/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 272 KB, 960x540, jb1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:37:17 2013 No.6152745 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people say IQ doesn't matter when IQ is well correlated with academic success and, as a result, success in life in general?

Do people honestly believe that a person with an IQ of 90 can compete effectively in an environment where the average IQ is 120 (say at a competitive medical school)? They say things like "IQ tests only measure how good you are at IQ tests", but they fail to understand that being good at most intellectual tasks, like mathematics, pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, literary analysis, etc.. tends to make you better at IQ tests than the average person.

Is it because they're insecure with their IQ? What does /sci/ think?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:40:17 2013 No.6152751 Success is subjective. And what you deem intelligence is subjective. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:42:16 2013 No.6152753 i think that your a faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:44:46 2013 No.6152757 >>6152751 Even if you argue "success" is subjective, I'll just rephrase myself and say, "People with higher IQ get higher grades in school". This is not subjective. You're really just splitting hairs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:47:17 2013 No.6152769 >>6152757 Ill just rephrase myself and say. What matters to some doesn't matter to all. which answers your question now go find something to do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:51:46 2013 No.6152776 >>6152769 So you're saying people with lower IQ's tend not to care about school or money as much as people with higher IQ's? Do you have any evidence to support that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:51:46 2013 No.6152778 >>6152769 If it doesn't matter to them, then why do they put so much effort into denying its importance?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:53:17 2013 No.6152780 >>6152745 >People disagree with me >They must be stupid

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 14:56:46 2013 No.6152784

>>6152745

There are, it seems, minimum levels of IQ necessary for great achievements and extreme creative production. However, they are not as high as many people want them to be. Something around 125 is enough: with a cognitive ability of this level you can achieve great things, however your success (or not) will depend much more of your personality, nurture and other factors.

The problem with IQ tests is that people tend to view them in this way: the higher your IQ, the higher your potential for success and your chances of great achievements, which is not quite true. This is not only present among laymen – college students also are generally seen competing and saying that someone with an IQ of 150 is better than someone with an IQ of 130.

If you tested many genius of history, of several fields, they IQ score would be much more close to the 125 points then to the extremes of some super-gifted Asians, or of the allegedly 180 IQ points of Kasparov. In short: it seems that you must have a high IQ for greatness, but a high IQ in a much more common scale than what is generally tough by Mensa members and college kids; if you are above a barrier of 120-125 points, then an even higher IQ is not that relevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:00:17 2013 No.6152789 IQ is not related to anything OP claimed. It is not a requisite for jobs *at any given level), nor a requisite for academic positions. Those of us older than 22 seem to understand this simple reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:02:17 2013 No.6152794 >>6152784 Do you have evidence to back up those "point of diminishing returns" claims? I would argue the higher the IQ, the greater the success - what would be your evidence to prove me wrong?

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:03:16 2013 No.6152796

>>6152776
No that isnt what im saying. Im saying what matters to some people doesn't matter to all which explains why some people do not care about the testing of cognition.

Their IQ low or high is irrelevant to the conversation.

>>6152778
Who is 'they'?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:05:46 2013 No.6152800 Why can't you retards understand that psychology and thereby IQ is pseudoscience ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:10:47 2013 No.6152811 >>6152796 >Who is 'they'? IQ denialists

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:16:47 2013 No.6152824 It is clear to me that there is a correlation between IQ and academic success. Those around me with lower IQs than myself tend to perform less well in maths etc. I think that the many on here that claim that IQ is irrelevant will not accept inferiority

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:25:16 2013 No.6152846

>>6152824
Or maybe we won't accept that IQ determines mathematical prowess because IQ is a bunch of bologna created by charlatans. Mathematical deeds define someone to be good at math.

And I can spin it around on you,I think many on here that claim IQ is relevant are the people that were lucky enough to score good on a test and use it as a comforting mechanism to mask their inferiority.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:28:17 2013 No.6152854 I've got a high IQ yet I think IQ scores are bullshit pseudoscience

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:34:46 2013 No.6152867

>>6152811
Just because they dont care about it doesn't make them a denialist.

Im sure everyone who is an adult and actually living life realizes by now that caring about a number doesn't actually do anything for them, there are just too many variables to account for.

Actually believing that IQ is some sort of inevitable destiny just seems silly which is probably why not many really care.

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:38:47 2013 No.6152876

>>6152867
>Just because they dont care about it doesn't make them a denialist.

Are you illiterate? I was talking about the kind of people who only claim not to care, yet enter every thread on the topic and belligerently spam it with anti-scientific denial garbage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 15:41:46 2013 No.6152882 >>6152876 You were replying to my post so i assumed you were talking about people in general.

