing his point.

He says given two people with unlimited time, one may never solve all the problems and the other would.

>>9753658
I'm not missing the point, because the point is that the slow one is literally retarded, and the secondary point is that he's presenting a most probably fake and arbitrary situation which is unlikely to occur. I'd wager smarter people work faster than dumber people in 99.99999% of cases, taking the word smarter in the usual and colloquial sense, and regardless we can define "smartness" such that that statistic is 100% because a definition is ARBITRARY

>>9753680
you assume slow processing speed means less intelligent. could be they double check their work a lot. and it wouldn't negate his example WHERE is it VERY possible one dude is smarter than the other but they are a slower test taker and if given extra time they would answer questions the other person wouldnt (even if that other person was given extra time too).

believe you are the slow one here. even i see their point.

>>9753695
Do you guys know what a definition is? Do you know what the implication would be if you defined intelligence to be influenced by high processing speed? How many times must I mention that? You assume that slow processing speed can mean not less intelligent. That is NOT TRUE, if we DEFINE intelligence to be raised by a HIGHER PROCESSING SPEED. That is my argument, please understand.

The argument I'm making is NOT "slow-processors are worse categorically and cannot excel fast-processors in any manner intellectually," so don't make these strawmen.

Ok well don't check your work. Because if you do a thing, like checking your work, which gets you a worse score than you would get otherwise, you are hindering your own accomplishment which is R E T A R D E D. I posit, just common sense, that if you have such great levels of autism that you cannot maximize your performance on an IQ test because you are busy with your other 2e mental disorders, then you are by definition not as SMART as someone who does not have a mental DISORDER. I say that INTELLIGENCE is opposed to MENTAL DISORDER, which is a species of UNINTELLIGENCE. If it takes you 30 minutes to realize that 2+2=4, for whatever reason on God's green earth, be it your autism or what not, you are categorically less intelligent, other things being equal, than someone who can instantly figure out the answer to 2+2=?

>>9753459
>How do you measure the IQ of a gifted but learning disabled, or gifted but slow processing speed child/adult?
In case my answer didn't make it clear, you don't - at least not with standard IQ tests.

However, what standard IQ tests will generally show is that they accel in one area, yet struggle with another. Ideally, this leads to additional testing with tests designed for more than simple expedience.

However, for a lot of kids, it just means they get placed in a class for the severely emotionally disabled, instead of the learning handicapped. Generally, those are the only two special education systems public schools have available in the US (and a lot of districts don't even have that). If the kids in question are lucky enough to be well to do, they may receive additional specialized education and therapy beyond the minimum that society provides from the private sector, and if they are truly lucky, they'll actually be helped by it. Most of the time, however, this is not the case, and it simply forces the triangle shaped peg into a square hole instead of a round hole.

>>9753718
>what a definition is
Just because it's a definition, doesn't mean it is good or models reality of intelligence. You can have a slow processing speed due to rechecking your work, high anxiety, etc. It doesn't mean you are actually dumber.

Also, you are just a fucking retard yourself that cannot understand the other anon's argument.

Instead of writing paragraphs worth of words, can you condense your thoughts? Most of your post are very wordy and unnecessarily so. A lot of what you can write repeats what you said in a previous post or sentence and can be condensed to 1-2 sentences at most.

>>9753718
>what a definition is
Just because it's a definition, doesn't mean it is good or models reality of intelligence. You can have a slow processing speed due to rechecking your work, high anxiety, etc. It doesn't mean you are actually dumber.

Also, you are just a fucking retard yourself that cannot understand the other anon's argument.

>>9749339
IQ test are a diagnostic tool to spot and treat learning disabilities and other cognitive problems. Often treating underlying problems can seriously improve how a person will perform in a battery.

It makes the test a less useful diagnosis tool, but you can also improve a subject's performance by getting them relaxed, well fed and well rested when the test occurs, and by removing any distractions from the test space. Of course, getting the subject to carefully study things likely to be covered by the test also dramatically increase a subject's results.

>TLDR

They are test. Doing better on it is done in the exact same manner as doing well on any other test.

>>9753730
Saying "it's just a definition of the word intelligence, it might not reflect real world intelligence" is an inane statement. Please read my previous posts again. What the fuck is intelligence? Can you define it otherwise than I have? If you can, ok, we can decide as a group which one is best, or if not we can at least just use one definition for the time being so we don't confuse ourselves. Obviously you can't do that. So, let me switch my argument to use your definitions: IQ will be your IQ score, and intelligence will be (some wishy washy concept of what is generally accepted in our society to be smart). Again, these are your definitions.

