/sci/ - Science & Math

taken over by math v cs retards

>>9814425
The /pol/tards got comfortable and decided to start posting racebaiting threads instead.

>>9814425
>Where did all the IQ threads go?
to >>>/x/ because IQ isn't science

>>9815145
(you)

>>9815145
this. Why do you want them anyway?

>>9814425
apparently they stopped after it was shown that environment>genes

>>9815145
Apparently we are going to disregard the entire field psychology.

>>9815157
It was never shown this. 70% of int is determined by genes. If you actually knew any smart people, you would see that they all have smart parents.

>>9815172
>Apparently we are going to disregard the entire field psychology.
it's best to disregard pseudoscientific fields

>>9815157
>>9815156
>>9815145
low IQ detected

>>9815176
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/05/1718793115

>>9815193
oh fuck off
>interpreting flynn effect at face value
>white people several decades ago have IQ of 60
>so low they can't understand the game of baseball
ok right

"“The magnitude of white/ black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same.” -Flynn

source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259097870_The_Flynn_Effect_and_Flynn%27s_paradox

Even Flynn himself admits that "his" effect isn't relevant. Completely BTFO and kill yourself.

>>9815205
>posting years old research to disprove newer findings
IQ really has been dropping

>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/05/1718793115
- Talks about environmental origins and investigations into Flynn effect

>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259097870_The_Flynn_Effect_and_Flynn%27s_paradox
- Flynn already established Flynn effect overall is not related to the IQ gap in between populations

>>9815245
>smug af
>effectively saying its impossible to study something unrelated to IQ gaps in between populations

holy shit dude

>>9815354
cont.

Why are all egalitarian arguments such shit?
Because if they actually read/knew anything about it
They wouldn't be egalitarians while being honest to themselves and others

>>9815172
measuring "IQ" is the same as measuring head to determine "race purity". this give you some abstract and useless for any practical purpose numbers.
yes, you can sort people based on head proportions, or IQ numbers, but what it gives you? how is it scientific?
the purpose of science is to find causes and make predictions.

>>9815365
>doesn't know what factor analysis / principle component analysis is
>doesn't know what predictive validity is

IQ is literally defined to be correlated with things we care about, and it has excellent predictive validity. If you can make accurate PREDICTIONS and TESTABLE HYPOTHESES then it is scientific. And thats what IQ does

>>9814425
They turned into pure black racism threads

>>9815365
predictive validity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

not arbitrary (from same page)
>A g factor can be computed from a correlation matrix of test results using several different methods. These include exploratory factor analysis, principal components analysis (PCA), and confirmatory factor analysis. Different factor-extraction methods produce highly consistent results, although PCA has sometimes been found to produce inflated estimates of the influence of g on test scores.

>>9815172
>Apparently we are going to disregard the entire field psychology.
sounds good

>>9815390
>PREDICTIONS and TESTABLE HYPOTHESES
>thats what IQ does
what hypotheses and how it's different from skull measuring?

>>9815396
>g factor
witchcraft

>>9815861
it's witchcraft, because it is kinda works, sometimes, but we don't know how and we are not interested in how it works. it's opposite to science.

>>9815365
>yes, you can sort people based on head proportions, or IQ numbers, but what it gives you? how is it scientific? the purpose of science is to find causes and make predictions.

IQ is the greatest single predictor of success in life. You can put your fingers in your ears and say NAH NAH NAH. The fact is not everyone is equal and genetics have great influence on someone's life.

>>9814425
Into the trash where they belong.

>>9815365
iq allows us to make predictions, i can predict that Jamaal will not be capable of solving a matrix problem or reciting his Pope properly.

>>9815894
What if IQ doesn't make you successful but being successful gives you opportunities to develop a high IQ.

>>9815922
schizophrenic mental gymnastics that doesn't account for heredity

>>9815924
Success is hereditary.

>>9815926
and so is intelligence

>>9815927
Well if you mean that smart wealthy people pay for their children to go to school to learn how to be smart and wealthy, then yes.

>>9815931
>You have to be wealthy for your kids to attend school

This isn't the 1800s anymore mate. Public schooling gives everyone an equally shitty education, yet for some reason children from higher IQ parents perform better than thise from low IQ parents.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>9815937
Because public school starts at age 5. Because public school only lasts 7 or 8 hours a day. The gap is built before starting public school and when at home with the family after hours.