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 21:16:16 2013 No.6153562
File: 1.02 MB, 1257x4115, Intelligence_threshold_myth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6152784
There are no thresholds or diminishing returns.

If anything, it seems like it's the other way around. Picture related.

Kasparov was around 122-135.
Tested in '87.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13526693.html

>>6152789
You do know they actually test people in the military? An IQ above 85 is required. It is illegal (USA) to hire anyone below 80. I have not heard of a country that does not use an intelligence test for the draft. Not to do so would be extremely foolish.

>>6152846
Or maybe they, like me, spent a few minutes even reading Wikipedia to see the obvious evidence. Or like me, read thousands of papers and quite a few books about the topic.

>>6152867
>Actually believing that IQ is some sort of inevitable destiny just seems silly which is probably why not many really care.

No expert thinks so.

>Just because they dont care about it doesn't make them a denialist.

People who make wild claims with no good evidence are denialists, for the same reason we use the label for global warming deniers, and AIDS/HIV deniers, and creationists, etc.

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 21:48:47 2013 No.6153610

>>6153562
I have heard from multiple people working in intelligence testing (and from people who work on cognitive science) that IQ tests are mainly accurate only for detecting low IQ, but since the focus is usually for detecting learning disabilities, retardation, etc. not detecting geniuses, it is fairly flawed and approximate past above average intelligence.

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 22:10:17 2013 No.6153638

Yes, this is what they think. They honestly think this. I have gotten into countless arguments with my girlfriend (sociologist) about this. I try and explain to her that two children can be as mentally different as they can be physically different and she still tells me this bullshit "everyone has an equal chance at success." FUCK IT IS SO STUPID AND WRONG

Anonymous Tue Nov 12 22:51:47 2013 No.6153716

because money

employers want the best stuff so universities spend money on finding high IQ prodigies early on, which is why so many people are left in the dust and do alright but never get anything explained properly to them, and appear dumb.

because, money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 12 23:09:17 2013 No.6153752 >>6152796 You misunderstood what I meant by "matter". I meant IQ does have meaning. It does predict success.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:03:47 2013 No.6153827 Because people with high IQ's write on fucking windows

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:04:47 2013 No.6153833 >>6153827 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:17:17 2013 No.6153860 >>6153752 Whether or not something has meaning again comes down to your opinion. 'Meaning', 'success' these things are purely subjective they have no basis in objective reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:35:51 2013 No.6153890 >average IQ is 120 >average IQ >120 >the average iq of any given population is always set to 100

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:41:52 2013 No.6153900

People with high IQs run the country and make the biggest advancements in society, and thus, it starts to seem like a prerequisite to success.

90% of people are below IQ 120, and 98% are below 132 (which is not even that high)

90 - 98% of society has an IQ lower than what is deemed ideal. Attempting to write off the test as invalid is a typical strategy people use to make themselves feel better about their less than ideal score. When so much of the population has a lower IQ than they probably want to have, then it seems natural that a lot of people would band together to try to convince themselves and everyone else that it's just a useless number.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:42:52 2013 No.6153902 If he has such a high IQ why is there a single integral behind him?

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:46:22 2013 No.6153909

>>6153860
You're just misunderstanding what I have to say. I guess I have to make it as explicit as possible for you to understand.

I'm going to make it as clear as possible.

"IQ does predict getting higher grades and getting higher income."

This all I'm saying. I just phrased it in a faster format without realizing that my words were ill defined. I'm sorry for that.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:51:22 2013 No.6153917

>>6153909
Well, actually, to be more explicit I should say "IQ predicts higher grades, higher income, and a few other things". The "other things" are in the wikipedia list for IQ.

Even accounting for all other factors, by a few measures such as achieving high grades, producing original research, creating inventions, entering intellectually challenging jobs, and a host of other tasks that high IQ people will outperform low IQ people on.

People often say that "You can be anything you want", regardless of your IQ, but I do not think person with an IQ of 90 would have a reasonable chance at becoming a medical doctor, for instance. They would be beaten out by the great number of people with a higher IQ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 00:53:21 2013 No.6153920 >>6153890 no.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:06:52 2013 No.6153929

>>6152745
Because someone who is not aware of the point distribution in IQ tests (hint: time matters so much that it's better to pass any and all exercises you can't do without any thought) that many will skew the results. E.g.: reading the question slowly to make sure you're not missing anything will net you huge -points. Verifying formally your answer is correct, same deal. Even if you finish everything in time, doing things like that changes your IQ from 150 down to 80.

