Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 86 KB, 853x855, 1540528664716.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10100964 No.10100964 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>"'''''Doctor'''''' Lynn went to 100+ countries around the world and administered IQ tests
>Average IQ for countries aren't entirely doctored/fabricated

also
>/sci/
>taking IQ (psychology - pseudoscience) seriously

>> No.10100968

>>10100964
The one thing IQ tests are good for is detecting retards

>> No.10100972
File: 26 KB, 1357x628, National_IQ_per_country_-_estimates_by_Lynn_and_Vanhanen_2006.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10100972

Please do tell me how Mr Lynn managed to get into North Korea and do IQ tests?

>> No.10100976

Some Dutch psychologist reanalyzed Lynn's date for African average IQ.

Interestingly enough, it came out at 82. Much higher than Lynn's estimate, yet still much below the European mean (~100).

>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c14/de5a9f7de7f6e09d55752b4dc736026b3e61.pdf

>> No.10100980

>>10100976
Here another one by Lynn's critics, placing the average African IQ at 80:

>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>> No.10100998

>>10100976
>>10100980
Are there any non-racist studies about African IQ?

>> No.10101012

>>10100998
Ones that intentionally misinterpret data to make niggers seem more human. I'm sorry, but those don't exist outside of R*ddit.

>> No.10101017

>>10100998
The ones I've linked above.

>> No.10101026

>>10101017
But those all seem to suggest that Africans have low IQ

>> No.10101030

>>10100998
>Are there any non-racist studies about African IQ?

LOL dude these estimates are from actual CRITICS of Lynn who implicitly accuse him of racism and bad research methodology. Still, they find the Subsaharan IQ to be more than a whole standard deviation below the European one. That should make you think.

>> No.10101033

>>10101026
>But those all seem to suggest that Africans have low IQ

Have you considered the possibility that Africans could in fact have low IQs and actual scientists could find that, even outside of /pol/ realm?

>> No.10101059

>>10100976
That seems about right

>> No.10101286

>>10101026
That doesn't make them racist. Find a problem with the method

>> No.10101413

>>10101033
Yeah sure they do. But now that the gap is smaller, it's probably a combination of socioeconomic status and genetics.
They might reach 90-95 or so with good socioeconomics and then go the last leg up with some selection for a few generations.

>> No.10101964

>>10100998
dont mean to pol here but its racist because you dont like it? i live next to loud mouthed niggers here in new york and my observation of various races in this melting pot only validates stereotypes, just go visit harlem its actually gut inverting how true this shit is. and this is in a civilized country not africa.

>> No.10102007

>>10101286
>That doesn't make them racist. Find a problem with the method

Yes, it IS racist. But SJWs need to realize that racism is not inherently bad. If some claim is racist AND true as evidenced by a sound scientific method, then so be it.

The problems are flawed research methods und skewing of results due to ideological constraints, not racism.

We will soon find more evidence about the existence or non-existence of the African/European intelligence gap and also about the exact genetic and environmental contributions to inter-individual and inter-group differences through genome-wide association studies. Brace yourselves!

>> No.10102060

>>10100998
numbers aren't racist

>> No.10102069

>>10100998

a racist study would be one that ignores the experimental evidence to push an agenda.
finding a statistically significant difference which is linked to a particular ethnicity is not racist.

like is not racist to say that jews have abnormally high occurrence of Tay-Sachs
like is not racist to say that blacks are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease
like is not racist to say that whites are less likely to suffer from autoimmune disease
like is not racist to say that ethnic tibetans have some innate adaptations to high elevations

etc etc

>> No.10102083

>>10101030
Makes me think that IQ, like everything in psychology, is fucking pseudoscience. Psychology doesn't even have a definition of Intelligence yet its trying to measure it. Try to measure it with methods that have no objective reason to measure anything.

Why is pattern recognition and the kind of problem solving on an IQ test considered a measure of intelligence? Analytical intelligence has been shown to lag behind things like social intelligence in terms of success in life, so why are we measuring that?

Its all just so fucking subjective that its meaningless.

>> No.10102099

>>10102083
Then don’t think of it as an intelligence test but a test in pattern recognition and computing speed. Black people happen to be really poor at these two cornerstones of learning

>> No.10102120

>>10102083
>Makes me think that IQ, like everything in psychology, is fucking pseudoscience.

It isn't. Denying that blacks have a lower IQ IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. Just because you believe in this unfalsifaible, pseudoscientific belief that "intelligence" is somehow this unmeasurable, subjective, magical thing that isn't a byproduct of biological matter does not make IQ pseudoscience. You got that?