>>9815937
>>9815942
Some public schools are great while some are hot garbage. Way too much disparity for something that's supposed to be an equalizer.

>>9815942
You literally just said that it was because rich people could afford to send their kids to school, nice backtrack.

>>9815949
are you implying that public school is exactly as good as rich private school

Also Hart and Risely 1995

The authors conducted this study to look for the cause of the disparity in linguistic/academic progress among children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. For 2.5 years, 7 month old children in 42 families were observed for one hour per week until the child turned 3 years old. Everything said to the baby, all talk the baby overheard, and everything the baby did or said during an hour of daily life was recorded and analyzed. Charts of monthly growth in vocabulary, utterances, and use of grammatical structures, as well as a list of 2,000 vocabulary words used during early language development are provided. The authors found the average welfare child had 1/2 as much experience per hour (616 words per hr.) as the average working class child (1,251 words per hr.), and less than 1/3 as much experience as the average professional class child (2,153 per hour). For example, in one year, extrapolating to a 100 hr. week (given a 14 hr. waking day), 11 million words for professional, 6 million words for working class, and 3 million words for welfare class were recorded. Parent talkativeness or “sociableness” to their infants accounted for a correlation between SES and the children’s later linguistic/academic development. For example, in low SES families, parent-child interaction tended to involve directives being given to the child whereas in higher SES background families the parent-child interaction tended to be more conversational. These are likely reasons why children from lower SES perform worse on standardized vocabulary tests than children from middle SES backgrounds. The study also demonstrated that the size of a child’s vocabulary could be based on experience and not necessarily attributed to an inherent language learning difficulty.

>>9815951
I agree that private schools are better than public schools, but still the fact is you just straight out lied and then turned around with a different opinion.

>>9815953
>straight out lied
Quote my lie back to me.

>>9815953
>fact is you just straight out lied
Quote my lie back to me motherfucker.

>>9815957
>Well if you mean that smart wealthy people pay for their children to go to school to learn how to be smart and wealthy, then yes.

and then the 180 onto

>The gap is built before starting public school and when at home with the family after hours.

So where is the gap in iq really built mate?

>>9815961
So you are mad because you think that being able to afford Private school and college tuition isn't enough and so when I brought evidence of gaps in childhood education that don't involve those things that makes me a liar?

Do you not know what a liar is? Are your parents busy working class folk and only spoke 615 words an hour to you as a child?

>>9815964
Not that guy but if you are so desperate to hold onto public vs private school theory how do you account for the fact that the same results regarding heritability apply similarly to both public and private schools?

Also
>Implying school makes you intelligent
>Implying college makes you intelligent

I can send a dumb fuck to college but that is no guarantee of an iq increase. False equivalence.

>>9815975
>same results regarding heritability apply similarly to both public and private schools?
Source.

>Implying school makes you intelligent
The only way to know things is to learn them.

>>9815975
>>9815985
The school your parents send you to is part of your heritability. You inherit their environment.

>>9815989
That's a fallacious fucking argument and cannot be substantiated in any way.

itt
retards who haven't studied IQ bash IQ with objections off the top of their heads that have been beaten to death already

>>9815985
>The only way to know things is to learn them.
not even what IQ tests are
how retarded are you
you don't even know what you are talking about holy shit

>>9816817
>studied IQ

>>9816825
problem solving requires planning. and constructing a pain is a problem itself that need to be solved.
to build a plan, you need all steps beforehand.

for example, when you solve IQ test puzzles, you usually repeat same steps as count number of elements, do geometric and arithmetic operations. you need to be comfortable with this operations, or else you wouldn't even think about these steps and thus can't solve the puzzle.

>>9815888
>it's opposite to science
all of science comes down to correlations, and unless you have more mechanistic testable theories, the science is those correlations. Thats it.

>>9815856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Practical_validity

>>9816841
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950413/

You didn't cite a study, but most studies that purport an increase of IQ due to college have an increase of (at most) 5 points but this raise is on subtests that aren't heavily g-loaded, and its lost after about 2 years. So college doesn't really help.