Then there's the fact IQ tests are shit at measuring intelligence toward the ends of the bell curve, and doesn't take into account some factors of intelligence (it's still a good indicator, but it's not unbiased).

In the end, if you have >110 IQ you can get a master's in engineering and get set for life, and success will not be dependant on your IQ score beyond that benchmark as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:07:51 2013 No.6153931 >>6153920 Population != environment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:09:21 2013 No.6153936 >>6153931 Are you stupid? A "population" doesn't have to refer to an entire country. I can talk about "the population of doctors in America". They have an average IQ greater than 100. Being pedantic is annoying. Being pedantic and wrong even more so.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:19:21 2013 No.6153947

>>6153610
I've seen this claim ONLY on 4chan. It has never once appeared in the academic literature that I read (i.e. journals PAID, Intelligence, other psychology journals, and in no academic book I've read.)

This makes me guess that it's something someone made up that has somehow spread on 4chan or the internet.

I'm guessing it's based on the genetic fallacy. The first IQ test (original Binet test, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet)) was made to identify retarded children. From this, they then deduce that all IQ tests (modern ones included), can only be used for that. This is of course contradicted by the academic literature.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:26:52 2013 No.6153951

>>6153900
These numbers are for populations with a mean of 100, i.e. white people.

>>6153917
There are thresholds for certain types of jobs. Simply put, people below a certain level never make it through the required education, or don't last on the job (repeatedly fired for incompetence).

But you can find doctors with <100 IQ, but this is because of racial quotas (affirmative action).

>>6153929
>hint: time matters so much that it's better to pass any and all exercises you can't do without any thought

No, IQ tests do not normally work like this.

Your speculation about timed tests is wrong, as evidenced by the very high correlation between timed tests and power (untimed) tests, cf. AR Jensen 1998 and 1980.

>Then there's the fact IQ tests are shit at measuring intelligence toward the ends of the bell curve, and doesn't take into account some factors of intelligence (it's still a good indicator, but it's not unbiased).

There is only one factor of intelligence (g factor). The others are called group factors and since they don't predict stuff well, IQ tests are not usually made to measure them. IQ tests are made to measure g because g is the active ingredient.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:34:52 2013 No.6153959

>>6153936
He's talking about a statistical population, you raging dingus. IQ measures always set the mean to 100, regardless of what that value represents. The mean IQ is therefore 100 by definition, regardless of what that value represents substantively. If you don't know how to be conversant in basic statistics, you have no business getting into arguments with people about them.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:37:51 2013 No.6153964

>>6153909
I never once misunderstood your posts. From the very beginning you asked a simple question.

>Why do people say IQ doesn't matter when IQ is well correlated with academic success and, as a result, success in life in general?

I answered your first question and every subsequent question just as you wrote it.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:40:52 2013 No.6153966

>>6153964
Yes you did.

You said "Some things matter to some people, and some things don't"

But what I meant by "matter wasn't", a subjective measure of "importance". It was, "Why do some people think someone with a low IQ , like say 90, has a decent chance at succeeding in an environment with mostly high IQ people, say medical school.".

This is what I meant. This is not subjective. The fact that you said it was subjective showed you misunderstood what I was saying.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:44:52 2013 No.6153976

>>6153959
He was trying to correct me when I said mentioned "a population with an average IQ of 120".

It is true that if you look at the population of doctors in the US their mean IQ is above 100. He tried to correct me when I made this statement by saying the mean IQ of any population is 100, but this just is not true. An american IQ test would be designed so the mean IQ of an American is 100, but if I look at population of a particular group their mean IQ does not have to be 100.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:46:22 2013 No.6153983 >>6152745 Because there are a thousand of kids withs autism and downs syndrome with fuck huge IQ, are they intelligent OP?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:47:23 2013 No.6153985 >>6153976 Ah, fair enough. I didn't follow that. My fault for not reading the OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:49:51 2013 No.6153988 >>6153966 That isnt what you posted. If you meant something other than what you posted than the fault is entirely on you, its not really a misunderstanding its you not posting what you mean.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 01:56:53 2013 No.6154002

>>6153988
I wasn't trying to assign fault. When I said "you misunderstood", I merely meant that your interpretation of my sentence was different than the one I intended. I think I would accept fault in this case for not being clear at all.

The reason I messed up is that people often say "IQ doesn't matter" in a context that suggests they mean something like what my clarified statement was. I repeated that phrase out of context so of course people would misunderstand. It's not their fault since I wasn't being clear.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 02:07:52 2013 No.6154016

>>6154002
Well, to be fair to people with low IQ's its not as if the number is some unavoidable artifact that seals your fate.