>Psychology doesn't even have a definition of Intelligence

Except they do, you fucking retard. One of the things that makes IQ a valid scientific construct, is the fact that psychometrics DELIBERATELY choose to construct a specific definition of "intelligence" because they know the word means too many different things to too many people, so they made sure to construct a specific definition of intelligence that makes sense in the context of psychometrics, so we can actually know what IQ is measuring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores ("IQ scores") based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor.[1] The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, or simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests.[2] The g factor targets a particular measure of general intelligence.

This is why IQ tests are valid, because IQ is just a composite score of many cognitive tests which have all been proven to be "g-loaded". That's what intelligence means. Your ability on cognitive tests outside the scope of education.

>> No.10102128

>>10102120
We can't just hand out medical degrees to people with high IQ if they haven't memorized the thousands of pages we require of them.

>> No.10102177

>>10102083
>Makes me think that IQ, like everything in psychology, is fucking pseudoscience.

Ironically, IQ is one of the very few psychometric constructs that can be measured objectively. Which means that multiple examiners assessing the same test will always get the same results. Something that most psychometric constructs can't claim for their respective tests.

>> No.10102180

>>10102083
>Why is pattern recognition and the kind of problem solving on an IQ test considered a measure of intelligence?

Because that is intelligence. When people say intelligence, thats what they mean. When psychometric measure "intelligence", thats what they measure. Pattern recognition and problem solving skills are the most essential skill in our world today. The situations you come across essentially require you to employ these skills are numerous. You need them for relationships, you need them to cook, you need them for 12 years of grade school, you need them for your careers, you need them in occupations. So, given that one of the goals of IQ, was basically to help find outliers students who are gifted/challenged, why WOULDN'T it measure the one aspect of intelligence that results in gifted and challenged students in schools?

Its also inherent, you cannot radically improve problem solving and pattern recognition. You can clearly see even toddlers have some semblance of pattern recognition and problem solving skils, you aren't "taught" to even engage in problem solving or pattern recognition in the first place.

>Analytical intelligence has been shown to lag behind things like social intelligence

First no. You have no proof. There is also no such thing as "social intelligence" and even if there was, it doesn't have an equivalent to the "g-construct" that makes any measures of it, interesting.

IQ predicts income
IQ predicts educational attainment
IQ predicts health outcomes
IQ predicts occupational attainment
IQ predicts socioeconomics
IQ is demonstrated to be heritable

Really amazing how a "pseudoscience" can do all that huh!? Maybe because its not a pseudoscience, and IQ really is gauging SOMETHING that has a biological basis. Also, do you have any explanation why people who do well on one type of cognitive tests tend to do well on other cognitive tests?

SAT can also be used as a proxy of IQ since they are g-loaded too. Why do blacks score low?

>> No.10102229

>>10102083
>Analytical intelligence has been shown to lag behind things like social intelligence in terms of success in life

"Social intelligence" is a meme. Personality traits and inter-personal bonding styles are different from cognitive ability.

>> No.10102265

>>10102180
>>10102229

>There is also no such thing as "social intelligence
>Social intelligence" is a meme

So why then can social cognition be observed in other animals at varying degrees?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociality

>> No.10102396

>>10102265
>So why then can social cognition be observed in other animals at varying degrees?

What do you mean by "social cognition"?

Hymenoptera are social, yet not very intelligent. Cephalopodes, on the other hand, are not particularly social, yet fairly intelligent. Humans are both social and intelligent.

There's no connection.

>> No.10103507
File: 74 KB, 800x532, 1457580153753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10103507

We have different noses, skulls, skin colors, blood cell shapes, immunities, and bone densities, but if you even dare say we have different brains everyone gets in an uproar. The disdain science has race science really is the last religion of science. Give me one compelling reason we wouldn't have different brains and cognition differences between races.

>> No.10103824

>>10103507
Yeah we have different noses, hair and whatever else. But we can still all eat with a fork and knife. And we can all understand each other if we know English. Can you say the same for a dolphin or an orangotan?

>> No.10104206
File: 42 KB, 675x470, 32215141_10215925423351506_5703057931558191104_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10104206

>>10103824
Cognition ability of all humans > other animals
This statement doesn't actually refute anything. All dogs can bark, does that mean all dogs are the same. All dogs can read body language of other dogs, does that mean all dogs are the same. You're arguement is idiotic. The brain is a biological structure just like skin is, and while all humans have a brain and skin that doesn't mean all skins and brains are the same.

>> No.10104213

>>10103507
>noses
>skin
>hair
those are the only ones that are actually true desu

>> No.10104263

>>10104206
All dogs are the same species and can reproduce with each other, they just don't because imagine a big dog fetus growing inside a tiny dog. That would be crazy.