If you want to talk about the more volatile IQ for children, I'd recommend (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500135X))
>“Interventions that started earlier in a child’s life were no more effective than those which started later in a child’s life, nor did they affect how long the effects lasted (both ps N .15) and as such were dropped from the model. Duration played no appreciable role in explaining the fadeout effect and was also removed from the model.”

The intervention was basically like a super school, and it didn't do anything in the long term to adulthood, which is where IQ really matters IMO.

>>9815995
That's literally how geneticists quantify the concept of heretibility though...

>>9814425
IQ threads, as with all memes, got boring.

>>9816899
>We propose that intelligence adapts to environmental demands, both upwards and downwards.
Isn't that the key takeaway? Anyone can get smart if immersed in an environment that necessitates it. So the kids in dumb families will have their special schooling go to waste once they have to live with morons again.

>>9815856
Oh, and it fundamentally isn't any different from skull measuring, its just that skull measurements have a weak correlation with actual intelligence. All science is really "just like skull measurements" because all science is just correlating and finding patterns between stuff. Some theories are more mechanistic, others aren't. Thats about it.
>insert Hume quote

>>9814553
and thats a good thing

>>9816917
I'd recommend at least reading a little bit of that study. Keep in mind that if there are any initial gaps, then gaps will remain, the environment was extreme, and this is in children (where IQ is very volatile anyways). By adulthood heritability reaches like 0.8 and you can have college which doesn't last and doesn't affect what counts (g).

People always say "But environment matters" and nobody denies that environment matters, but we can measure the amount that it matters and the answer is: "not much". Environment accounts for 0.2 of the variance (not much) and external skull measurements correlate with g at 0.2 (not much). So take that as you will.

>>9816917
No, he said it accounts for 5 points.
Also by your logic there shouldn't be any disparity in IQ between siblings.

>>9815172
Psychology hasn't successfully applied the scientific method so far. Vast majority of is experiments are not replicable.

>>9816946
Name 10 experiments in psychology that aren't replicable.

>>9816946
Mainly caused by social psychology. IQ studies probably have much higher replicability rates since most things in the field can't even be measured lol.

>>9816950
>75% of the social psychology experiments were not replicated
>Half of the cognitive psychology studies failed the same test
>Even when scientists could replicate original findings, the sizes of the effects they found were on average half as big as reported first time around
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

Psychology is a fraud.

>>9816996
That's what happen when you disguise idealistic philosophy with math and statistics to make it look more "scientifically"

>>9816941
>By adulthood heritability reaches like 0.8
Like briefly mentioned earlier, "heritable" incorporates shared and inherited environments.
>but we can measure the amount that it matters and the answer is: "not much". Environment accounts for 0.2 of the variance
It's more like the average unique environmental exposures of a given population at a given time. Heritability can change. I'm not a geneticist, but I know that this term is a really complicated one that laymen get wrong all the time. It has all sorts of social and environmental factors built in.

>>9816944
>Also by your logic there shouldn't be any disparity in IQ between siblings.
How can siblings possibly have identical environments? I'm not even denying a genetic component btw.

>>9817000
>>9816996

IQ is the best thing we have in psychology though. Everything else is bullshit, thats where those stats come from.

Even Steven Pinker (a complete cuck) admits this.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/pinker-replicability-crisis-in-psych-doesnt-apply-to-iq-huge-ns-replicable-results-but-people-hate-the-message/

>>9817007
It doesn't help that the word means two different things. 0.8 heritability refers to heritability in the narrow sense, not the broad sense. Genetic inheritance. This is done with twin studies where environment and parenting are controlled for.

>>9816996
I didn't find the source study in the article. Would like a link to that.
But it you might've noticed that it says only half o the cognitive psychology studies failed. They also said that the attempts to replicate the studies were made in 5 different continents. Also it mentions the kind of studies that failed the test:
>Among the experiments that stood up was one that found people are equally adept at recognising pride in faces from different cultures. Another backed up a finding that revealed the brain regions activated when people were given fair offers in a financial game. One study that failed replication claimed that encouraging people to believe there was no such thing as free will made them cheat more.
You can see that these studies have the premise that people regardless of cultural and genetic background will behave the same way, which is the complete opposite premise of IQ studies.

