/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15193526]

Smashing the verbal components in FSIQ tests is literally just knowing a lot of SAT words. Midwit gang, are we leaving 5-10 points on the table?

[Anonymous No.15193528]

>>15193526
All you have to do to know those words is read a lot of books. If you didn't have a full adult vocabulary by 15 you're not going to make it.

[Anonymous No.15193531]

>>15193526
The next layer red pill is that verbal IQ itself is midwit gang, and your value to society is almost entirely determined by spatial IQ

[Anonymous No.15193532]

>>15193528
Fluid intelligence is fixed, but vocab is part of crystallized intelligence and should be easily trainable for an adult.

[Anonymous No.15193536]

>>15193531
A strong verbal IQ is nothing to sneeze at for practical success, though.

[Anonymous No.15193549]

>>15193528
fr fr no cap

[Anonymous No.15193561]

>>15193536
Yes, but only in centrally planned societies which are specifically engineered to produce that outcome. MBAs, administrators, lawyers, and other rent seekers get to suck so much value out of the system because they are the ones running the government. The vast majority are pure drains on society.

[Anonymous No.15193571]

>>15193531
>almost entirely determined by spatial IQ
why

[Anonymous No.15193594]

>>15193571
because that's anon's cope for scoring two or more standard deviations lower on verbal than he did on spatial

[Anonymous No.15193614]

>>15193571
Verbal IQ is your connection to language and linguistic manipulation. This gives you the ability to abstract complex objects into tidy concepts and also make very persuasive-sounding arguments. The problem is that those abstractions very frequently bear no connection to reality, and end up leading us toward convincing sophistry. To the verbal thinker, the ideas become more real than reality.

In contrast, spatial IQ is your connection to the real world, your ability to mentally envision, grasp, and manipulate complex objects directly. This is the faculty most crucial for expanding production and advancing technology.

In general, verbal thinkers will dominate groups like MBAs, administrators, lawyers, bankers, and rent-seekers. Spatial thinkers will dominate most areas of physics and engineering needed to industrialize.

There are exceptions though. For instance, verbal thinkers can make excellent pure mathematicians, because they don't have to worry about extracting "correct" axioms from the real word. The axioms are handed to them, and they just have to explore the ideas. However, in general I almost entirely blame the decline of western society on the current dominance of verbal thinking.

[Anonymous No.15193615]

>>15193594
Actually, I tend to score almost exactly the same on both. Sounds like you might be projecting the reverse scenario though.

[Anonymous No.15193616]

>>15193614
That's a whole lot of verbal IQ you just pulled out of your anus

[Anonymous No.15193621]

>>15193616
>t. low spatial IQ

[Anonymous No.15193624]

>>15193531
Verbal IQ is the sole determinant of whether you can be successful in a business environment.
Without it, you are nothing but a seething insecure neet wasting away on a tibetian crab fishing forum, or worse, an underemployed cuck engineer who'll get skipped for promotion and laid off due to "budget constraints" and "poor synergy with the team"

[Anonymous No.15193633]

>>15193624
Yes, I already covered that here
>>15193561

Oh, and for a funny example of my point that is particularly relevant today, ChatGPT has a tested verbal-linguistic IQ of 147.

[Anonymous No.15193638]

>>15193624

[Anonymous No.15193654]

>>15193528
>f you didn't have a full adult vocabulary by 15 you're not going to make it.
Lmao, midwit. I had a full adult vocabulary by 6 already.

[Anonymous No.15194160]

>>15193532
That's true, but vocab actually has one of the highest correlations with fluid intelligence of any test

[Anonymous No.15194752]

>>15193526
Did you not have to learn all that vocabulary in high school?

[Anonymous No.15194944]

>>15193615
>>15193615
>no u
lol, suppose that i deserved that. anyway, assuming that this >>15193614 is also you: i'd probably agree that there's too much verbal intelligence and not enough spatial "in charge." but however many problems there are with lawyers and bankers and mbas, those roles still perform valuable and even necessary functions. can you explain how the problem of, say, governing social-group behavior, can be better addressed by spatial intelligence than by verbal intelligence? because it seems to me that the reason those roles are dominated by verbal intelligence is because verbal intelligence is better suited to solving the problems of those domains.

on the other hand, quantifying the costs of the establishment's overinvestment in verbal intelligence vis a vis spatial is itself a problem amenable to spatial reasoning.
t. majoring in pure math, hoping to do my phd in epistemology

[Anonymous No.15195095]

>>15194944
Longpost incoming (1/2):

I might concede that in a vacuum, verbal thinkers can provide better (or at least smoother and more agreeable) solutions to various types of social group dynamics. However, because we don’t live in a vacuum, they always in the process incur costs that far outweigh their benefits. This usually involves several types of problems:

1) Verbal thinkers will always drastically overestimate the importance of social interaction, management, “synergy” and all the other HR buzzwords in fostering efficient production.

