/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4351456]

Boris Sidis himself derided intelligence testing as "silly, pedantic, absurd, and grossly misleading."

In high school, his IQ was determined to be 125—high, but "merely respectable" according to biographer James Gleick. Feynman later scoffed at psychometric testing.

Stephen Jay Gould criticized IQ tests and argued that that they were used for scientific racism. He argued that g was a mathematical artifact and criticized: ...the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status.(pp. 24–25)

Alfred Binet, a French psychologist who developed the first IQ test, did not believe that IQ test scales qualified to measure intelligence. He neither invented the term "intelligence quotient" nor supported its numerical expression.[citation needed] He stated: The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured. —Binet, 1905 and "Some recent thinkers seem to have given their moral support to these deplorable verdicts by affirming that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing.[142]"

and, just one more thing:

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. - Einstein

So /sci/ what do you think about IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.4351468]

>mfw "[citation needed]"

[Anonymous No.4351466]

>>4351456


I think someone with a low IQ and jealous of those with higher IQs (maybe even those much younger) would be the type to make appeals to authority when discussing the subject of IQ.

[Anonymous No.4351481]

IQ tests were invented to test for retardation to separate full blow retards from dumbfucks

there is nothing more sad than someone claiming to be smart and having a 147.8 IQ

[Anonymous No.4351486]

How are you going to measure something whose definition is not even precise?

[Anonymous No.4351489]

Hard Work > Imagination > Intelligence > Knowledge

[Anonymous No.4351501]

I like taking them and getting told I am extremely intelligent

But yes, they give you an raw approximation of the 'level of skill' (whatever that is) you have in those skills needed to perform well on IQ tests. The tests are not worthless in the sense that they give false information, but their name is absurd

Sage because everyone already knows this

[Anonymous No.4351502]

>>4351481

So it's possible to have brains that are less proficient at memory, problem solving, and acquiring information but the concept of having a brain that is better a these things is absurd?

ok.

[Anonymous No.4351505]

>>4351489

prove this.

[Anonymous No.4351514]

>>4351501

wow, what I waste of thousands of dollars.

[Anonymous No.4351518]

> mfw all the socialists in here berate iq tests as totally false and a joke
> mfw they then post the conservative iq study that came out recently as gospel

[Anonymous No.4351528]

>>4351514
>implying you didn't know I was talking about shitty online IQ tests and mensa bullshit

[Anonymous No.4351532]

>>4351518

>mfw nobody connects the dots on this and realizes why both positions are ironic

>mfw I have no face

[Anonymous No.4351533]

>>4351528

>implying I was implying I didn't

[Anonymous No.4351535]

>>4351518
>mfw conservatards calls anyone non-right winger a "socialist"
>mfw very few people deny the validity of IQ tests
>mfw conservatards make strawmans to avoid the fact that dozens of studies have shown a negative correlation between IQ and conservatism

[Anonymous No.4351552]

>>4351456
> 2012
> Failing at IQ test
> Implying it doesn't measure your social intelligence.
> 2013
> Failing at Social Intelligence test
> Implying it doesn't measure your instinctive intelligence.
> 2014
> Failing at Instinctive Intelligence test.
> 2015
> Scoring 3<span class="math">\sigma[/spoiler] above of the average in the Stupidity Test.
> Implying you're finally good at something.

[Anonymous No.4351564]

>>4351535

>mfw when you think the fact that conservatism is correlated with lower IQ implys that conservatism is a less rational position.


>mfw you'd argue the same thing about Paganism vs Catholicism had you been born in the 1200s.

[Anonymous No.4351575]

>>4351533
>implying you weren't implying indirectly that you did by implying you didn't and i was implying the direct implication

>>4351535
>"several studies"
>no source
>2012

[Anonymous No.4351578]

Here's what I think, ballsack.

>Boris Sidis himself

Appeal to authority.

>Stephen Jay Gould criticized IQ tests and argued that that they were used for scientific racism.

Appeal to consequences.

>I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. - Einstein

Appeal to authority, and substituting platitudes for data.

Intelligence differences exist, they are largely hereditary:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm

Case fucking closed. Close this window. Turn off your computer. Unplug it from the wall, Return it to the store. Tell them you are too dumb to be on the internet and that I told them it's okay to beat you.