>>9817013
No. They use it in the geneticist sense, not the laymen sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritability_and_caveats

A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is necessarily unchangeable. The value of heritability can change if the impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered.If the environmental variation encountered by different individuals increases, then the heritability figure would decrease. On the other hand, if everyone had the same environment, then heritability would be 100%. The population in developing nations often has more diverse environments than in developed nations.

>>9817007
>How can siblings possibly have identical environments? I'm not even denying a genetic component btw.
Either you are saying that their IQ is molded by their enviroment or that it is developed according to their interest, since siblings, by and large, are brought up in the same enviroment.
Also is you are not denying the genetic component that what are you arguing against?

>>9817027
this basically. IQ tests are the actual science in psychology.

>>9817008
>I agree with a complete cuck
Psychometricians everyone

>>9817030
Your link and your text don't tell me anything I don't already know. What is the objection?

>>9817032
I'm arguing it's a combination of genetics and upbringing, but the upbringing is more important.

>>9817041
I'm saying the 0.8 includes the inherited upbringing, which has a huge impact. And you also need to change that figure depending on the population you're looking at.

>>9816946
its in social psy, anon. clinical psy is as grounded as modern medicine.

>>9816956
>since most things in the field can't even be measured lol.
We use geographic location. Not IQ. IQ is a terrible statistic to use.

>>9815390
>it has excellent predictive validity
No it doesnt. Anyone who relies on one sole statistic is a fucking moron. We use geographic location, because it incorporates many factors and not just "Lul ecks dee IQ."
We know, generally, what you will most likely end up earning when you're in your 50's fundamentally by looking at the zip code you were raised in.

>>9817060
>No it doesnt.
But the most broad IQ study is one conducted accross the entire US with over 100.000 participants from childhood to adulthood, and they are consistently support the income predictability that IQ scores have.

>>9817065
>they are consistently support
it consistently supports.

>>9817053
>clinical psy is as grounded as modern medicine

>>9817049
>I'm saying the 0.8 includes the inherited upbringing
it doesn't say that anywhere in the link. Some people talk about heritability this way in that it is anything either genes or environment inherited from parent. This is not the official definition:
>In fact, heritability is formally defined as the proportion of phenotypic variation (VP) that is due to variation in genetic values (VG).
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889

Your broad definition of heritability wouldn't even make sense for the way the 0.8 figure was obtained since parental environment was controlled for.

>>9817060
>There is a high correlation of .90 to .95 between the prestige rankings of occupations, as rated by the general population, and the average general intelligence scores of people employed in each occupation.

show me one study where zip code predicts better than IQ

>>9817049
Also, you know whats funny? As you equalize and give people more equal opportunity, the variance in success or achievement or IQ attributable to environment goes up, and society becomes more stratified. Environment was more of a factor in the past where there was oppressive regimes or what have you. Meritocracies allow for stratification and the creation of genetically based upper classes and lower classes.

>>9814425
Hopefully in the trashcan.

>>9817090
IQ is not science. Otherwise it would be taught at school.

>>9817102
edit. "...attributatble to genes goes up,..."

>>9817105
>IQ is not science, otherwise it would be taught at school

>>9817085
>Your broad definition of heritability wouldn't even make sense for the way the 0.8 figure was obtained since parental environment was controlled for.
I don't see why. Parental environment isn't the only environmental factor by the way. There are way more.

>>9817117
Yeah, there are way more. What proportion of variance does it make up? Oh yeah, it makes up 0.2.

>>9817102
>Meritocracies allow for stratification and the creation of genetically based upper classes and lower classes.
I'm all for meritocracy. But too much pure captialism creates a society full of nopotism and financial enslavement. It can stifle meritocracy if not held in check.

>>9817119
No... Your socioeconomics is largely passed on to you. Therefor it is part of the heritability.

>>9817121
Too much capitalism would be okay if it didn't destroy people who are still alive and are inferior.

>>9817121
The "imperfections" of capitalism mitigate the process of genetic stratification. Considering the fact that the genetic component of success increases as things becomes meritocratic, and that people select mates near to them socially and genetically, stratification would happen more quickly than under capitalism where debt slavery is possible. See? It is almost tautological that meritocracy naturally creates divergent genetic clusters that are differentiated from eachother by how well the groups perform under the meritocratic pressures.