>> No.10104371

>>10101012
This is the only proper answer to that troll. Oh wait we all lost

>> No.10104407
File: 112 KB, 953x613, 1526842451468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10104407

>>10104263
Explain how this refutes my argument that dogs are different despite having the same basic biological functions, just like humans.

>> No.10104419

>>10100998
Yes, those that don't ignore, inflate or explain away the real numbers that show a saddening picture of African intelligence.

>> No.10104444
File: 23 KB, 650x476, 1466897683172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10104444

>>10104407
Really don't like this image. The last proof (the blue one) is by far the worst because it simply asserts its claim with no justification.
This is the classic "well it has more numbers and used more math-y words so it is more right."
Someone claiming .999 isn't 1 isn't going to buy that convergence formula, which is derived from the method used in the green box.
Clearly some highschool kid made the image, saying "this formula is in my textbook, which is tantamount to word of God."

>> No.10104522

>>10102083
Niggers are bad at even the most basic skills required for survival, like spatial awareness or time perception. This is reflected in the fact that basically no Bantu or Bantoid language has words for concepts EXTREMELY basic to us like relative position, future, past etc.

I know Lynn is rayciss and denigrates them as well, but unironically even Australian and Amazonian cultures are more sophisticated than any of the Niger-Congo ones.

>> No.10105389

>>10104444
You're right. You actually need to go into real analysis in order to actually show that in the real number system, 0.999... and 1 are necessarily representations of the same number. All of those 'proofs' are dumb because, as you point out, they just assume that you will accept their assumptions on authority, rather than show from first principals that there is no number infinitesimally smaller than 1 that is still distinct from it.

The orange box is flat out wrong, as infinitesimal numbers absolutely do 'exist', in that they can be used to form coherent number systems with well defined rules, like the hyper-reals, they're just outside the scope of the real numbers and don't conform to its axioms. And even then they were historically used by Newton 'informally' to develop infinitesimal calculus.

I like to think that the person who make that image knew that and deliberately intended to troll people.

>> No.10105461

>>10100964
IQ is measures "success" based on Income,Education level, Occupation,etc in a Western society.
They make up a ton of questions then give them to people who are "successful" and "unsuccessful" and everything in between.
Then they prune questions accordingly.
Eg. questions that "successful" people got right and "unsuccessful" people got wrong are put on the test.

But what happens if some questions requires excessive complexity and time and it is only solved by the most "unsuccessful" people and everyone else just skips it? Then this question gets thrown out.

In a proper environment these "Unsuccessful" extremes could've made great contributions but in Western society, they are more likely to fail.
Who knows how many true geniuses have died along with their unpublished papers and ideas.

Western society is not a meritocracy. A lot of social maneuvering is required to be "successful".
Therefore it is also likely IQ measures pattern recognition, and problem solving skills involved in "socializing".

The real elephant in the room is Who are these "successful" people?
Jews
They have a large in-group bias and commonly practice nepotism and much of this is rooted in their religion.
To have a high IQ means learning to gain favors , understand/recognize behavioral details, and socialize well in Jewish dominated fields.
And ofc IQ would also measure traits that are common in the successful in-group meaning that IQ measures your level of Jewishness which signals familiarity to other "successful" people to take you under their wing.

>> No.10105469

>>10105461
>But what happens if some questions requires excessive complexity and time and it is only solved by the most "unsuccessful" people and everyone else just skips it?

Do you understand what you're saying? What reason do you have to believe that such questions exist or would measure 'tenacity without time preference' that the genuinely unsuccessful people would actually do well on that 'better' people couldn't complete much faster if they were to choose so?

>> No.10105516

Since when did I imply only "tenacity"?
What happens if it takes a unique thinking style to solve the problem that causes them to waste time on other questions. How would you even know the 'better' people can solve the problem?

>> No.10105520

>>10101413
That’s not how it works you can’t raise iq by 25 points before that low iq population has destroyed the stability of the socities who build the requisite environments to raise that iq. We literally can’t afford 2 billion more low iq people if we even wanted to raise the intelligence of the current low iq populations. No one seems to understand how damaging it is having to shoulder all these people. Flynn effect has disappeared and everywhere it was observed g is dropping every decade.
>>10102083
IQ has neurobiological and polygenic correlates. Its one of the only robust metrics the psychometricians have constructed. Most of psychology is fake and gay, this is the closest they’ve gotten to really gauging cognitive function. IQ is as heritable if not more so than height.