Now. Using your definitions, you make correct statements. In other words, you say that "you can have a low IQ score and still be generally considered by most people to be what they call smart." Never denied that, please reference the above.

The question now becomes: "how can we make an IQ test to reflect, for each individual, the societal level of smartness that most people would attribute to that individual upon learning of his various abilities and accomplishments in different situations?" And the answer is, well maybe time extensions. So you're right there.

If you are right about those things, why are we having a discussion at all? Because essentially you are taking this popular, wishy-washy definition of intelligence, lacking in any kind of measurement or rigor besides social convention, and trying to adapt an IQ test (which is a measurable and repeatable quantity) to reflect that. It should be the opposite. You should define intelligence based on some real metric (even if you don't know where it comes from; is it neuronal connection differences? Hormonal differences in the womb? Idk) and then "call" that person intelligent or not based on the outcome of the test. And, I say that it would probably be useful to have a speed of processing factor in that test and therefore in the definition of the word.

>>9753734

Condensing my posts to 1-2 sentences is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader. Nice job deleting that comment.
>>9753735
I like you

>>9753757
you are a bit too dense and retarded to have a proper argument with

>>9753763
not an argument

>>9753762
your perception on intelligence doesn't match research done on 2e. so it is literally pointless to even argue because all it will result in is your opinion (which will be a long winded paragraph of bullshit that SHOULD be condensed), my counterargument, your counterargument (which doesn't align with 2e research) in another longwinded post, my counter argument and so on until thread 404 with neither one of us agreeing. so fuck off

>>9753775
First, please explain how you can research a definition. Next, kindly explain how research can influence the results of a timed IQ test. Is that short enough for you?

>>9753783
processing speed has edge cases, such as what i posted above. if you are too lazy to read then i won't repeat and won't reply either.

if you can't recognize that as an edge case there is no point in replying to you

>>9753792
Not an edge case or exception if you use my definition of intelligence. If you are too lazy to read that then I won't repeat and won't reply either.

If you can't change the definition of a word in your head abstractly and analyze my language and the exact words I am using to communicate with you and see the result of that, there is no point in replying to you

>>9753802
Stop replying to me. I lost all interest in your reasoning and argument.

I encourage you to research twice exceptional students.

>>9753809
>it hurts my feewings when you wepwy to me on a Puerto Rican cartography forum

If I research these interesting twice exceptional humans with interesting abilities that come with some difficulties or differences as well, how will that make me think that fast-processing is no longer a valuable trait, that should be comprised under the general term intelligence? Regardless of their other gifted abilities, they are at least in one aspect R E T A R D E D

>>9753816
The point is they may not have actual slow processing speeds and it may be due to other factors. Regardless they are not retarded. But you are. So stop (you)’ing me. The only benefit to your replies is it’s making the thread reach its limit quicker. So in that respect keep replying to 404 the thread.

>>9753821
Will do Bucko. If they don't have actual slow processing speeds then I am wrong. But why haven't you said that before then? If you are taking an IQ test and a fire alarm goes off and you lose 15 min of your time, it was a faulty take of the test and unreflective of your true IQ score. If you have autism and mental problems that consistently and unavoidably thwart your attempts to get a good score, that is a verifiable and repeatable mental performance obstacle, and as such can be classified as a decrease of intelligence and a case of R E T A R D A T I O N

>>9753832
I somewhat agree and don’t harbor bad feelings towards you but I’m lazy to reply with anything meaningful and want to get back to studying math

>>9753848
Right on Brosef, have a good time

>>9753852
You too. Sorry for trolling earlier. You’re a good one.

>>9753859
Thanks bb I love you too! Goodnight

Someone get this damn thread back on topic, don't just sit there reading this like fools

Has Einstein or Hawking ever taken an IQ test? If not, then how is she "smarter" than either?

Least they mentioned the IQ test here, sometimes they say scores like "She scored a 162" but don't mentioned the SD.

I wonder what Feynman would have scored on the WAIS (assuming the 125 wasn't from the WAIS)

>>9753629
>by virtue of probability there are studies that exist that support the predominantly supported narrative
Interesting. So since you can't refute the findings of the study directly, you're invoking nonexistent, hypothetical studies that you're sure would support your preconceived notions.
That's basically a religious argument that could be applied to "defend" any position on anything. Not very compelling, sorry.

>The point is I don't care about small sample sizes
Specifically, you demanded n=100,000.
Yet the widely cited minnesota transracial adoption study, as an example, had n=256. So by your own standards, was that study meaningless?
Actually I'm wondering if you can direct me to an IQ study that you believe indicates that IQ is fixed, with n=100,000. I'll wait.