>>9817123
Ok, it makes up part of the 0.2.
How is this so hard for you to understand

>>9817123
Or do you just not understand how twin studies are conducted?
You should probably look at the literature on this before just coming up with random crap.

>>9817149
Post study

>>9817152
Look here's one!

>>9814425
Maybe the /pol/ack flood finally left?

>>9815145
>Effective predictor of success and academic achievement.
>It's totally useless, because I heard so! EGGSDEE XD

>>9817154
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/

This is a meta study
Twin studies can be conducted by having two multiple sibling or dizygotic twins under the same parents and then measuring differences.

Also from another angle not from twin studies:

Sirin 2005 meta-analyzed data on roughly 100,000 students and found the mean correlation between cognitive ability and parental SES to be .28 (https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/lec321/Sirin_Articles/Sirin_2005.pdf)), indicating a weak to moderate relationship. This finding is similar to what was reported by 1996 American Psychological Association task force report on intelligence (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.1282&rep=rep1&type=pdf).). This almost certainly suggests that parental SES is not a great predictor for IQ. Keep in mind that this correlation is confounded by the fact that parental SES is determined by the parents IQ which has a much higher correlation with SES (of course).

>>9817164
>>Effective predictor of success and academic achievement.
lol

>>9817184
Does nobody in this thread click on links?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Practical_validity

Im literally a brainlet

>>9817027
>only half o the cognitive psychology studies failed
>only half of the field is a sham

>>9817184
It is though.

>>9817197

>>9817196
Yeah, and its all retards like you who object to IQ in favor of "multiple intelligences" (which is ironically closer to phrenology, even Stephan Gould admits this)

IQ is literally the only thing that replicates and its so boring and beaten to death it isn't even funny. The fact that the general public is so against it yet I can stand here and defend it just by citing meta-studies is indicative of its validity.

>>9817206
Still waiting for MENSA to actually do something.

>>9817209
All these one line zingers done by people who don't understand and don't want to understand IQ is not unlike creationists citing the bible. Uncanny.

>>9817204
>He doesn't quite grasp how absolutely gigantically massive space is.
That's okay, my flattard friend.

>>9817206
I'm not arguing I favor or against IQ, just pointing that one thing out. Fuck off

>>9817186
>A test's practical validity is measured by its correlation with performance on some criterion external to the test, such as college grade-point average, or a rating of job performance.
>correlation
Are psychologists modern fortune tellers with calculators?

>>9817305
>He doesn't understand stats.

>>9817305
Honestly I don't even understand the criticism
This is how all of science is done wtf is wrong with you

The best anti-IQ people can do is react images and smug one liners or arbitrary theories made up on the spot that don't concord with any data.

>>9817197
Don't forget that more than half of these "correlations" are not reproducable. And even producable have much smaller effect than claimed.
You believe in ass pulled superstitions.

>>9817312
>>9817330
No, you two don't understand logic. You are committing the CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION fallacy.

How about you find specific genes, and provide evidence to trace how each gene interacts with every other gene, how each of them encode proteins, how each of those encoded proteins affect neurophysiology, and only then we MIGHT have a sufficient preponderance of evidence to consider the possibility that genes could affect cognitive ability. Until then, you're just as bad as a THEIST.

>>9817337
>Theories have to be arbitrarily mechanistic in order to be correct
>Doesn't realize association studies also rely on correlation

Nice trolling, its correlation all the way down, all causation MUST be inferred from correlation. The fact that you are citing correlation != causation just shows how cornered you are. This argument of correlation != causation can be applied to any single theory ever conceived of.

Please just stop you are embarrassing yourself.

>>9817337
>>9817331
>SHOW ME THE JEANS!
Hi, Kraut.
>A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 187 loci and a role for neurogenesis and myelination in intelligence
Now, kindly fuck off. :)

>>9817351
is right. All of these criticisms are the same level as criticisms made by a sheltered high school drop out from the UK.
Honestly you guys should feel bad.

>>9817349
By the way, this is exactly what I meant by >>9817312.
It is one of the primary tools you HAVE to rely on.

>>9817330
>This is how all of science is done wtf is wrong with you
That's not how science done. Science is looking for causes. Correlation of numbers is not a scientific fact.
People have good grades not because of high "factor g". If you think opposite, your theory can be easily refuted by experiment.