When people say it doesn't matter then they are probably right. What good does it do a person to stop trying to achieve what they want in life because of number? Im sure there are far more variables involved than IQ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 03:37:21 2013 No.6154124 IQ tests were originally used to diagnose mental retardation. Why are you guys evaluating your self worth on a test used to check for retards?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 04:14:22 2013 No.6154151 The only people who take IQ seriously are idiots from /pol/. IQ can barely grasp intelligence (which is suggestive anyway). Having an IQ might be a sign of intelligence but it doesn't equal intelligence.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 04:17:26 2013 No.6154154

>>6152824
Actually it is the opposite. Most people on /sci. including myself have a high IQ. But just like your average racist trying to find pride in their skin color alone IQ to does not make you smarter.
>I may have done nothing with my life b-but I have a high IQ!
Doesn't work.
My IQ is 125 and I didn't learn how to read until I was 12.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 04:47:51 2013 No.6154172 >>6154151 >it emotionally impacts me therefore science is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 05:06:22 2013 No.6154199 >>6154172 that's not what he was implying at all faggot

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 05:49:22 2013 No.6154236
File: 1.08 MB, 320x240, 0q76ono.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6152745
Test is not valid it is a intellectual penis comparing tool. No wars were ever won, No cures were every discovered simply because someone scored a high score on a IQ test.

We have limited understanding on how the brain works as it is, It will be hard to imagine that a test with a few problems on it can quantify intelligence. Its like trying to understand a 3 dimensional world with two dimensional limitations.

If you cant understand how possibly having a vast amount of intelligence as being a possible hindrance to "success". If you could truly imagine all the possible out comes that might happen when you actually leave your home, You might never walk out your door.

I am not saying that the test might not become valid one as technology improves.

I actually agree with this >>6152784

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 06:06:51 2013 No.6154249 >>6152745 >IQ is well correlated with academic success Is that a well-documented conclusion, or just another statistifiction?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 06:31:22 2013 No.6154265 >>6154236 >No wars were ever won, No cures were every discovered simply because someone did anything that wasn't curing disease or winning war. Solid argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 06:32:51 2013 No.6154267 >>6152745 mathematics actually has a very low g loading

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 07:21:52 2013 No.6154319

>>6154267

What do you mean?

I always thought that mathematics were the most secure and greatest sign of an exuberant intelligence (perhaps because I myself have serious problems with mathematical and logical thinking). Are you saying that mathematics are not that important for the determination of the general intelligence, of g?

That doesn’t sound quite true to me.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 08:33:08 2013 No.6154416

Listen, sperglords, it's simple:
IQ does a good job of telling if someone is retarded than the average Joe (ie a low score). Beyond this (e.g. as a comparison of two smart individuals' intelligence), it's useless. End of story.

Citation: IQ Testing 101, Alan S. Kaufman, 2009, Springer Publishing Company, ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 08:45:40 2013 No.6154437 >>6154416 >iqnotathreshholdvariable.jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 09:55:54 2013 No.6154487 >>6153976 Wait, what? That's what I said when correcting you on the claim a group's IQ can't be 120. The original statement of the OP was regarding a specific group and not a population.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 09:56:24 2013 No.6154491 >>6154487 Fuck, I replied to the wrong comment. Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 10:35:25 2013 No.6154524

>>6154151
IQ has been shown to strongly correlate with success, including but not limited to academic success. Furthermore, there has not been an upper bound to the benefit of higher IQ in studies.
It has also been shown that IQ is a good measure of general intelligence.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 10:36:25 2013 No.6154526

>>6154319
Memorization is not intelligence. It's only a precursor to intelligence. Being bad at memorization implies you will have a hard time - if you can at all - at doing smart things. Therefore, people who go into math are more likely to be intelligent, but they aren't, in and of itself, intelligent.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 10:58:55 2013 No.6154550

Correlation doesn't equate with causation and anyone who is of reasonably high intelligence should be able to understand why most IQ tests are seriously flawed.

Pattern solving tests would indeed have a correlation if it was a test wanted you to infer a symbol from a non-ambiguous group of symbols, and this is a trainable ability.

I know this will probably be buried in a plethora of emotional and idiotic posts, but I would please want you to think about what I have said.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 11:00:25 2013 No.6154552 >>6152745 i agree with OP people who don't like IQ tests probably have a low IQ

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 11:10:25 2013 No.6154564 >>6152789 I understand that simple reality, and I'm only 20. I must have a really high IQ.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 11:45:25 2013 No.6154603

>>6154550
>Pattern solving tests would indeed have a correlation if it was a test wanted you to infer a symbol from a non-ambiguous group of symbols, and this is a trainable ability.

