Imbecile?

[Anonymous No.10843338]

For the record these are the best responses to the recent Taleb's rant about IQ:
ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/
www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/

and here's Taleb's pieces
medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_

[Anonymous No.10843339]

who

[Anonymous No.10843375]

This fat fuck always overestimates his case because of his ginormous ego.

[Anonymous No.10843412]

Psychology and IQ research is basically a collection of p-hacking and other forms of junk statistics.

You can build a career in psychology by picking through datasets and finding correlations with IQ. Cherry pick long enough and you will find something.

There's also the problem that IQ has become a kind of self reinforcing force in the world, with companies using pseudo-IQ tests or IQ proxies in their hiring processes, which of course would skew the results to show a correlation with IQ.

In any other discipline, the correlations that IQ researchers put up would be laughed out of the room, but I guess its good enough for social science.

Taleb is spot on with his techincal points, and then he goes into trolling as per usual. I fucking love it when onions boys lose their shit because of his "ego".

[Anonymous No.10843570]

>>10843338
>www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/
Completely misses the point, if he did regression analysis by splitting the function outputtin iq in relation to a dependent variable in half and ran those, he would see that the bulk of the correlation weight comes from below average intelligence, while above average intelligence yields a barely significant correlation.

Via negativa not via positiva, fragilistas!

[Anonymous No.10843578]

>>10843570
>while above average intelligence yields a barely significant correlation.

Seems like possible correlation to me. More importantly, there is too little datapoints at higher IQ/income levels for a definite conclusion here. Taleb is a retard who forgot to mention this crucial fact in order to spin his agenda.

[Anonymous No.10843581]

>>10843578
>his agenda.
what is his "agenda"?

[Anonymous No.10843590]

>>10843581
denial of the validity of evolutionary psychology because genetic determinism baad

[Anonymous No.10843602]

>>10843338
>medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

Imagine unironically defending income as the only measure of success. Jesus Christ. Fucking quants I swear...

So maybe correlation between IQ and income is very weak above certain level, sure. Now do the same thing with something like h-index or other metrics measuring scientific output.

[Anonymous No.10843614]

>>10843602
>There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. Wealth may not mean success but it is the only “hard” number, not some discrete score of achievements. You can buy food with a $30, not with other “successes” s.a. rank, social prominence, or having had a selfie with the Queen.

[Anonymous No.10843619]

>>10843602
Suffice to say, his scale outright ends at 130 IQ points, likely even below the average of a moderately accomplished STEM scientist. How convenient, ignoring academic and scholarly achievements as a measure of success.

[Anonymous No.10843691]

>>10843619
>Psychology
>113
The blind leading the blind

[Anonymous No.10843699]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10843750]

>>10843619
it's 2 SD up literally only 2% of the population is above that bracket

[Anonymous No.10843844]

>>10843338
based black swan man making fun of idiots who think they are smart

[Anonymous No.10843880]

>>10843590
>denial of the validity of evolutionary psychology because genetic determinism baad
I don't get this impression at all. I'm pretty sure Taleb believes in "Intelligence", because he calls people idiots all day long on Twitter.

I think his point is that IQ is a bad measure of "Intelligence", not that it doesn't exist at all.

[Anonymous No.10844209]

>>10843602
>maybe correlation between IQ and income is very weak above certain level
except correlation between IQ and income is very weak (0.2-0.3) AND linear at all levels of the distribution

[Anonymous No.10845124]

>he adjusted R2 is 0.356, so IQ explains ~35% of the variance of grades in this data set.
Fucking KEK. Regardless of where you personally stand on the IQ issue if this is the level of intellect presented by psychologists the field is actually garbage and its so called "results" should in no way be trusted.

[Anonymous No.10845129]

>>10843578
Possible correlation is an honest way to put it. Taleb would still argue against it, but the way psychologist spin this data they make it seem like IQ is as ironclad as F=ma. Like if you score 70ish on an IQ test but earn 180K or score 120 on an test and earn 30K there is something that needs to be cleaned up about your test.

[Anonymous No.10845196]

>>10843602
>>10843619
Academic achievement as a measure of success completely destroys IQ. You cannot hard measure the impact of a paper very well and a single brilliant insight can redefine you from ordinary to genius.

[Anonymous No.10845908]

>>10845129
>psychologist spin this data they make it seem like IQ is as ironclad as F=ma
they don't

[Anonymous No.10845936]

Taleb might not even be as butthurt as he seems in his denial. Not to say iq is as ironclad as some spergs wish it were. However, it’s probably of some use.