[Anonymous No.4351589]

>>4351456
>Stephen Jay Gould criticized IQ tests and argued that that they were used for scientific racism.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
>The following is a review of Gould's Mismeasure of Man, in which Dr. Arthur Jensen replies to Gould's severe criticism of him in the book. Of course, uncritical admirers of Gould will "know" that Jensen is an alleged "racist," and hence anything he says can ever-so-conveniently be automatically be ignored. But those who are open-minded enough to give both sides a fair hearing should read Jensen's reply without any preconceived ideas, and ask themselves: Is this man really the terrible bigot and fool that Gould makes him out to be? Or is he a serious scholar who has been the victim of a slick campaign to paint him as a scoundrel because his findings contradict certain political ideologies? Jensen's reply has, until now, only been seen by a miniscule fraction of those who have read Gould's Mismeasure. It is now time for the "other side" to be heard.

[Anonymous No.4351592]

>>4351575

The last time this came up in a thread, sauce was provided, the conservatives dismissed it as liberal propaganda.

If you're not going to accept any evidence you don't like, fine, but don't pretend otherwise just to make someone do the legwork involved in tracking down studies you'll never read.

[Anonymous No.4351600]

IQ tests are irrelevant unless they are generalized across racial lines, in which case it's the only metric that matters.

[Anonymous No.4351602]

>>4351589

Ships were used for racism as well must mean Archimedes' principle is a lie.

[Anonymous No.4351606]

>People still citing Gould

Didn't people get the memo? Gould was a dishonest hack who manipulated data to fit his preconceived world-view:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/gould-morton-lewis-2011.html

[Anonymous No.4351608]

Smart people take their level of intelligence for granted.

[Anonymous No.4351611]

>>4351578

> mfw they dont even define intelligence

[Anonymous No.4351616]

>>4351578

Nobody is implying there aren't racial differences in intelligence you asinine faggot, just that IQ tests say little about intelligence. It might make you feel better to know that your race is on average more intelligent than some others, which I'm sure is the case to some extent, but just know that it's only a generalisation, and that it still permits outliers like you. gb2/new/

[Anonymous No.4351623]

>>4351606

Thats true but IQ tests still are a piece of garbisch.

[Anonymous No.4351634]

>>4351611
> mfw they dont even define intelligence

Dictionary definitions of "intelligence" are completely irrelevant. Even if we don't call what IQ tests measure "intelligence", it still won't change the fact that it measures a trait that is heritable, has neurological correlations, and is related to a whole host of life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.4351641]

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
>Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

>This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

[Anonymous No.4351643]

>>4351592
>implying I wouldn't read the source
>implying I'm not what most people would call a liberal and wouldn't love those results if they were true

I just doubt they are, because most of those studies are constructed so that they confirm the prejudices of the creators. Social studies are very tricky anyway.

If you don't want to 'do the legwork' and believe that we'd dismiss the source anyway, why do you even make the claim

[Anonymous No.4351644]

>>4351616

>Nobody is implying there aren't racial differences in intelligence you asinine faggot,

I didn't say anything about race.

[Anonymous No.4351649]

>>4351578
babys first rhetorical analysis

[Anonymous No.4351655]

>>4351649

So, no acknowledgement of the studies provided? I am shocked.

[Anonymous No.4351661]

>>4351655
>Implying I open random links on 4chan
>implying I'm not already doing something
>implying I actually care what biased unvalidated source you reference.

[Anonymous No.4351662]

IQ is correlated with everything you'd expect an intelligence measure to be correlated with.

Obviously it's only a proxy. But it's a fucking good proxy. No, it's not perfectly accurate and yes there will be wild deviations in individual (especially extreme) cases. But anecdotes are not data.

But it's very strongly and statistically significantly correlated with earnings, performance in education, etc. Deniers don't understand the measure and/or are just analpained.

[Anonymous No.4351664]

>>4351644
Well I'll be, you didn't. I guess I just read 'hereditary' and, though association, my brain immediately added 'racial'. Guess I'm the asinine faggot. Sorry.