Exactly.

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure ones skill level at solving IQ test puzzles.

-pattern recognition is a trainable skill
-Analogy and word scramble puzzles are linked to your vocabulary
-unfolding cube puzzles are effortless with practice
-very little math is required outside of recognizing number patterns

>"Lachrymose is to dyspeptic as ebullient is to...effervescent!”

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 11:57:24 2013 No.6154622 File: 175 KB, 674x1100, death-note-3144047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6152745 What do you guys think that Light Yagami IQ score was?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 12:06:24 2013 No.6154630 >>6154622 179 cm 54kg I am assuming a low iq since hedid nothing about his severe underweight and lives with constant low testosterone levels and fatigue.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 12:07:54 2013 No.6154632 >>6154630 >179 cm >54kg Keep in mind that he is japanese

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 12:28:24 2013 No.6154668

Question to /sci/

It seems to me that the general view on this board is that the only goal in life is to get education and find a large corporation to work and make good money with them. Is that the only measure of success to you, /sci/?

If money is your goal, than there are many different ways of making it than spending 4-6 years at uni and then sitting in a cubicle for all eternity.
One friend of mine ( dumb as a fucking brick) works for roofing supplies re distributor makes well over 150k. the company consists of him and his friend.
My old karate coach back in the day, owns a construction company operating in the prairies and in Quebec, and he makes a ton of money while not being the smartest.
My other friend writes kids books and makes close to 200$/hr.

All the while engies, who are arguably smarter, spend their lives in the cubicles for 90k/year after some years of experience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 12:39:25 2013 No.6154679 >>6154630 add soy sauce ingestion and lack of red meat >>6154622 >9k faggot lvl

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 13:03:55 2013 No.6154719 What the fuck is 'success in life'?

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 13:16:25 2013 No.6154749

>>6154668
It's not JUST about the money, it's also about the job. Most of us are very antisocial people, we get anxious and nervous when we have to interact with a lot of other people and we aren't very good at it. So doing things like running our own companies where we have to manage a lot of different people or try to sell our product to people is not playing into our natural talents, it is doing things we are very bad at. But most of us are still quite smart, so if we have a job with little socialization required, such as doing research in a lab or sitting in a cubicle doing engineering work, we are very good at it and are able to be quite successful, and the best part is it's more enjoyable than doing any of those jobs you suggested because all we have to do is sit there and focus on the computer, we don't have to worry about meeting people or making a good impression or any of that awful social crap.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 13:23:56 2013 No.6154764 File: 495 KB, 1280x1232, yuki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6154719

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 13:26:25 2013 No.6154772 >>6154719 >What the fuck is 'success in life'? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 13:38:55 2013 No.6154787 >>6152745 i have an iq of 142 and became a useless heroin addict at a min wage job for 5 years after getting my undergrad so success. granted i ended up way better than my junkie peers.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 15:23:56 2013 No.6154977
File: 242 KB, 1000x1000, without-data-quote-andreas-Schleicher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6154016
>Well, to be fair to people with low IQ's its not as if the number is some unavoidable artifact that seals your fate.

No expert thinks so. Only a strawman.

>When people say it doesn't matter then they are probably right. What good does it do a person to stop trying to achieve what they want in life because of number? Im sure there are far more variables involved than IQ.

You are confusing "IQ/intelligence matters" with "knowing your IQ/intelligence standing matters".

>Im sure there are far more variables involved than IQ.

No expert thinks otherwise. Only a strawman.

>We have limited understanding on how the brain works as it is, It will be hard to imagine that a test with a few problems on it can quantify intelligence. Its like trying to understand a 3 dimensional world with two dimensional limitations.

But it is. Intelligence i unidimensional.

>>6154249
Well documented.

>>6154267
No, math has a high g-loading.

>>6154416
That cite does not support your claim.

>I know this will probably be buried in a plethora of emotional and idiotic posts, but I would please want you to think about what I have said.

You said nothing of interest, provided no backing data.