>>9817361
>YOU AREN'T ALLOW TO PRESENT DATA ANYMORE, BECAUSE IF YOU USED CORRELATION, IT -MUST- BE WRONG!
>*deletes majority of modern science*

>>9817361
>high g factor is caused by getting high grades
>people first get high grades for no reason and this causes their IQ to rise

Ok, since the above is obviously absurd and I'm just not going to address it, running with this theory of "high grades causes high g-factor" I ask you how you know/will prove that there exists a causal link between the two?
How will you prove this theory?

>>9817369
>inb4 correlation

>>9817369
You are committing the BLACK-OR-WHITE fallacy.

You are suggesting either "high G" (a pseudo-scientific concept) must cause higher grades, OR the reverse.

What if it's.... neither? And just a correlation with no causal link either way.

>>9817388
You are committing the BLACK-OR-WHITE fallacy.
You are suggesting either "high mass" (a pseudo-scientific concept) must cause higher gravity, OR the reverse.
What if it's.... neither? And just a correlation with no causal link either way.
>t. reddit spacing redditard
By the way, this is called reductio ad absurdum, I hope it helps you in understanding your error.

>>9816917
Dude it's 5 IQ points, not 50.

ITT: A bunch of anit-IQ brainlets who couldn't read a scientific study for the life of them are bashing scientific studies they don't understand. There are multiple massive studies undertaken that show intelligence is heritable, quantifiable, and predicts success. Obvious fucking genetics or else we'd have other animals being intelligent randomly too. And homo species wouldn't slowly get smarter.

>>9817401
>else we'd have other animals being intelligent randomly too.

You meed to clarify your statement more as there are tool building animals, animals who pass the mirror test, animals who understand the concept of zero and animals who have demonstrated public mourning. All signs of intelligence.

>>9817401
>And homo species wouldn't slowly get smarter.
Hmm

>>9817412
Ah yes, that chimp building a skycr-
Oh wait.
Don't get me wrong, I am aware there are other intelligent animals, but they clearly aren't as practically intelligent (to us) as we are.
This is where you're taking relativism to a new extreme.

>>9817393
Precisely this. Why do we keep using newtons laws or general relativity? Because they WORK. Because they have PREDICTIVE VALIDITY. That's all that matters.

>>9817412
not your philosophical definition of intelligence, IQ. Nobody cares what your personal definition of intelligence is.

>>9817414
what is population explosion in third world countries

>>9817414
That's because intelligent people are having less children.
Whereas, unintelligent people are having just as many children as they always have had and average people are having somewhat less children.
This is due to advances in medical science meaning that we have a lesser need to keep shitting out humans to pass the filter of death.

>>9817419
This, science is pragmatic, it is about USEFULNESS.

>>9817414
hmmm

>>9817425
This, a more accurate prediction of MEANINGFUL (in relation to PPP or GDP) would be to look at the average IQ of Asia, or Europe over time, including future predictions.

>>9817216
IQ is an arbitrary and subjectively created test that measures the reaction to useless puzzles and patterns. It's certainly not quantifying intelligence, it appears to be measuring something else, perhaps personality traits, that can somewhat accurately predict where you will end up in life, in terms of academia and career.

Actual intelligence is doing useful shit with it, in real life. rather than fucking autistic sudoku. Because if you're so fucking smart, you must be pretty fucking dumb not to use it for anything worthwhile, therefore instantly invalidating the IQ test. Having intelligence, but not having the intelligence to use it, is worse than never having the intelligence at all.

>>9817393
You are committing a FALSE ANALOGY fallacy.

We cannot compare thing which can be completely isolated from external influence (as in a physics experiment) for reproducible experiments to IQ "science" comparing people in totally different environments (impossible to control or fully account for, even for siblings)

>>9817217
>>He doesn't quite grasp how absolutely gigantically massive space is.
It's really not that big though is it, look at the stars sometime, they're close as shit you delusional fool.

>>9817414
>>9817425
>>9817429
I did just that and look!
>Pic related
Link to article:
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412
Oh look, a localized IQ of a Western nations (the United States) shows an INCREASE in IQ, even AVERAGE IQ of the general population.
So yes, that decrease is probably related to Second, or Third World countries.