Still, nobody was saying that intelligence isn't hereditary, either, so the rest of the post still stands

[Anonymous No.4351666]

http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci708/cdocs/Schmidt_Hunter_2004.pdf
>The psychological construct of general mental ability (GMA), introduced by C. Spearman (1904) nearly 100 years ago, has enjoyed a resurgence of interest and attention in recent decades. This article presents the research evidence that GMA predicts both occupational level attained and performance within one’s chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job experience. The sizes of these relationships with GMA are also larger than most found in psychological research. Evidence is presented that weighted combinations of specific aptitudes tailored to individual jobs do not predict job performance better than GMA alone, disconfirming specific aptitude theory. A theory of job performance is described that explicates the central role of GMA in the world of work. These findings support Spearman’s proposition that GMA is of critical importance in human affairs.

[Anonymous No.4351668]

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
>Data from the National Adult Literacy Survey are used to show how higher levels of cognitive ability systematically improve individuals’ odds of dealing successfully with the ordinary demands of modem life (such as banking, using maps and transportation schedules, reading and understanding forms, interpreting news articles). These and other data are summarized to illustrate how the advantages of higher g, even when they are small, cumulate to affect the overall life chances of individuals at different ranges of the IQ bell curve.

[Anonymous No.4351697]

>>4351489

Translation: I am unintelligent. Instead of valuing knowledge, acquiring it and applying it, I take the route of repetitious trial and error until i get the desired results.

[Anonymous No.4351706]

>>4351578
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm

I don't dispute that most of the variance in IQ (amongst adults in developed nations) is genetic, but this study is bullshit. There have been a ton of preliminary results that have identified genes that people thought might be linked to higher IQ that when properly tested later turned out to be bullshit. It is now generally acknowledged that it is a multitude of genes of very small effect that is responsible for variation in genotypic IQ and they simply couldn't so easily be identified with these primitive studies. Things might be different 5+ years down the road though:

Most Reported Genetic Associations with General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives:

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/econ/dbenjamin/IQ-SNPs-PsychSci-20111205-accepted.pdf

[Anonymous No.4351739]

I don't think anyone can argue that if you take a 100 or more people whos IQ is measured to be 120 and 100 or more people whos IQ was measured to be 80 and you had the two groups compete in a series of mental challenges relelvent todays society that none of htem had much experience in before, such as learning a new language, identifying flaws in someones argument, learning a new subject like engineering, or other tests of one's logical, deductive reasoning, then you would find that the overall results of the group with an IQ of 120 were much better than the results of the group with 80.

So how is IQ not valid as a general measure of intelligence? Sure we're measuring intelligence in te context of western society, but what other society is there that matters?

Do you really care if someone is an expert hunter-gatherer any more? No, it's neurological make up that gives a predispostion towards being good at maths, logic, communication, calculus, chemistry , engineering, etc. that matters in the world today.

[Anonymous No.4351744]

>>4351739
at the end of the day even if we take the test's premise to be true, hard work goes a much further way than high IQ. how many people with high IQs have died and contributed nothing to the human race?

[Anonymous No.4351745]

I was tested with 142.
But I'm an impulsive assburger and above that semi extroverted so my low social intelligence fucks me up.
My impulsivity too.

[Anonymous No.4351761]

Intelligence tests are biased pieces of shit; example

>person A who can disassemble and rebuild and entire engine without any directions and knows every single part.
>same person can't do math for shit

>person B who can do calculus in their head
> B however doesn't know shit about cars

Point and case. It's for finding people who can erase and replace in a similar field or subject.

[Anonymous No.4351765]

>>4351761
Both examples are use of knowledge, not intelligence.

[Anonymous No.4351772]

>implications
>implications everywhere

[Anonymous No.4351773]

OP here. I am constantly getting obsessed and paranoic with all sort of things. But now with that ideia of my intellectual abilities beign constrained by an IQ i am way more depressed than my usual. The things that i used to hold on, my love for engineering and science, just dont see to make sense anymore.

There have been times when I believed that hanging out in my own head was dangerous, and my engineering studies provided an escape. But now thats all gone.

ps: i never took an IQ test because i am afraid of the results.

[Anonymous No.4351779]

>>4351739

because people confuse intelligence with SUCCESS which are not necessarily the same.