Nonetheless, Taleb is casting spells. He wants to define the real conditions of the real world he wishes to create, and is using his influence to that end.

[Anonymous No.10845950]

>Tooleb
Yikes

[Anonymous No.10847056]

>>10845936
he's having fun

[Anonymous No.10847080]

>>10843699
>another "another IQ thread" post

[Anonymous No.10847087]

>>10845196
there is a correlation

[Anonymous No.10847114]

>>10843570
Which doesn't in any way negate the argument of most IQ-realists who ask:
>why are we importing massive amounts of sub 80-IQ shitskins into the first world?

The only reason Taleb is going on this tirade is because he identifies strongly with his lebanese ancestry and is salty as fuck that middle-east is now just a bunch of inbred retards. It's also why his other big bone to pick is "proving" that Lebanese is not a dialect of arabic, because, again, he loves his ancestry but doesn't want to be associated with inbred retards

>>10843581
That's his agenda lad, saltiness.

[Anonymous No.10847120]

>>10847114
Lebanon isn't as inbred as Arab shitholes

[Anonymous No.10847137]

>>10847120
Not disagreeing with you anon,
wasn't making a quality statement about lebanon itself (was mostly thinking about the gulf states when I referred to the "middle east") just pointing out the most obvious explanation for Taleb's tirade.

Ironically, he has fallen victim to his own construct of Wittgenstein's ruler.

[Anonymous No.10847138]

>>10847120
It isn’t and they are much closer in genetic distance to Anatolians, Jews, Mesopotamians and Iranians than they are gulf arabs but they’re still admixed heavily with Arabian blood and culturally arabic

[Anonymous No.10847149]

>>10847138
>admixed heavily
barely any Arab blood in the Lebanese and Western Syrians, unlike Palestines and Jordans

[Anonymous No.10847565]

>>10843338
>these are the best responses to the recent Taleb's rant about IQ
see also
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/swanning-about-fooled-by-algebra/
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/in-the-wake-of-the-swan/

[Anonymous No.10848666]

>>10843339
Imbecile

[Anonymous No.10848856]

IQ fails 90% of the time. My generated data proofs it.

[Anonymous No.10848867]

>>10843412
IQ research is better than many other fields especially when it comes to group differences (on which publications are probably a net. negative for your academic career).

https://psyarxiv.com/ytsvw/

[Anonymous No.10849145]

>>10848867
as far as social sciences go i suppose it's up there

but at the end of the day it's a social science

[Anonymous No.10849158]

IQ was created to justify racism.

[Anonymous No.10849194]

>>10849145
Sure. If you define medical research and neuroscience as social sciences which is not the normal way you define it. You imbecile.

[Anonymous No.10849207]

>>10843412
Yeah social science is so shit that another field would never accept this.

[Anonymous No.10849211]

>>10849145
Sure. If you define medical research and neuroscience as social sciences which is not the normal way you define it. Look into some metascience studies on different fields. All have problems, they are less severe for things like physics and pretty bad for social psychology but to claim this is mostly a problem in social sciences is completely wrong. I guess you think that because they have less fancy lab equipment and white coats so you assume it's not real science which is a retarded way to look at the quality of research you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.10849212]

>>10845936
He’s being objective. There’s more to life than money. Jeff Bezos is a very rich man. But is he the smartest man in existence because of his money? Probably not. But iq would say he is.

[Anonymous No.10849213]

>>10849207
But they do and intelligence research is better than medical science in terms of statistical power.

[Anonymous No.10849217]

>>10849211
The quality is very low because it’s probably the most complex science and we have social butterflies doing it instead of actual hard workers who went into logic and natural science.

[Anonymous No.10849219]

>>10849213
Doctors are better than “”””””””””””iq scientists“”””””””” and the world rightly treats IQ shitters like shit.

[Anonymous No.10849225]

>>10849212
incoherent post

[Anonymous No.10849229]

>>10849217
I think ideological bias is serious problem in social psychology. Many of them won't accept sterotype accuracy, one of the largest and most replicated findings in the field, because of this. "social butterflies" don't go into psychometric or behavioral genetics both of which are highly quantitative fields which is why a few physicist seem to be interested in it (hsu, cochran).

[Anonymous No.10849230]

>>10849225
I’m so smart that it’s hard to explain the thoughts in my head

[Anonymous No.10849231]

Taleb is right. JF did a pretty good analysis of his post, but this does not disprove IQ differences in races. But IQ does not capture all intelligence and may be useless as a metric after 105 iq.