Picture related.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 15:31:55 2013 No.6154995 >>6154977 Those weren't arguments i just gave they were explanations as to why someone would have the opinion that IQ doesn't matter in the things they try to achieve. In a sentence, worrying about it gets them nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 15:38:26 2013 No.6155014 Not correlated directly with success b/c one can be intelligent but also hella lazy. Can't be successful if your lazy

Carbon Wed Nov 13 15:59:26 2013 No.6155082

>>6152745
>Do people honestly believe that a person with an IQ of 90 can compete effectively in an environment where the average IQ is 120 (say at a competitive medical school)?
LEL
out of all the things, you didn't say engineering or physics or maths
You said fucking medicine
This relies WAAAY fucking more on memory than new concepts (what path does blah blah blah take, where is this etc.)
IQ!=memory

IQ is essentially the download speed of the brain.
Its how quickly you can learn concepts in a period of time. Study more and you can mitigate the effects of a low IQ. The processing power of the human brain, which is vast as fuck, doesn't vary much from person to person, nor is memory such a huge factor in IQ(or it shouldn't be).
Just because you learn faster doesn't mean you'll pick up a book.
I've made an As on test in my Calc/Engr courses by doing 15 mins total of study time before the exam. I've fucked up on test I didn't as well because, well procrastination. Even if you pick shit up fast/have a high IQ, if you dont open a book its fucking worthless.

I'm getting real sick of you faggots taking for granted the little time i do put into studying.
TL;DR
Intelligence doesn't make you smart
Studying makes you smart

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 16:13:26 2013 No.6155112

>>6154995
>Those weren't arguments i just gave they were explanations as to why someone would have the opinion that IQ doesn't matter in the things they try to achieve. In a sentence, worrying about it gets them nowhere.

Having unrealistic expectations is bad. Knowing how smart you are lets you set realistic working goals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 17:25:01 2013 No.6155267 >>6155112 Bad according to whom?

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 17:40:31 2013 No.6155285

>Do people honestly believe that a person with an IQ of 90 can compete effectively in an environment where the average IQ is 120

Yep. The only two majors you need an IQ for are theoretical physics and pure math because you can't pass those on pure memorization. Your brain has to think a certain way. Everything else you can get a degree in or high marks if you work really hard. The problem is these people want good marks AND want to party. These are the same people who think studying five hours a day is enough.

smarter than you !!6EmLjTOTG91 Wed Nov 13 17:44:02 2013 No.6155288

>>6155285
>The problem is these people want good marks AND want to party.
Those are not mutually exclusive.

>These are the same people who think studying five hours a day is enough.
If you need to study 5 hours a day or more, then you might have chosen a field too hard for you. Have you considered the possibility that you might be untalented?

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 17:53:31 2013 No.6155304

>>6155288
I don't know what university you go to but we are counting pesky lab reports and projects. When I was life science major I was spending seven hours each day to study because of the massive workload. When I switched to math I only needed to study three hours because the labs where online and took only thirty minutes instead of the three hours for chemistry and two hours for biology. Engineers have a huge workload too. Even more than life science. Studying does not mean just reading the textbook/look at the prof's lecture notes. I was talking about projects/labs too. I am glad I am not in life science anymore but I wouldn't call math easier for more people.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 18:01:31 2013 No.6155319
File: 48 KB, 500x362, 0DRqz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6152745
http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/12/19/iq_a_myth_study_says.html

“When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth,” said Dr. Adrian Owen

>>	OP Wed Nov 13 18:10:01 2013 No.6155339 >>6152745 No one says it doesn't matter. Just it doesn't matter as much as people on /sci/ seems to think.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 18:14:02 2013 No.6155350 >>6155319 now you are erasing the only thing OP likes about himself, that thing that makes him feel different, especial. You are killing his ego, murdering the reason his mother loved him. good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 18:23:31 2013 No.6155373 >>6155319 >IQ is bullshit because some people score worse for [reasons] >"the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth" THIS TIME IT'S NOT JUST BUSINESS, IT'S PERSONAL

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 18:30:31 2013 No.6155381 File: 93 KB, 397x295, original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 18:40:33 2013 No.6155396 Anybody here with an officially tested IQ of 170 or more? If yes, how is your life (relation to other people, sex life, job, hobbies, sports, personal music, film and literature tastes)? Not trolling, just curious.

Ramblings Wed Nov 13 18:59:32 2013 No.6155424

>>6155288
says a non-math major.

at courant, it is not uncommon for me to see grad students study for hours upon hours on end.

please, stop lying.

also, there's like this new clique of posters who have been making IQ threads the last few fucking days. can this stop now?

>>	Carbon Wed Nov 13 19:27:02 2013 No.6155470 >>6155288 >he has obviously never taken any rigorous course in his lifetime

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 19:53:32 2013 No.6155518 >>6153562 yes kasparov didnt test great but why he is considered a genius has to do with his photographic memory. he remembers every single position of chess he has ever played, including blindfold simul's

smarter than you !!6EmLjTOTG91 Wed Nov 13 19:56:02 2013 No.6155526

>>6155396
>implying I'm gonna reveal personal information on 4chan

>>6155424
>at courant
I had to google this and here is what I found: http://math.nyu.edu/degree/ms/ms_math.html
Please tell me if this is what you were talking about. Because if it is, that would be truly saddening. How can they seriously offer a masters degree with a curriculum solely consisting of courses which are considered lower level BSc content in Europe?

