/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10271329]

How does this make sense when most people in society are brainlets? Shouldn't IQ be left skewed?

[Anonymous No.10271333]

It's called a bell curve not a left-skewed curve

[Anonymous No.10271341]

>>10271329
You need to have an IQ of at least 120 not to be a brainlet

[Anonymous No.10271347]

>>10271329
>rank everyone
>back feed it into a Gaussian and get a quotient number

IQs are literally meaningless number uncorrelated to anything objectively measurable.

[Anonymous No.10271348]

>>10271329
>most people in society are brainlets
And you're one of them

[Anonymous No.10271353]

>>10271347
>it's complex so it doesn't matter!11
very dull

[Anonymous No.10271360]

>>10271329
You don't have an accurate intuition of what the human average is. Be aware that doesn't suggest anything about your own position in the distribution.

[Anonymous No.10271375]

>>10271353
>it's complex
His point was quite the opposite. It appears you are the brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10271377]

>>10271353
>it's complex
Are you a brainlet that got confused by the mention of Gaussian distribution?

It's literally an arbitrary ranking that gets converted to percentiles that gets read out by what that percentiles mean in an inverse cumulative Gaussian distribution with mean 100 and sd of 15.

IQ = 100 + 15*Probit(#rank / #number of humans on earth)

[Anonymous No.10271387]

Real world appliance of low intelligence means a multi step solution process evades the majority.
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/

[Anonymous No.10271388]

>>10271377
You're right and that guy's a brainlet but you're wrong that it doesn't correlate with anything important. It correlates with a whole host of factors one might consider important in defining success (namely income, health, criminality).

[Anonymous No.10271393]

>>10271375
It's a highly meaningful number which is correlated to not just something but everything that is objectively measurable, such as height, income, penis size, nationality, pigmentation(eg. hair color), digit ratio, cranial type etc.
The correlation indexes for each of the thousands to millions of variables are generally weak individually(with exceptions) hence why it's complex.

[Anonymous No.10271400]

>>10271393
>penis size, nationality, pigmentation(eg. hair color), digit ratio, cranial type
Why are you making shit up?

[Anonymous No.10271406]

>>10271347
>meaningless number
It's a measure of certain aspects of your brain function as compared to the rest of your society.
That's hardly meaningless. It's not somehow not a measurement of anything and just a meaningless number because the scale is adjusted to keep the average at 100.
It doesn't measure quantitatively how many intelligences you have, it just ranks you against the rest of everybody in terms of how well you are a few particular tasks.
Turns out that being good at those tasks correlates with a lot of aspects of the life you'll live, whether there's a true causal relationship is yet to be determined.

[Anonymous No.10271408]

>>10271388
>correlates

Vaguely in that it segments retards, brainlets, normies, and smart people. The actual number is more of an accident of the test rather than anything actually quantifiable.

[Anonymous No.10271411]

>>10271329
The scale is designed with 100 being the average.
If more retards are born the average will shift and your IQ will rise.

[Anonymous No.10271413]

>>10271400
Burden of proof is on >>10271347 who claims that IQ has no correlation with anything

[Anonymous No.10271417]

>>10271329
I agree OP. It seems intuitive to me that intelligence should follow a log-normal scale. To what degree can data be forced to fit a particular distribution?

[Anonymous No.10271420]

>>10271408
It measures where you fit on the scale of stupid to smart in your current society.

What, do you want a number that factors in the number of connections each neuron in your brain has formed and the scale of your memory networks and how big your dick is in micrometers? That's not what IQ is and it never has been

[Anonymous No.10271426]

>>10271417
Why should the smartest person be so much farther away from the mean than the stupidest person?
A log distribution simultaneously gives people too much credit and also not enough credit for their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10271427]

>>10271417
Can you explain why?

[Anonymous No.10271437]

>>10271427
Because I can't think of any instances where I met someone whom I deemed to have a sub-85 IQ.

[Anonymous No.10271440]

>>10271413
What does 1 IQ point mean? How much brains do you gain with 1 IQ point?

Saying you're 6'1" tells you something
Saying you grew an inch tells you something
Saying you're taller than 60% of people only tells you something relative
Saying that you grew 0.1% ahead of the population can mean you grew by varying amounts depending on where you are in relation to the population.

[Anonymous No.10271444]

>>10271437
You can't necessarily tell right away if someone has sub-85 IQ since all their points could be in communication
You'd have to test it by telling them something ridiculously dumb and see if they believe it

[Anonymous No.10271446]

>>10271437
Society is arranged by IQ and different segments are in silo more than mixed.

[Anonymous No.10271452]

>>10271437
and you don't see the obvious problem with this?

[Anonymous No.10271483]

>>10271452
As someone with a basic education in the sciences and probability and statistics, I understand that conclusions cannot be drawn from anecdotes and that, as the other poster mentioned, society is stratified by intelligence. However I decided to post anyway because of the forum's low barrier to entry and because I am curious about how well scores on intelligence tests actually follow a normal distribution.