>>9817437
Please be memeing.

>>9817439
>Everyone (but blacks and Hispanics) got dumber in the early to mid-80s.
What the fuck?

>>9817434
How do you know gravity isn't influenced externally?
Correlation? :^)

>>9817417

How is it extreme when the very same psychological tests we use on ourselves to prove expression of cognition is used and verified on other species?

>>9817419

Even if you want to remove philosophy from the debate. You still have to come to terms that there are animals capable of tool building and numerical understanding. Also you can't employ IQ and then dismiss other psychometric research directly related such as numerical understanding when they're both reside in the same field.

>>9817425
That graph is terrifying. The west needs to wake up.

>>9817451
>How is it extreme when the very same psychological tests we use on ourselves to prove expression of cognition is used and verified on other species?
In which case, there is clear disparity between the "level" of intelligence displayed between other animals and us.

>>9817453
We'll all be living in space constructs by then, hopefully.

>>9817432
IQ is literally the principal factor of an n dimensional point cloud of data about THINGS WE CARE ABOUT. It is LITERALLY DEFINED AS SOMETHING WE CARE ABOUT.
Do you know what principal component analysis is? Cause if you did, then the g-factor is literally the most common sense measurement possible.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-general-intelligence-2795210

>>9817458
As much as I wish that were true, I find it unlikely. The white man has stopped exploring (although Trump's recent announcement is a positive sign), too busy being held back by feminism (and female influence on culture generally), and of course an identity crises. The "we" of 50 years ago no longer exists - just a hedonistic, mixed group of people who see no greater meaning or purpose to life.

>>9817473
Look what happened due to the libertines.
I'm hopeful for the future, there IS a breaking point.

>>9817451
They aren't related since IQ is designed to operate on the domain of human beings.
Other animals may have much larger brains and be computing data all the time, perhaps navigating and remembering landmarks over thousands of miles of distance, but this isn't something we care about as humans.
Again, it is just a model that predicts things accurately. Thats all science is.

>>9817476
Pragmatics in action.

>>9817441
Says the basement dweller who has never actually seen the stars.

The stars are local, it's fucking obvious.

>>9817488
Buy a telescope.

>>9817460
>the principal factor of an n dimensional point cloud of data
Fucking meaningless bullshit. The more something has to disguise itself with jargon, the more you know it's bullshit.

>>9817495
We care about how useful something is, since truth is unanswerable.
Not hard to grasp.

>>9817495
I thought this was /sci/ not a retard board.
so much for the retard /pol/ meme
It would probably help if you clicked that link you dumb dumb
Or this one idc it will explain what PCA is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis

>>9817454

Then state that instead of positing,

>"Obvious fucking genetics or else we'd have other animals being intelligent randomly too"

I don't deny our ""level"" of intelligence is higher than that of other animals. But in you argument for IQ you have toss aside the importance of environment on cognition. Do not forget factors such as iodine consumption and prenatal hormones triggered by stress of the environment implicates that our emergence of intelligent animals is in part directed by the environment. Which means environmental factors can also cause the emergence of other intelligent species.

>>9817476
>They aren't related since IQ is designed to operate on the domain of human beings

Numeracy were also designed and classified as the exclusive domain of humans until science proved it wasn't.

>>9817498
>We care about how useful something is, since truth is unanswerable.
Meaningless.

Also, by saying truth is unanswerable, you're giving it an answer.

>>9817516
The concept of truth, yeah, dumbass.
Not the context dependent one.
Nice high school philosophic right there. :^)

>>9817514
Sure, nurture has some impact upon it.
I'm not and never did deny that.
But genetics has a greater contributing factor.

>>9817514
Ok, if everyone would just take a second and research how IQ is defined you would see that it is essentially the "principal component"(google search this term) of an n-dimensional cloud of data (the n dimensions are standardized tests from various fields of study) that *human beings* take.


It is designed for use on the domain of human beings
It is designed to correlate with things that we care about

>>9817509
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis
What a load of pointless bullshit.

>>9817524
>The concept of truth, yeah, dumbass.
So the concept of truth doesn't require truth to be true?