>>6155470
What do you consider a "rigorous course"?

Ramblings Wed Nov 13 20:22:32 2013 No.6155610

>>6155526
courant is #1 in applied math and generally top 10 in the world. it is one of the best institutions in mathematics to date and is consistently ranked amongst the hardest grad institutions to get into for mathematics.

i am also talking about the doctoral degree, but the MS isn't bad either. the faculty consists of some of the best mathematicians, both applied and pure, of our day and age.

your ignorance is showing. then again, you're a troll. back to my homework assignment.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 21:02:31 2013 No.6155665

>>6155319
>science board
>posts link to newspaper article that doesn't even cite the exact source

IQ denialists, do you even try?

Here, I will help you cite your own sources.

The study is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843?np=y

In fact their own study found the g factor. They advance their recent revival of the old sampling theory about explaining the g factor. This is not a denial of the g factor, but an attempt at explaining it.

It seems that only one team of actual psychometricians have replied to it as of yet.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913012804?np=y

See also AR Jensen (1998) on the sampling theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 21:03:03 2013 No.6155670 >>6155396 Someone already collected a sample of such kids and followed them throughout life. Look up the old Hollingworth research. http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Children_Above_180_IQ.htm

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 21:05:02 2013 No.6155675 >>6155518 No one has photographic memory. It is a myth. Many chess players can play blindfolded, even simultaneously playing multiple strong opponents. Searching on youtube will find you examples of this.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 21:49:33 2013 No.6155758

>>6155675
>No one has photographic memory. It is a myth.

This.

Also:

>>6155670
>http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Children_Above_180_IQ.htm

Very nice, but there is almost no information about this people's adult life, the part that interests me more. I really wonder how people with IQ in the house of 180 points spend their free time. Also: it seems that non of them achieved significant things.

>>6155526
>implying I'm gonna reveal personal information on 4chan

Implying you have the IQ score that I asked fore in that post.

If you had you would have notice that you can speak very freely and sincerely of yourself without giving any significant personal information. I was not asking for your name, the city were you live, the university that you go, the number of your credit card. People are talking about their sex life, their hobbies and interests in 4chan all the time and nobody is able to figured out who they are. Not very bright, gifted-boy.

And for all of you guys:Beethoven had tremendous difficulties with math in school and thorough his life, but we all know what he became. He struggled a lot to compose (was by far the composer that made more drafts and sketches: he had several notebooks and notepads, and rarely used a first idea - he was always changing them), and the creative process was not easy for him. He also evolved very slowly. But in spite of all this, he is generally considered the greatest composer of all time. His late works are unmatchable in their profundity and beauty.

Now, with so poor mathematical ability, do you think that his IQ score would be impressive? And yet he is one of the most iconic genius of the world history.

Anonymous Wed Nov 13 22:19:02 2013 No.6155816

>>6155758
Read up on her books. I think they followed the sample throughout the years. Not entirely sure.

Also, try the other gifted program studies.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_Mathematically_Precocious_Youth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 13 23:51:23 2013 No.6155997 >>6155082 The average doctor has a higher IQ than the average college professor

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 00:18:23 2013 No.6156029 >>6155997 college professors are doctors too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 00:44:59 2013 No.6156069 >>6156029 Stop being autistic. The average medical doctor has a higher IQ than the average college professor

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 00:46:29 2013 No.6156072 IQ tests are a shit measurement, and representing intelligence by one single variable is incredibly stupid.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 01:25:30 2013 No.6156114

>>6156069
Source? Affirmative action for doctors makes this sound unlikely, but I guess they can have affirmative action for professors too.

>>6156072
Yeah, wait, unless there was a general factor of cognitive tests, and that this factor was the most important part of the variance for predicting things. Guess what?

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 01:39:28 2013 No.6156127

>>6156069
You can thank the explosion of WGST, Sociology, & general liberal arts departments for that one, mate.
Gone are the days of the truly academic liberal arts: the antiquities, classical music theory, rigorous structure of language...now it's just buzzword enthusiasts with unverifiable opinions and a Ph.D. awarded for being the least inept student in their respective field of nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 02:49:12 2013 No.6156183 I don't understand why a majority of sci hates iq tests completely. No shit they suck balls at comparing but if the difference is like 90 vs 120 there's a good chance the 120 is going to be a smarter overall person. Other than that it's pretty useless.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 03:53:42 2013 No.6156225

>have around IQ 120
>had a period of time where I was struggling in school
>ADHD

I found that much of success in school is determined on the person's ability to manage their time well and stay organized. At a time I struggled with these things. While I would Ace the tests I would always turn things in late or not at all. Eventually I was able to recognize what I was doing wrong and I adapted to it.