>> No.10106356

>>10100964
>Lynn went to 100+ countries
Lynn went nowhere and measured fuckall, though. His pseud adventures in the last 15 years have basically destroyed any discussion on ethic/national/race IQ measurments with his meme estimates.
This being said, psychology and sociology pseuds should step thier game up and actually do some n>1,000 IQ studies here and there, instead of doing the same retarded estimates as Lynn, as to end the eternal shitpost

>> No.10106473

>>10105461
Youre a fucking retard and have not one scientific bone in your body.

>> No.10106479

>>10105520
You do realise that plenty other areas of psychology are using the exact same methodology as was used to create iq. E.g. personality psychology.

>> No.10106483
File: 290 KB, 866x878, 1505501558610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10106483

Your daily reminder that global average intelligence is decreasing..

>> No.10106520

>>10105520
Why is it declining though. Your graphics dont account for why iq is declining in the west. You make a misleading statement as if african iq is the reason.

>> No.10106622

>>10104522
Alright, I'll bite. Take Swahili as an example. That language has a relatively complex noun class system, with 16 seperate classes that nouns can fall into, and seperate concord for those classes based off of animacy, diminutives, etc. Not only this, it has (according to a quick google search), at least five words/phrases delineating the past, at least three more relating to the past. A deeper search also reveals a variety of pronouns relating to position and relation of position. According to your reasoning, this should be impossible for a Sub-Saharan African, yet at least 2 million speak this natively and 90 million more speak it as a second language.

>> No.10106708

>>10106622
>>10106483
Yes i think perhaps these different approaches to space time or colour are cultural. And theres no equivalent white cultures alive that live in equivalent niches

>> No.10106716

>>10102083
No one seriously uses it as anything other than a rough indicator of ability, and you seem rather upset that some people may on average have less ability

>> No.10106755

>>10106716
>and you seem rather upset that some people may on average have less ability

Yeah, why would anyone be upset that global average ability is decreasing. We are all equal and therefore ignorance is as good as knowledge. What a nazi!

>> No.10106868

>>10106473
no u

>> No.10107013

>>10106755
But what you seem to miss is that we dont want to increase iq for the sake of it. We want to help the people inclusing ourselves to live and exist. Looking down on someone for their iq defeats that purpose and also negates your own hypocrisy. If your iq werent adequate would you still value your life as useful?

>> No.10108477

when will these threads end

>> No.10108842

>>10108477
never
IQ is psuedo-science that is only pushed by jewish -supremacist and white supremacist.

>> No.10108989

>>10102128
kill yourself

>> No.10109011

>>10106483
>Africa's population is going to grow forever
>Average IQ lower than 100

>> No.10109016

Anyone outside of us ever met someone that made an IQ test?

>> No.10109024

>>10109011
Doesn't mean they can't produce millions of high IQ people though. Those people need to be extracted from the filth of the low IQs.

>> No.10109142

>>10107013
>just because someones iq is low doesnt mean they forfeit their inherent moral value
The dysgenic effect from low intelligence populations passing on their genes will eventually lower the average intelligence of the whole population. This is a real phenomena that can't be ignored for expediency.

>> No.10109231

>>10101413
Hahahaha yeah fucking right. What a sad stretch, one outlying study finds them slightly less behind so if we just imagine there might not be a gap at all!

>> No.10109334

>>10100972
They're genetically identical to South Koreans you fucking retard

>> No.10109407
File: 765 KB, 1062x996, kaiba.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10109407

>>10102229
>"Social intelligence" is a meme
What they're politely trying to say is that the brightest lab rat will still earn a pittance compared to a business chad.
Or, to quote Batman the Animated Series, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

>> No.10109410

>>10109024
His point was that an "average IQ" below 100 is an oxymoron; 100 *is* the average

>> No.10109411

sorta skimmed through the thread, but I recall learning in some class that IQ is roughly 50% inherited and 50% external factors? (childhood health, environment, etc)

is this true?

>> No.10109539

>>10100976
If someone is interested in the math behind that, the probability of an African being more intelligent than an European is slightly below 20%, if both are chosen at random and the standard deviation is 15 for both populations.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1%2Froot((15%C2%B2%2B15%C2%B2)*2pi))+(integrate+exp(+(-1%2F2)+*+((x-(108-71))%2Froot(15%C2%B2%2B15%C2%B2))%C2%B2)+from+-inf+to+0)

>> No.10109573

>>10109334

Not him but thanks to the decades worth of sanctions they aren't. Their IQ has at least gone down several points and their health is not only sub-optimal but all deserters including the soldier who left were found to have stomach worms/parasites reported by South Korean doctors. Those doctors also projected that around a third of the population most likely suffers from some parasite due to poor agriculture method including night soil utilization.

If North Korea ever joins the global community it will be very interesting to see the direct health and cognitive differences between two different Korean populations.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action