>>9817535
Sorry you haven't taken college linear algebra honey or anything having to do with machine learning.
Here is a brainlet version with visualization if you can handle it
http://setosa.io/ev/principal-component-analysis/

>>9817535
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickaxe
What a load of pointless bullshit.

>>9817538
The concept of truth doesn't require truth to be true, because we accept a belief without requiring a logical framework for that belief.
We purposeful trick ourselves.

>>9817539
>Sorry you haven't taken college linear algebra honey or anything having to do with machine learning.
Why would I waste my time with that useless bullshit?

>>9817556
I love how disingenuous your arguments are becoming because you lost about an hour ago.

>>9817556
Sometimes I wonder if the people arguing against IQ are actually shill who are on my side throwing up retarded strawmen to convert onlookers.

>>9817489
They're just comparitavley, really tiny. The are probably about the size of the moon to as small as Jamaica or even road island.

>>9817476
>Other animals may have much larger brains and be computing data all the time, perhaps
>Brains
>Computing data
Wew lad; . . .
>>9817480
Pragmatics? Wha? If you are trying to get the shinning gem of pragmatism involved in this guy's dumb post, forget it.
Btw, I am only talking about the stupid brain-computer metaphor, I don't know what this post is talking about, how's that for pragmatics, you stinky faggots.

>>9817569
Oops, I stuck an s on the end by accident:
>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pragmatics

>>9817580
Wtf does that post have to do with pragmatism, smelly?

>>9817569
>a brains purpose isn't data processing
what do you believe in, a soul?

>>9817586
Sign relations

>>9817528

>But genetics has a greater contributing factor.

I agree with this, my main issue is clarification since while genes have a greater contributing factor to intelligence it has not been proven (yet) that it is THE catalyst that caused emergence of intelligence in humans.

>>9817529

>It is designed for use on the domain of human beings
>It is designed to correlate with things that we care about

And numeracy isn't. Again your attempt to distance IQ from numeracy for the sake arguing doesn't work. Are we to just pretend that IQ measurements which utilized visual/semantic patterns converted from numerical models aren't related?

>>9817585
>He can't read.
Awh, baba. :(

>>9817593
It hasn't been proven, but it probably is. I always bet on the horse that is a shoo-in.

friendly reminder that correlation does not imply causation

>>9817593
Well everything is related. Are you saying that animals with numeracy (like certain kinds of primates) will score higher on IQ tests than pigs? If so I agree, and there probably is a relation though the results aren't very meaningful, especially since the margin of error in IQ tests increases the further deviate from the mean, and since every data point used to calculate the g-factor used human beings, not apes (this was what I was trying to get across).

So yeah there defintely is some relation but what I am saying is that it is less likely to be a meaningful result, and that what the test would measure would be the component of the primate's ability that coincides with what human society considers to be of use.

>>9817610
>t. 12 year old

>>9817610
friendly reminder that correlation does not imply causation

>>9817590
>Sign relations
I didn't know what this was prior.
Seems just like a pretentious way to say "learn from data, make inferences"
enlighten me?

>>9817626
That's basically what we do.

>>9817626
Actually it's how you explain phenomenon like (genuinely) learning from data and making inferences. Also I'm not a search engine.

>>9817631
What do you mean by "(genuinely)" that would somehow distinguish itself from, say, a computer just simply interpolating data (computation) and "learning" relations?
If this is like basic in the study then I'll fuck off but I'm trying to gauge if this is something interesting enough to learn about.

>>9817633
Linguistics is really interesting, trust me.

>>9817633
Chineseroom kinda things in the particular context of signs.
Semiotics isn't really a simple thing to learn or teach.
Sorry I just took a break for the first time today and I don't really want to think to communicate with you. Definitely worth learning about. This might be a good place to start for you, Peirce's catagories and semiotic is pretty much foundational.
Peirce is difficult so it won't hurt to find some secondary or more contemporary literature if you decide to read peirce or learn about semiotics, and biosemiotics.

>>9817652
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/

>>9817652
alright thanks

>>9815176
0.6 heredity not 0.7

>>9817053
>clinical psych hasnt even defined what consciousness is
Yeah its so grounded, il be sure to let my doctor perform surgery without out knowing what the body is.

>>9815193
>penis.org
lel

>>9817489

>>9817560