>>9754088
It has to do with how many studies are done looking for IQ plasticity. Also we are talking about methodology. 33 Subjects aged 12-16 creates a lot of room for randomness.

On specific twin studies it makes some sense due to the limited number and lack of funding looking for such differences. If you are doing research into how plastic IQ is, a N=33 vs N=256 is a big difference.

I don't like any of the above studies and think it's reasonable to prefer GWAS simply because it creates actionable results (in terms of embryo analysis)

I consider the question of "increasing IQ" by environmental effects to be pretty stupid on it's face. It's simply that your points and your reasoning is infantile and stupid. They disgust me for multiple reasons which any average intelligence person could gleam from this post.

Also it's not a surprise to see studies that contradict one another.

>>9754088
Again, see this image. You are taking an outlier study against the massive amount of evidence on the subject and touting it as truth. Even using accepted probabilities you only need a 95% chance of truth to publish normally, so is it a surprise that you can cite a study?

If it was 90% genetic, you would still find a study to support your views. It's not a sign of anything.

>>9754116
>33 Subjects aged 12-16
I'm sorry, but what study are you even talking about? As I noted before, the study I linked had n=88 with subjects aged 40 on average.
What is infantile and stupid here is your refusal to read the posts and studies you are arguing against.

>They disgust me for multiple reasons which any average intelligence person could gleam
>gleam
Glean. The word is "glean".
You aren't in a position to be disgusted with anyone here. You haven't produced a single compelling argument yet. Where is your data?

>>9754124
Still waiting on that n=100,000 IQ study (your standard, not mine) that supports your viewpoint.

It's all starting to make sense now; I even mentioned here >>9753580 what I was talking about and you simply didn't (or couldn't) read it.
I've been arguing about IQ with a fucking mong. Jesus.

>>9753409

>reasoning isnt necessary linked to recognition of any pattern, these both are not linked by default, your argumentation is flawed

reasoning involves inferring abstract patterns in data. do a reasoning item and you will see.

>yes it doesnt, thats why i used it to hint that iq is not necessarily a concise representation for cognitive ability of an indiviual
it does it study it at latennt level

>but there is no predjudice at all
if you say so...
>statistical analysis is a field wich is ripe for fraud and manipuliation of all kinds.
and science or iq tests is not?

>meaning that the results some med student got in his little
what about academics... medical students are irrelevant. this is about psychologists and social scientists. i dont know what you do but you do realise there are people that are competent at their fields and probably know more about it than you do. your judgements are just arrogant and stupid thinking you know more than a whole field of research. its funny you assume people "dont know what theyre doing"


im also still interested to know whether you will ever be satisfied with an explanation of intelligence or that reducing it to underlying constructs like "pattern recognition" invalidates it? "oh its only pattern recognition or logic, anyone can do it". and i think that there is an inherent fallacy of criticising something for not explaining intelligence when intelligence is folk psychology with no coherent definition. it is intuitive and socially defined. in science maybe we should stop searching for perfect descriptions of "intelligence" but use coherent and pragmatic constructs and recognise the high complexity/dimensionality of cognition and its individual differences.

>>9753459

>but don’t because of a timer and their slower processing speed
the timer is obviously important for the measurement of iq. i think most average adults could solve most iq questions given enough time. your use of the term gifted is vague and youre making an assumption that being gifted and processing speed are separate and dont interact. evidence suggests they share alot of overlapping variance.

>>9753606
very naive

>>9753580
dude... this study has nothing to do with iq. you also need to reference that spatial navigation and the memory associated correlates alot with iq because ive never heard this.

>>9753757
>>9753734
i dont know what you want; extraneous factors can affect iq tests but g seems statistically robust. i still think people with ld generally have lower g anyway though. maybe they are good at specific skills but thats not necessarily reflected in G. people can have gifts or abilities without a high G.

A misconception is that G accounts for all mental ability when it is only mental ability shared across different skills.

>>9753629
but the point is even if this is a forbidden area, you cant make inferences from the data.

>>9750012
>If we had a way to increase IQ we would be pushing it hugely
Flynn Effect

>>9752776
>You aren't getting into any of these positions on IQ alone, even if you've the highest on record
That´s where you´re in the wrong. Academia notwithstanding, the military and LEA crave people who have proven themselves adept problem solvers.
> if your academic standing is grand, and your IQ mediocre, it's not going to affect your chances at such a position.
A mediocre IQ will never lead to a grand academic standing.
>IQ doesn't measure abstract thinking AT ALL. It measures memory and pattern recognition
Memory doesn´t play into it one bit, and pattern recognition is a core aspect of everything intellectually challenging.
>. For abstract thinking, you use conceptual reasoning and lateral reasoning tests
If you´re a retard, sure. Anyone with a working brain, on the other hand, understands that conceptual and lateral reasoning is most easily measured by spatial and logical reasoning test portions of an IQ-test.