I have an iq of 145 (real actual professional test) my brother's is 96(once again professionally administrated test) I'm an obese shut in, and drives, he holds down a semi-professional job with an impeccable work record, has his own home and several thousand in the bank.


He doesn't do his own taxes is, bad at math and abstract problem solving and he won't play strategy games with me, but he still does vastly better job at life than me.


Iq is something not everything.

[Anonymous No.4351792]

>>4351761

>test of physical prowess are bullshit one man can bench press 300 lbs but can't run for shit one guy can run a mile in four minutes but can't lift for shit

[Anonymous No.4351796]

>>4351744
No one is saying that hard work and application isn't important, or that someone with 1 point higher IQ is automatically going to be more successful, productive, do better in school, etc. than someone someone who works much harder than them.

But speaking as someone who goes to a very prestigious university that gets a lot of extremely intelligent people going to it, I know that there are some people in my class who will pick up everyconcept faster and easier than me, will find the questions more straight-forward than me, will be able to make deductions and se how to progress forward in a problem in ways that simply do not occur to me, and in challenging exams like the ones my university does, that test not only how well yo've learnt, as in memorised the material, but how gifted you are at applying that material in novel situations and using your insight and problem solving ability, I know there will be some people that I am extremely unlikely to ever beat no matter how much hard work I put in.
And these people, yes they likely work hard, there will be very few people who just sit back and rest at my university because it's all so straight forward to them, our workload is too high for that, but the deciding factor as to why I can't beat them is their intellect. Their brains are better at learning knowledge, understanding it, and using that knowledge to derive insights and solve problems than mine.

That is something I have had to accept. Tis is coming from someone who is of way aboe average inteligence. For somone of below average intelligence, the celiing must only be higher. I mean intelligence is the difference between an ameployee only needed something explianed to them at a job once and them having it explained to them multiple times an not understanding and making hte same mistake over and over again.

[Anonymous No.4351805]

>>4351779
do they? I think you're chasing a shadow on the wall an ending up advocating stances that are incorrect as a result.

Studies show that G-factor is correlated with socioeconomic and career success as an adult. That's undeniable, your personal counterexample doesn't nvalidate an observed trend witnessed in a large sample.
that isn't to say application is irrelevent. I certainly hope nobody said that at least because obviously it isn't true. Anyone is capable of sabotaging themselves by not trying. that's a given.

But that doesn't necessarily imply the opposite true. Not everyone is intellectually capable of anything if they try hard enough.
If this were about a physical parameter then I don't think you or others would have a problem accepting it.
"not everyone has enough innate hand-eye coordination to be a world-class snooker player". "if you aren't born with genes that mean you have a high proporiton of twitch-muscle fibres and preferable muscle distribution and skeletal frame, then you have no hance of winning a gold medal at the olympic 100m sprint"
This isn't controversial. Yet it seems like people, perhapsincluding yourself, get emotional and irrational when you say the same thing relating to a mental parameter.

[Anonymous No.4351812]

>>4351796
As an undergraduate I felt like the people you are describing, I picked up everything super fast and most of the people in my class seemed slow to me. in grad school I am constantly surprised by the other students and level of the material and feel a little inferiority, but maybe all grad students feel that. so I understand what you are saying, but I still hold that research and learning are a marathon, not a race, and assuming you are a reasonably intelligent individual hard work will carry you farther than many who more skilled than you are, don't get discouraged

[Anonymous No.4351815]

>>4351456

Intelligence is ability to learn, not previous knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4351816]

>>4351805

I don't have a problem accepting it. You're missing my point; other people don't accept it because they fail to understand that outcome is the result of complex interaction from a large number of variables.

They had knee jerk emotional reaction to IQ that they don't think. They don't even try to approach the subject rationally like they would any other question about human function instead they immediately seize upon every association they have on the subject and turn the discussion into a cluster fuck dick waving retardation.