[Anonymous No.10271485]

>>10271440
Depends on which part of the bellcurve you're on since the "brain power" curve may be more like >>10271417
I don't think it matters anyway what one point may or may not give you as IQ is best seen as a range rather than a particular number

[Anonymous No.10271491]

>>10271485
Exactly, IQ doesn't mean anything. Your general location on the brainlet-normie-smart spectrum is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.10271500]

>>10271483
The theoretical low end of the spectrum is a human born so mangled and retarded that they're little more than a breathing vegetable.
The theoretical high end is honestly not that much better than the average. A few standard deviations up and you start to get into savant territory where the increase in one aspect of intelligence requires a significant sacrifice literally everywhere else and eventually would wrap around to be mostly non-functioning. Those highly specific performance increases are balanced out by the decreases in function across the board and so the high end of the scale has a definite peak.
>>10271491
That's exactly what IQ measures though.

[Anonymous No.10271505]

>>10271500
>That's exactly what IQ measures though.

No, it's what the test maker thinks you are on the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.10271509]

>>10271491
How do you quantify that without IQ?

[Anonymous No.10271512]

>>10271505
No it's where the test measures you to be on the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.10271515]

>>10271440
On the WAIS, for instance, IQ can inform you about the raw score on a certain subtest. Here's the difference in 2 standard deviations on the vocabulary subtest. As you can see, the 70 IQ student was unable to define any abstract words. The 100 IQ student was able to define a few abstract words. The 130 IQ student was able to define almost all the words asked. However, on the high end, small differences in raw score can translate to a large difference in percentile ranking, and thus IQ score. For instance, the 130 IQ student gave an insufficient definition for "Winter" while the 100 IQ student gave a sufficient definition, but no one would pretend that the 130 IQ student doesn't know what winter is or that they have a weaker grasp of english than the other two students. My point is that they lose resolution at the high end, but probably not at the very high end, because people who shatter the test ceiling would have no problem answering every single question correctly.

[Anonymous No.10271525]

>>10271483
nice cope

[Anonymous No.10271532]

why do people on /sci/ think they're superior to other people?

[Anonymous No.10271534]

>>10271515
Just realized I wrote an enormous wall of text no one will read. TL;DR; Differences in IQ score translate to raw score differences on certain subtests. You can make subjective judgments about how being unable to answer a certain question on an IQ test translates to real-life ability, but there's also the strong correlations that the full-scale score carries, that is less subjective. Also, IQ tests lose resolution at the high end due to the nature of the grading system and the smaller sample size at the tail ends of the distribution.

[Anonymous No.10271538]

>>10271509
By seeing what they can do

Can you do arithmetic? No veggie
Can you do algebra? No retard
Can you do calculus? No brainlet
Can you do analysis? No normie
Yes smart

[Anonymous No.10271552]

>>10271347

[Anonymous No.10271553]

>>10271532
Why do niggers steal bikes?
Why does a scorpion sting?
Why is water wet?

[Anonymous No.10271577]

>>10271552
>IQ=0
IQs don't work that way. The lowest IQ is 5.2

[Anonymous No.10271579]

>>10271515
>that guy who can't define "Sentence" or "Reluctant"

[Anonymous No.10271583]

>>10271577
It does work like that if your brain just blew up, blood is running down your skull and what remains is smoldering, you autist.

[Anonymous No.10271591]

>>10271583
IQ has nothing to do with brains. It's by definition your ranking in the world that the test maker "hopes" is related to your brains.

[Anonymous No.10271852]

>>10271515
Is there even ANY use for verbal IQ? I usually test 132-135 but it seems so fucking pointless

[Anonymous No.10271870]

>>10271852
Yes, higher verbal IQ generally means better reading comprehension and an increased ability to express oneself in the written and spoken word. It also correlates highly with general intelligence. I don't know what you mean by "usually" since IQ tests aren't reliable if administered on a regular basis.

[Anonymous No.10271890]

IQ is comparative so it can't be objectively quantified.
Smarter than X doesn't mean shit if X doesn't exist.
We need to find a way to quantify intelligence so it correlates with real mathematical values so that even if your IQ is 100 now and was 100 50 years ago, you're smarter than you were 50 years ago which IQ can't predict

[Anonymous No.10271942]

>>10271437
Try working in retail or any other kind of service jobs and you'll meet loads. On both sides of the counter.

[Anonymous No.10272394]

>>10271329
Its like height. People who are 5 foot 11 are completely normal but they are still manlets.

[Anonymous No.10272473]

the only hope is eugenics for IQ

[Anonymous No.10273249]

>>10271341
>at least 120
120 is not the brainlet cutoff anymore than 6’0” is the Manley cutoff

[Anonymous No.10273250]

>>10271347
It’s a measure of g, which, whatever it is strongly correlates to a lot of good things.

[Anonymous No.10273251]

>>10271377
Lrn2probabilitytheory&stats

[Anonymous No.10273254]

>>10271426
Pre-civilization I imagine it would look like that because retards would have very low life expectancy.