>>9752824
>It is... Who said it isn't? If you think IQ tests don't test memory and pattern recognition, you've never had one.
They don´t test memory, you imbecile. You´ve taken some bogus internet IQ-test if you seriously believe that every question doesn´t constitute a unique part of the complete test; unless you´ve got the memory retention of a goldfish, memory isn´t relevant at all.

>>9752972
>also to the dude who said that iq cant be trained;
>i took the iq test on mensa.no 4 times now, scored 128, 135, 139 and 141 in that order, so you can add that to the 'useless anecdote' part i guess. someone who took the sam e test multiple times, read through the correct answers and therefore had a chance to get into the 'style' of these questions will perform better than someone who didnt do that, why is that so hard to understand?
My god, you really are stupid. What you describe is essentially cheating: you´ve taken an online IQ-test multiple times, knowing that the questions stay the same after repeat attempts, and used this to your advantage.

A real IQ-test is never identical to a previous version to a degree where memory plays any part at all in attaining a high score, since it is explicitly NOT supposed to test for knowledge, but rather for adeptness at spontaneous problem-solving.

>>9753170
>Usually involves a series of numbers of differing numbers of digits (up to 7, on the one I give out). There are others that involve nonsensical words of various sylobyl length.
That´s not part of any reputable form of IQ-test, you imbecile. You´ve been duped by online meme-tests.

what's the algorithm your brain perform to solve IQ test?

>>9753314
>Following this logic if we go back to 1800 which is when theoretical physics was coming into its own the average IQ would be 38-40.
IQ hasn´t increased linearly in the fashion that you imply, retard.

>Which guages by range then a individual of doctorial "level" in physics back in 1800 would have a IQ range of 82-102 (low end) and 92-112 (high end) respectively. Of course this is assuming you believe that the Flynn effect is true, IQ test correction each generation is valid and that IQ by profession graph is accurate. If not then you don't believe IQ is a valid measurement in it's current state.
That´s a false dichotomy of epic proportions. There is nothing to suggest that the Flynn effect has increased average IQ over several generations, arbitrarily (as chosen by you) beginning in the 1800s.

IQ is a valid measurement - you simply fail to grasp what´s known and not known about it, and you also fail to critically analyze the reputability of your sources.

>>9753314
>Then European countries like England and Germany in 1800's would be 70-72 on average
nope https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

>>9754350
>IQ is a valid measurement
It is valid only in measuring how good people at solving a very specific set of puzzles. And nothing more.

>>9754364
you confuse the mode of test with the latent variablles being tested. rooky mistake my friend. go back to high school.

>>9754364
Why is it predictive of a huge range of life outcomes then?

>>9754350

>IQ hasn´t increased linearly in the fashion that you imply, retard.

Ask me how I know you don't know shit about IQ testing anon. You seem to completely missed the point about renormalization of IQ (aka test correction every generation). That is how you get the 30 point IQ increase between 1900 and 2013 as stated in the first link. It is the reason why people who take older IQ tests are normed with a lower IQ in comparison to more recent tests. It is also the reason why the American Psychology Association highly disapproves of people using older/outdated tests to guage psychometric scoring.

>>9754357

Your study doesn't apply to the Flynn effect anon, it applies to the Jensen effect concerning dysgenics. The study you provided explicitly made it clear about that. It even remarked about Flynn effect gains. You would have known this if you had read the whole study rather than the abstract like a pleb.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235330981_Were_the_Victorians_cleverer_than_us_The_decline_in_general_intelligence_estimated_from_a_meta-analysis_of_the_slowing_of_simple_reaction_time

>Clear jensen effects have also been found for dysgenic fertility(Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013). This indicates that dysgenic fertility is predominantly a genetic effect: i.e. genotypic IQ or more accurately ‘genetic g’(Rushton & Jensen, 2010) decreases. However, the Flynn effect is clearly not a Jensen effect, as it exhibits a modest, negative correlation with subtest gloadings(te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, this issue). In summary therefore the pattern of genetic effects such as heritabilities on the subtests of an IQ battery are highly similar to the pattern in dysgenic effects, however both show no resemblance to the pattern in the Flynn effect.

Later on in the study it is discussed that the propable cause in lower reaction times is due to better healthcare that allows individuals with slower reaction to survive and have children more than they did in 1889.