[Anonymous No.4351818]

>>4351779
An yet it's plain to see that the mental equivalent is just as true as the physical case. Lt's take an easy first example. A person with downs syndrome, or 4 sex chromosomes, or some other kind o clinical "retard" is never going to be intelligent enough to compete in the IMO, or become a doctor, no matter how hard they try to work.
You agre with that don't you?
The more intelligent above that you get, the greater the gap can be made up through hard work, but there will still be limitations that simply can;t be surmounted.
I'm fairly convinced that no matter how hard they try, nobody with an IQ of 80 will be able to compete at the IMO. Or to give a more "real world" example, nobody with an IQ of 80 is likely to get through Jane Street or Goldman Saach's interview selection process (extenuating circumstances like extreme nepotism excepting).

And these are both pretty safe examples I'm choosing. I coul probably go further and say that no one with an IQ below 100 is ever going to get a first class degree from the university of Cambridge.

Sorry if that's more upsetting for you than the fact that you'r not likely to ever become the world heavy weight boxing champion or no. 1 ranked tennis player no matter how hard you try, but it isn't any less true. Innate talent will always matter. Some challenges will be insurmountable, and some people unbeatable because you don't have enough talent.

[Anonymous No.4351820]

>>4351818
the point is you can't change what you were given, you can only work hard to make it count the most. so why worry about it?

[Anonymous No.4351823]

>>4351489

An idiot with a great work ethic can spend all day trying to shove a stone from the East coast to the West. But the man who invented the wheel will travel much quicker.

[Anonymous No.4351831]

>>4351820
This isn't a question of worying about it. I'm stating it because it's the truth and should be acknowledged as the truth.

You can add the proviso "but it shouldn't matter that much" afterwards if you want, but I become worried when people pretend that truths they find offensive or problematic for personal or political reasons aren't the case. It isn't scientific. It's the reason social sciences don't deserve to be called that at all.

[Anonymous No.4351855]

iq tests is the only way /sci/ basement dwellers get self steem and wave something on other people's faces, for their own good we should admit iq test are important

[Anonymous No.4351884]

IQ is a measure of abstract problem solving ability. The old SAT and GRE were a decent measure at it considering the score distribution and its consistency.
There is a vast difference among average scorers of IQ tests and people above the mean by 2-4 sd. I scored 1450 on the old SAT and felt fairly idiotic next to some of the Putnam and 1600 students at Cornell math undergrad. But in comparison to the average student, I tended to completely outpace them in picking up most concepts and finishing problem sets. So, IQ is completely noticeable as long as you keep an eye out for it.

[Anonymous No.4351936]

>>4351884
know that feel. I scored a 1500 on the old SAT and I still feel stupid at times in grad school

[Anonymous No.4351964]

>So /sci/ what do you think about IQ tests?

I believe it's a admirable gesture in measuring the potential of the homo-sapien.

But thats all it is honestly, just a gesture. Yes we talk of sources and research that attempt to ultimately induce factuality into genetic or hereditary differences, but what good does that do?

The use of "I.Q." is a idiom with connotations that constrict the freedom of the human mind and society it's self. By putting some form of range on one's "possibility" you bind their mind in self-doubt. That self-doubt transforms to hesitation and that hesitation brings forth failure of worth. And that failure worth instigates stagnation, which is the worst action a man or woman can make.

To tell one ethnicity or sex or person they have low or high potential deprives them of their personal freedom. You discourage them of the chance to explore their personal potential and usefulness to themselves and the world.

For me op "I.Q." is a disgraceful and should be shelved.

Ask yourself this, should we force a man from doing sports because he has an I.Q. of 130?

Do we deprive a man of the study of medicine because he has an I.Q. below 100?

Should we entertain such thoughts because we think we can assemble them better in society?

Are we arrogant enough to believe we have the right to gauge and direct a man's future on a double or triple digit number?

I say no personally op, but what have you?

[Anonymous No.4351992]

>>4351964

you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Anonymous No.4351997]

>>4351964
>Are we arrogant enough to believe we have the right to gauge and direct a man's future on a double or triple digit number?
You're right, its much easier to do by skin color.

[Anonymous No.4352060]

>>4351964
>I.Q. tests can potentially be used to discriminate.
>They WILL discriminate and for that I.Q. tests are to blame and are innately evil.

Yeah, no. You can't just say that I.Q. tests will automatically cause someone to have self doubt or be used to discriminate because we don't know that - it could, but that does not mean it will. The government - at the least, the American government - won't actually tell someone that they can't do sports or study medicine because that is stupid, and many people have excelled in academics with lower IQ's.