[Anonymous No.10849232]

Modern day equivalent to phrenology. Coincidentally, phrenology is backing a comeback in the bullet-biting that comes with IQ worship

[Anonymous No.10849234]

>>10849231
Flynn effect accounts for the differences. Also define race

[Anonymous No.10849236]

>>10849231
>JF

Ryan debunked his shit. JF pretends to be a lot smarter than he actually is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jsWrQu7CQ

[Anonymous No.10849241]

>>10849234
Race differences and Flynn effect have different causes. This has been shown pretty conclusively.

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/rushton2010ip.pdf

[Anonymous No.10849244]

>>10849241
Flynn effect will fix all differences ok

[Anonymous No.10849247]

>>10849234
Differences persist despite Flynn effect.

>>10849231
>But IQ does not capture all intelligence and may be useless as a metric after 105 iq.

Maybe for income. Not for other achievements, such as academic and scholarly ones.

[Anonymous No.10849251]

>>10849234
>Also define race

[Anonymous No.10849252]

>>10849247
>Maybe for income
This isn't actually true.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-zagorsky.pdf

[Anonymous No.10849255]

>>10849247
Flynn effect hasn’t finished working. Education is still low across the low in people atm. Once education is high, there will be no differences

[Anonymous No.10849257]

>>10849251
Those are too broad. Blue has a wide range of IQs. In fact every colour has a wide range of iqs

[Anonymous No.10849259]

>>10849255
>Flynn effect hasn’t finished working
It actually reversed in a few developed countries,

>Education is still low across the low in people atm. Once education is high, there will be no differences

Incompatible with transracial adoption studies and high within group heritability for both blacks and whites. Except if you want to argue that the enviomental gap between blacks and whites is so large that there is basically no overlap.

[Anonymous No.10849262]

>>10849257
>High within group variance in 1 (ONE) trait makes a taxon untenable.

What is this?

https://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf

[Anonymous No.10849265]

>>10849259
The effects of Education can be inherited. That’s why children of uneducated people do badly. It’s called genetic memory. The same way Jews genetically remember the holocaust

[Anonymous No.10849267]

>>10849259
Yeah it’s reversed because education in the developed world isn’t as good anymore.

[Anonymous No.10849271]

>>10849262
More difference within than between means it’s useless. In any real field it would be thrown into the garbage like taleb said. But s’nce it’s social science you are getting a second chance

[Anonymous No.10849274]

>>10849271
>>10849267
>>10849265
>>10849257
>>10849255
this is all bait

[Anonymous No.10849313]

>>10849158
>IQ was created to justify racism.
not really, it was created to evaluate draftees and place them into military roles

[Anonymous No.10849315]

I wish I knew enough about statistics to understand talebs' arguments

[Anonymous No.10849337]

>>10849313
It goes back even further than that. It was part of a series of tests developed by a child psychologist and the french government to diagnose children with learning disabilities. The application of IQ to military draftees came later. The guy who changed the IQ test to the measure of intelligence looked at the new recruits and said that they were all retarded and became so because they were mutts who mixed too much with blacks

[Anonymous No.10849344]

>>10849313
No it was actually created in france to diagnose learning disabilities. Doesn't really matter anyways. What's funny about taleb calling iq proponents nazis is that the nazis didn't like IQ tests at all.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7472&source=post_page---------------------------

[Anonymous No.10849351]

>>10849313
No it was actually created in france to diagnose learning disabilities. Doesn't really matter anyways. What's funny about taleb calling iq proponents nazis is that the nazis didn't like IQ tests at all and the reasons they gave for disliking are somewhat similar to some of the reasons taleb gives.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7472&source=post_page---------------------------

[Anonymous No.10849355]

[Anonymous No.10849438]

>>10849355
Cringe. My IQ is 85 and I ended up fully supporting trump. IQ isn't everything

[Anonymous No.10849477]

>>10849252
Is there a csv available for this shit?

[Anonymous No.10849523]

>>10849477
I'm not sure if there is a public dataset with IQ and income data. Your best bet is probably asking someone in hbd crowd like Kirkegaard, Crémieux, John Fuerst, James Thompson, ...

[Anonymous No.10849535]

>>10849252
>https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-zagorsky.pdf
Does anyone have the csv of the dataset used in this example?

[Anonymous No.10849541]

>>10849535
https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/getting-started/accessing-data

[Anonymous No.10849617]

>another iq thread

[Anonymous No.10849655]

>>10849617
>>10847080