>>9754364
Depends on goal.

Is your goal prediction of life outcome to the best degree possible, for instance for use with embryo selection?

In the case of embryo selection, IQ becomes an important variable to try to maximize, along with other important things like health risks.

>>9750457
>>9752939
That's interesting, my neuropsychologist gave me that exact test last week including a vocabulary test.

But she said she doesn't really believe in IQ so I don't know.

>>9750457
Can you buy those blocks and design patters book someplace? I like doing those.

>>9754252
>reasoning involves inferring abstract patterns in data
the word reasoning can be used in a lot of contexts where that isnt true.
>do a reasoning item and you will see
i dont have to because you are wrong, see above
>and science or iq tests is not
not neccessarily in the same kind, iq tests are sill a valid metric since the ammount of people who actively influence the outcome by means of 'preparation' should be rather small
> medical students are irrelevant
med students are the ones that will be deciding over human lives in the near future, so much for 'irrelevant'
>you do realise there are people that are competent at their fields and probably know more about it than you do
i do, do you realize that this is only about the statistical analysis conducted by ppls from pysch and soc. sciences? mathmatics anywhere else than in core stem fields doesnt deserve to be called so
> you know more than a whole field of research
i know probably more than the average joe psych researcher about means of statistics since my expertise in that field isnt limited to a little piss session of a math course
>its funny you assume people "dont know what theyre doing"
you would be surprised, i suggest you go to university and start talking to ppls, especcially to social science dudes about means of statistics. in academia people will be very skilled in their own specific field, and thats it. there is a reason psychologists are called psychologists and not mathmaticians / statisticans.

>>9754252
> maybe we should stop searching for perfect descriptions of "intelligence" but use coherent and pragmatic constructs and recognise the high complexity/dimensionality of cognition and its individual differences.
what a bunch of meaningless gibberish, did you read that on someones facebook page?
>oh its only pattern recognition or logic, anyone can do it
we both know thats not everything, why do you have to pretend that you didnt read
>intelligence is folk psychology with no coherent definition
yes, the term is rather loose and i am more than uncomfortable with that

>>9755181
>>9755189
This is getting too dense

Just call each other shitheads and get it over with.

>>9754336
> you really are stupid
speak for yourself. the whole point was that 'training' for iq tests is well possible, not only in a sense of just 'learning' the answers, but mostly for getting a proper feeling on how to solve the problem.
>A real IQ-test is never identical to a previous version
questions for iq tests always come from a catalog of questions, learning the answers is useless, understanding the thought behind the problems is where its at, how is that so hard to understand?
>rather for adeptness at spontaneous problem-solving
yes, the problem solving can be trained, tell me what you are doing when doing the exercises / coursework for uni or prepare an exam? do you rote-learn the answers? hell no (except if you a re a medfag, then i pity you)

>>9749339
Yes, intelligence is not fixed.

- The components of intelligence can change over time.
- Practise increases skill, and taking an IQ test/problem solving is a skill.
- Most people have unused intellectual potential.
- Fluid intelligence AND working memory can allways be improved by exercising them. Think of this like overclocking.

How?

Re-evaluate your proces of learning. Finetune your learning routines to better fit the underlying biological principles. Read up on some neurology and practise better ways to study and remember. ( And IMO philosophy helps to be pragmatic and actually practise what you preach )

>>9755229
How do you exercise your working memory and fluid intelligence?

Specifically, what exercises would you do for your working memory?

>>9755229
That stuff is all great in concept. The problem is the people who tend to do that are very rare. Whereas genomic advances offer a solution that is relatively easy-mode and has other benefits besides just improving intelligence (health).

If we are talking changing human behavior, which should be done, we have low hanging fruit like not having 30%+ obesity and shit to pick first. I'm very pessimistic about solving these issues or getting real gains via focusing on the smaller environmental contributions.

>>9755246
I'm opposed to genomic alteration of the mind.
All for medical use. And yes people are lazy.

Pretty much all modern problems stem from laziness.

>>9755245
Keep your mind active. And be able deactivate as well.
Play games and have a varied mental diet.
Your brain needs stimulation to change. Working memory is actually set after biological maturation, but it gets an efficiency bonus if you use it regularly.

That's why I am very pro videogames.

>>9750012
>it not like people can achieve a strong body by exercising. people are strong purely because their genetics.

>>9755689
you have no experience in sports or weight lifting

is IQ basically just a measure of pattern recognition, problem solving abilities, level of complexity and logic that your brain can handle in problem solving to find the pattern, and most importantly the speed at which you do all of the above at?