IQs are in some ways, a little (read: not exactly like in all ways) like MBTI types. They are a personal factor that CAN HELP someone predict future problems or areas of strength, but they are not a sure thing (not all INTJs like science, not all ESTJs will like leading). To put it into 4chan language,
>implications everywhere

[Anonymous No.4352180]

IQ tests measures how good people are at taking IQ tests. Of course there is some correlation with certain other things requiring similar kinds of thinking, eg. pattern recognition mostly, but it doesn't really tell you anything about creativity, deeper abstract thinking, or many other things important for being "smart", whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.4352215]

>mfw this entire thread is greantext and trolls trolling trolls

>mfw when you thought I was gonna say I have no face

>mfw you think you are smart for guessing I was gonna say something else from the lenght of the last line

>protip: you aren't

[Anonymous No.4352257]

>>4351489

Actually scientifically it more like Discipline/hard work>social intelligence>IQ> knowledge.

As for IQ tests themselves I believe their good at predicting a persons general intelligence within a certain limit, someone with a IQ of 150 is likely to be smarter then someone with an IQ of 100 for example.

However I have doubts about the studies they do on IQ and saying they prove IQ = intelligence.

Say you took a sample of 30,000 people and tested their ability to do Sudoku , you then took the results and created the same data structure as you would with the likes of an IQ test.If you looked at the people who did really good at Sudoku as opposed to those who did really bad I almost guarantee you would find those who were good at it would do better in education ,have better jobs and do better in life in general.However If you used the same logic as these IQist's you would have to deduce that this SQ (Sudoku Quotient ) was an absolute measure of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.4352279]

First law of Psychometrics"
"A subjects response to a test reflects only the subjects response to the test."
If I present you with a test on 4chan and you wad up the paper and throw it at me your score is zero but that tells us nothing about your knowledge of 4chan.
More importantly, intellect is not a one dimensional thing that can be measured on a linear scale like IQ. Memory, pattern recognition, creative problem solving and so on are very different things that all fall under "intelligence"

[Anonymous No.4352282]

>>4352060

I have personally spoken with people on /sci/ and other places who have studied these IQ statistics/are aware of them. Some of them are employers; others are in prominent positions where they can lead change, projects, etc.

I asked them, usually informally, if they were presented with the dossiers of two individuals, one white and one black, who they would hire based on credentials. I asked them hypothetically if the black candidate had a better dossier overall and the Caucasian had a mediocre one, who would they hire first? They gave me excuses such as, 'well, it's about the best fit, and it's about leadership abilities, also we have to look at..' but it always led them to conclude that they'd choose the white person the vast majority of the time. I finally asked why/pushed the issue further and the lot of them literally said something along the lines of, ''By statistics, the black guy may have the higher credentials, but the white guy most likely has the higher IQ or intellectual capability.'' Each time I heard some variation of this excuse, I eventually drifted off the topic and felt a sour emptiness inside. If I believed in a soul, then I'm guessing it would be the equivalent of one dying inside over and over.

I don't even know what to say anymore.

[Anonymous No.4352302]

Gould criticized studies for having a racist bias, meanwhile his arguments were based on his own moral bias: that everyone is equal, and any experiment showing otherwise must be wrong.

[Anonymous No.4352311]

I agree with the above, since IQ is based entirely on population statistics, the only thing that is measured with an IQ test is how good someone is at taking the test compared to others. The term "intelligence" could mean anything, and therefore doesn't mean anything. the brain has thousands of parameters, so which ones are related to this "intelligence"? IQ is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4352552]

>>4352282

You should try the same thing but this time ask them if they would higher a white guy with a fantastic portfolio over a east Asian/Jew with a mediocre one.

It'd be interesting if they could recognize their own hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.4352561]

Seeing as every other idiot on the internet claims to have an IQ of over 60 million (the scale is not even the same across the boards) according to some shitty online test, I can say IQ tests are totally worthless.

[Anonymous No.4352570]

>>4351489
>Imagination > Intelligence > Knowledge
Master troll. 10/10. Never stop posting.