[Anonymous No.10273256]

>>10271329
>most people are brainlets
>left skewed
Kek

[Anonymous No.10273258]

>>10271437
maybe it's you
really people with 70-85 iq function just fine in the society, they're capable of graduating school and doing most jobs

[Anonymous No.10273273]

>>10271329
>society is full of brainlets
>IQ scale should be skewed left

[Anonymous No.10273279]

>>10271329
REMINDER NIGGERS HAVE A LOWER AVERAGE IQ THAN KOKO THE MOTHERFREAKING GORILLA.

KOKO 85
NEGROES 75-80

KOKO IS LIKE A SEER FROM BEYOND COMPARED TO THE AFRICAN NEGRO.

[Anonymous No.10273454]

>>10271329
100 iq IS brainlet
skew has more to do with the extremes than the majority

[Anonymous No.10273467]

>>10273279
Reminder KOKO's tests were for 18month-3 year old children. So she is slightly dumber than an average 2 year old.

[Anonymous No.10273468]

>>10271329
i unironically want you to kill yourself op. please.

[Anonymous No.10273563]

>100 IQ is the median by definition
>i.e., 50% of people are below 100 IQ
Where are these people? I feel like I haven't met very many people like this, but wouldn't it be pretty obvious, after talking to someone for awhile, that someone was sub-100?

[Anonymous No.10273589]

>>10273563
The difference between that of someone with 95 and 100 is small, the larger the divide is, the greater the difference is between "retards" and "average" people.
You also do not interact with the various masses in any way that would let you truly see how stupid or intelligent they are.
If you're a midwit (110-115) you are more likely to be interacting with people of similar intelligence, which will skew your perception as to what is and is not "reality" yet again.

[Anonymous No.10273603]

>>10273249
6'7" manlet here. This is correct, I often can't even reach the top shelves in the supermarket and women mistake me for a child. I just wish I could be tall enough to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.10273629]

>>10271329
>How does this make sense when most people in society are brainlets?
You're assuming brainlets aren't average IQ or greater.

[Anonymous No.10273634]

*ahem*

IQ TESTS ARE SOCIALLY AND REGIONALLY BIASED REEREREREEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10273635]

>>10273467
Based Gorilla

RIP

[Anonymous No.10273639]

>>10273634
>IQ TESTS ARE SOCIALLY AND REGIONALLY BIASED
I genuinely laugh whenever someone brings that up.

[Anonymous No.10273691]

>>10271329
This because most people who complain about "dumb people" are pretty average. By definition most people are

[Anonymous No.10273788]

>>10271515
What would the difference between 1 point and 2 points be? 0 means you just flat out got it wrong, but what about the others?

[Anonymous No.10273790]

>>10273467
Smarter than you desu.

[Anonymous No.10273811]

Traits are often normally distributed in animals.

[Anonymous No.10273817]

>>10273563
open your facebook

[Anonymous No.10273826]

>>10273589
I pretty much hang out with you guys!
I'm fucked aren't I?

[Anonymous No.10273971]

>>10273256
Glad someone else noticed

[Anonymous No.10274014]

>>10273634

But this is something that empirically testable. Take people from different cultures, give them the test, and then see if their ability to answer the supposed culturally loaded question correlates more with the culture or their score.

And it just turns out to be not culturally loaded. "Regatta" is means "boat races" (or something), and it turns out that smart black kids who have never seen the ocean know the word at pretty high rates. It turns out that living in a fancy upper class boat racing culture just doesnt matter too much towards knowing the word. Instead, a general intelligence does.

[Anonymous No.10274032]

>>10274014
The verbal parts notoriously reports more for all backgrounds.

[Anonymous No.10274035]

>>10271329
Most people arent stupid.

[Anonymous No.10274161]

>>10274035
You cleary haven’t spoken to many people then.

[Anonymous No.10274165]

>>10271329
I wonder what I would do if I was "very bright"...

[Anonymous No.10274182]

>>10274161
He probably has, it's a relative thing

[Anonymous No.10274271]

>>10271341
125 and still feel dumb as fuck

[Anonymous No.10274275]

>>10274182
If he worked retail or fast food he would quickly understand

[Anonymous No.10274290]

>>10271406
>measure of certain aspects of your brain
The measure is heavily skewed. It can make a huge difference if you have slept enought or not. There's also stress, what you ate and a shitton of other unknown factors.
What if somebody has exam anxiety and fears that if the iq test is below 120 he gets called a brainlet? He will shit himself and have a few points less. I think there are more factors that worsen your performance than better it, but it will somehow even out and the mean of a population group will still be somewhat comparable to the mean of a other group. If you want a value for yourself you'd have to do multiple tests on different days, but this is shit because you will get better at doing iq tests and therefore the test is skewed again. It mostly means shit for a single person except the test score has a really serious deviation from the mean.

[Anonymous No.10275150]

>>10271341
>118
I’m not going to make it am I