2) Verbal thinkers will be too disconnected to anticipate the wider consequences of their actions. They will see a group dynamic problem, overestimate its importance, create an abstract model for that problem, and then determine a solution. That solution will not be abstract. It will be very much real, and it will require diversion of real resources from other problems to modify human behavior to the result they want.

3) Because their mental models of human psychology are usually wrong, they will barely move the needle, and the amount of resources they will require to achieve their utopian outcome will continuously increase. Because of the sunk cost fallacy, they will usually continue to get more resources and incur more collateral damage. And because of cognitive dissonance, they will dismiss any analysis of secondary consequences with more abstractions. We see this play out repeatedly. It is why every government program that fails gets rewarded with more funding.

[Anonymous No.15195099]

>>15194944
>>15195095
(2/2)
You put these principles together, and you get a world where corporations spend billions in resources every year on millions of HR workers, lawyers, bankers, and administrators while getting maybe 15% of that back in actual societal value. Where governments spend trillions every year on solving social problems with maybe 10% return on that investment. You get a research system with a massive replication crisis. You get an education system growing more radical and less objective. You get angry mobs who spout ideas about “equity” and “diversity” that are totally divorced from reality, vestiges of another verbal abortion known as “Blank Slate theory.”

In reality, society would so (SO) much better off if we put as little time and resources into those issues as possible, for two reasons:

1) Truly, the most Pareto efficient solution in the realm of social engineering is to do nothing, because human behavior is much more heritable and difficult to manipulate than ideologues want to believe.

2) The only human achievement which has meaningfully and consistently improved human socioeconomic conditions is technology. So again we are right back to spatial thinkers.

I’ll conclude this rant by just saying that you can look at something like the Pareto principle, Price’s law, Zipf’s law, etc., and see that the bulk of achievement and progress comes from a small subset of any given group, not some grand cultural synergy. Hard work and talent determine success, and there are no magic social shortcuts around that fact. I have no high hopes that humanity will break free from this death spiral, so we’ll continue to play around in 4th degree abstractions, and conditions will continue to get worse.

t. Physics PhD

[Anonymous No.15195268]

>>15195095
>>15195099
>the most Pareto efficient solution in the realm of social engineering is to do nothing
hypothetical: all laws made by governments of men are cancelled tomorrow. legislation is the epitome of verbal reasoning, so get rid of it altogether. how much physics research do you imagine yourself getting done in the foreseeable future?
seems to me that the haber process alone has enabled population density far beyond that for which "just work it out between yourselves" is a reasonable solution, to say nothing of technological progress in general.
>The only human achievement which has meaningfully and consistently improved human socioeconomic conditions is technology
those same improvements are what make possible the very rent-seeking you (understandably) despise.
>the bulk of achievement and progress comes from a small subset of any given group, not some grand cultural synergy
granted. it's nonetheless beneficial to enjoy at least enough "grand cultural synergy" that you don't need to worry about taking cover from artillery fire on your way about your daily business. simply put, the solution to overinvestment in "grand cultural synergy" isn't to neglect it altogether, but to optimize that investment. Which, again, is a problem that's amenable to spatial analysis, as opposed to the verbal analysis of bitching about it on /sci/, so (with no hostility intended) shut up and calculate.

[Anonymous No.15195901]

>>15193526
learning how to be and then how not to be a long winded pseud was the biggest redpill in highschool

[Anonymous No.15197763]

>>15195268
We need laws, but we'd be better off if laws were written by people with better spacial reasoning, as opposed to the high verbal intelligent sophist caste we have now. The current caste can make compelling (but unsound arguments) and they can use their skills to navigate the legislative realm, but their ability to draft effective legislation is inhibited by their deficient powers of analysis. They're incapable of looking at things and studying the mechanics between them to predict likely outcomes from first principles.

[Anonymous No.15197975]

>>15197763
>we'd be better off if laws were written by people with better spacial reasoning, as opposed to the high verbal intelligent sophist caste we have now
all else being equal, yeah that's likely. however, if they're as verbally intelligent as you say, then
>They're incapable of looking at things and studying the mechanics between them to predict likely outcomes from first principles
is imprecise: they lack training, not capacity. you could address that with a civil service requirement of three semesters of calculus and two semesters of real analysis. even that is probably overkill, but it's far more optimized than "get rid of all the verbal thinkers."

[Anonymous No.15198038]

>>15197975
I'm totally in favor of civil service exams. The (political) problem would be that it would almost entirely eliminate certain ethnicities from Congress, which I would of course be fine with, but it would cause an uproar amongst the plebs.

The best legislators would of course have tremendous verbal and spacial reasoning skills. It's just that our current political (and corporate and social) environment relatively favors verbal intelligence over spacial intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15198063]

>>15198038
you're not going to be able to apply civil service exams to elected positions, especially not those for which the requirements are spelled out in the constitution. legislators don't write legislation themselves anyways. you want the vetted analytic talent between the mouthpieces and the lobbyists.