[Anonymous No.4352579]

>ctrl+f reification 0 results found

[Anonymous No.4352597]

character traits and attitude are superior to IQ. Things like self discipline, motivation are in the long term more important than IQ since anyone can always gain more knowledge if they focus on it.

[Anonymous No.4352608]

I'm 25, I still live with my parents, I failed out of school after 4.5 years and still have no degree or job.

When I was 7 I was tested and my IQ is supposed to be 142....I don't feel smart nor do I think IQ alone is a good indicator of anything other than short term memory for problem solving....

FML and happy 2012 /sci/ ;-]

[Anonymous No.4352761]

>>4352608
Heheh. I didn't think I was gonna post in this thread but you swayed me. 25 is still pretty young, don't give up hope. Oh wait, 'childhood IQ test' nvm.

In which case, I might as well contribute something.

Men score 5 points higher on IQ tests than women. This reveals an inherent flaw in the types of questions asked. If men were truly more intelligent than women then inferior men would have an advantage acquiring sex. Reproduction is costly and a risk to survival. The stupid women die leaving only those who are at least as intelligent.

But IQ tests are valid, they are the best known predictor of future success (unfortunately there are no good measures of motivation).

Put a group of boys and girls together. Tell them to close eyes and remove something from the room. The girls will do better. Ask them to estimate the relative volumes of two containers and the boys do better.

Intelligence is hard to describe.

[Anonymous No.4353381]

there is any article disproving IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.4355189]

I think iq isn't important, mine is 74 yet still i know how to tie my shoelaces and drive a bike.

[Anonymous No.4355224]

>>4355189
but can u do math? ur prbably retarded & not fit and good for sci, lol
doin ur shoe laces and ridin ur bike aint shit bro, i can do that too, lol, it doesnt take a genius
aaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, get the fuq outta mah sci nigger, please :)

[Anonymous No.4355243]

>>4351964
>Yes we talk of sources and research that attempt to ultimately induce factuality into genetic or hereditary differences, but what good does that do?
>Ask yourself this, should we force a man from doing sports because he has an I.Q. of 130?


You're making an appeal to consequences to avoid answering the issue of what IQ is a useful measure of and how inheritable it is.

I do not respect such intellectual dishonesty.
Your post is not scientific. The issue of whether scientific fact should affect policy is not scientific.
Get off /sci/. You would be better placed in /lit/.
Brainwash 2:7 - The Parental Effect - http://vimeo.com/19893826
Password is "hjernevask".

You're making an appeal to consequences.

[Ice !!t9uevLo7NU5 No.4355245]

>>4351456
IQ is something only underachieving retards spout.

Sorry, but no one here at Stanford ever brings up IQ. Probably because we all know everyone around us is exceedingly bright.

Only underachieving kids who go to shitty schools or have failed at life attempt to salvage their point by bringing up IQ.

TL;DR

IQ is essentially useless considering the truly intelligent will have expressed their brilliance in a form everyone can witness.

[Anonymous No.4355264]

LOL The only people who say that IQ tests are totally worthless...

...are those who are too proud of their intelligence and couldn't handle it if they were one point lower than someone else.

Also, this whole thread is two circlejerks: one for the snotty "I'm better than an IQ test," and those who are "I'm better because of my IQ test."

[Anonymous No.4355296]

>>4355245
>no one here at Stanford ever brings up IQ. Probably because we all know everyone around us is exceedingly bright.

i.e.
>no one here at Stanford ever brings up IQ. Probably because we all know everyone around us has a very high IQ.

What's the point of your post? We're discussing whether IQ is a useful measure of intelligence, not overall "worth" as a productive human being. Furthemore I'm pretty sure no one is claiming anything ridiculous like "I'm a highschool drop out who works at macdonalds but I'm a more worthwhile person than a doctor or leading scientist because I have a higher IQ than them".
>the truly intelligent will have expressed their brilliance in a form everyone can witness.
That's assuming "true intelligence" includes motivation. Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with how motivated someone is or how hard they want to work.
You're being illogical, factually incorrect and missing the point.

[Anonymous No.4355321]

It's possible he attempted to lower his IQ, even knowing all around this while in highschool. Already a young genius, he knew the people who could get him famous. On TV, known to the world.
A master mind like that cannot have a measly IQ of only 125. To be able to out-stand yourself out of thousands of individuals isn't easy. If you want to become famous, or make it rich, that's right, billions of dollars worth. The power to influence laws, people, money. That sort of mastermind doesn't appear to normal humans with an IQ of only 125.

This is clearly a most powerful emperor of the elastic brain, the immortal rule of creativity and the arts, the ability to do science and think logically, in order to sort and modify the universe.

You fools are pitiful as to think a person like this wants to give merits to this sort of test. The only logical order for a genius ultrabrain like Feynman is the right order to make it big and make a mark. And he did that.

IQ tests will alienate your hopes and dreams and burn them to death, screaming on twisted, slowly spinning stakes under jagged flames.
Accept it. You're doomed.

[Anonymous No.4356137]

>>4355321
The first 2/1 paragraph(s) were good, you missed beyond that though

[Anonymous No.4356147]

Wait, guys. If intelligence is hard to measure, why don't we invent a test that measures stupidity?

[Anonymous No.4356152]

>>4356137
Oh wait, the paragraphing would have made your poor understanding of sarcasm more obvious, my mistake.

Take note of this guy:
>>4356147

[Anonymous No.4356179]

Let me ask you this, /sci/: do you believe that people with higher IQs are more successful in life? That they contribute more to the human race than people who do not have a 3 positive standard deviations IQ, but are, for example, really musically talented or socially savvy?

If you answer yes, why is it that you have such a stuck-up image of intelligence being so important?

If no, why the fuck do you care so much about people's IQs?

[Anonymous No.4356187]

>>4356147
ok fine, now that we've identified each other let's make a real contribution to this thread, we have, you're right.

this is what the tests were designed for. the 'normal' brain is the most 'efficient', though, there are real differences in wiring. IQ tests are more a measure of frequency than performance: the differences in performance are greater in the low range than the high; however, IQ tests are an interval measure for 85% of people, this is how people like 'Feynman' slip in (his purported IQ is most definitely modest). circumstance + motivation > talent, for several reasons.

[Anonymous No.4356192]

george bush was retarded and managed to become president. think about that

[Anonymous No.4356283]

>>4356192
twice

[Anonymous No.4357441]

Intelligence is a really complex thing, its involves not only the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and from experience but it also involves our personality, our genes, the way we fantasize about things, the way we build relationships. A person can be creativy and intelligent in so many ways that an IQ test can only be useful to understand a very specific skill, so its a good statistical measure to understand some social things that are related to that skill but its only that.

I guess most of the people here are more into science and engineering because of their competitive personality. I dont care about that, i do things that i like for curiosity and the pleasure that comes from master a skill.

Sorry about my english, i am polish. I will leave you with that /sci/

“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all.” ― Richard P. Feynman

[Anonymous No.4357462]

>>4357441

finally a reasonable post

[Anonymous No.4357490]

>>4357441


I agree with this guy, if you think that you will never get past a certain point because you never had the ability to do so in the first place, you lose motivation (even if you could've achieved something).

However, I won't disregard IQ tests completely, it's a cute measure of someone's ability, but don't think that score will determine that individual's life.

[Anonymous No.4357497]

Carol Dweck's Theory of Motivation demonstrates that it IS possible to consciously change your IQ with the proper mindset.

Unbreakable belief in IQ testing leads one to learned helplessness, which causes a fixed IQ. People who see IQ as malleable and not fixed would instead use imaginative thinking to explore different ways that they can achieve mastery; empirically-based studies demonstrate that teachers who encourage their students to develop "incrementally-based" self-theories can change their IQ up to 30 points, which shows that IQ is not as fixed as many believe it is.

While this remains just a theory, consider the fact that the empirical studies alone show that IQ is at least not fixed and does not limit people to their inherent genetic mental capacity. If you do not accept the theory, at least accept what the evidence shows.

[Anonymous No.4357505]

>dat feel when 3 points more stupid that Feynman
Hmmm.. I guess I can live with that.

Seriously, most of this is bullshit. Nonetheless, people who score higher in IQ tests and such are on the average smarter/better overall, so surely not all of this is baseless.

It's a shame that /sci/fags get so elitist/butthurt over others that if you took the average IQ of Anon, it would be at least mensa-level.