Most school work in undergrad is built for people of average intelligence. Above average intelligence is an advantage over somebody with average intelligence but it is not the most important component. Time management, organization, and drive.

In medical school the subjects are more difficult so the person with the above average intelligence would be able to learn the material at a faster and easier rate. BUT, ultimately it still comes down to time management, organization, and drive.

These 3 skills are essential for success in many parts of life.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 04:02:12 2013 No.6156228

>>6156225
If you take a group of people with a high IQ and a group with an average IQ then the first group will almost certainly be more successful on average.

If you think that having a higher IQ than someone else will make you have a better life without knowing anything about them then maybe you should use that big juicy brain too try and learn how statistics work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 04:26:41 2013 No.6156235 >>6155758 A minor nitpick: The notion that young Einstein struggled with mathematics is false.

>>	Carbon Thu Nov 14 07:08:12 2013 No.6156305 >>6155526 For you, I'll create an arbitrary definition any STEM major could have met in their first year Taking Calc 2...

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 07:59:41 2013 No.6156326

>>6152745

One thing that I have read several times in life sketches of people with huge IQ (more than 180) is their incredible accomplishments in infancy. There is always a thing like this:

>Kim Ung-yong (IQ of 210)
>Kim Ung-yong was born on March 7, 1963 in South Korea. By profession he is a civil engineer. His IQ as calculated is 210. At an age of 6 months he had started speaking. At an age of 3 he had learnt many languages like Japanese, Korean, German and English. And at an age of 14 years, he solved complex calculus problems on Japanese television.

But although this people seem to advance in an extraordinary pace in their childhood, they reach stagnation in adulthood. Why the hell does this people fail with they have so extraordinary abilities? Sometimes I think that their achievements as children are heavily beautified by their parents, who what to make the kid seems even more gifted.

Carbon Thu Nov 14 13:57:41 2013 No.6156826
File: 53 KB, 1280x720, [Underwater] KILL la KILL - 06 (720p) [7E816CC0].mkv_snapshot_05.45_[2013.11.08_10.51.39].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6156326
Ever saw that shit where relying on a power becomes a crutch in media?

Shit happens in real life, trust me.
This is why the "slacker genius" archetype exist.
Or faggots who ace test and fuck up on homework etc. appear.
They become lazy and rely on their quick learning, developing bad habits such as procrastination(I don't need to study long etc.) and focus/attentiveness problems (this shit is easy so its going to be boring etc.)
But when you apply pressure they will break.

Speaking from experience here

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:08:41 2013 No.6156846

>>6156826

Can’t the problem just be lack of creativity?

All this young genius and people with high IQ have something in common: they have extraordinary memory and logical capacity. It is because of that that they learn so many languages in few years they memorize the vocabulary much faster) and have great mathematical abilities (after all mathematics are logic per excellence).

But to be a genius it takes not only hard work, enormous ambition, obsession with ones field of activity, desire to be important and respected, willingness to work for hours and hours day after day: no, there is one more thing that a genius needs – creativity. And this is very strange: many people with enormous IQ, who have the ability to absorb large amounts of information early in life and with great speed and ease simply don’t have the creative power to create nothing in the realm of Arts and Sciences.

I think the major problem with this people is this one: lack of creativity.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:11:42 2013 No.6156851

You can increase you IQ can't you?

Everyone in my immediate family is really stupid and none of them have gone to college. Very lower class-ish.

I were lucky because I went to a good kindergarten and had a few people in my life that were smart that weren't related to me so I had a decent start anyway.

My point is what's the point of testing someone's IQ if they can work on their brain anyway?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:13:11 2013 No.6156853 >>6154622 >54kg with that height What the fuck. I think Japanes don't understand how much a person that's almost 1.80 should weigh.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:13:43 2013 No.6156854 >>6152745 Sit on your couch for 50 years with your 160 IQ and let me know how your life turned out dude.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:23:12 2013 No.6156872

>>6156826
I'm not saying I'm smart or anything but for a long time I had serious trouble in school because I simply didn't do any homework or learn for that matter.

I literally didn't do a single homework from class 5 to class 9 when I dropped out of gymnasium here in germany. I've always been the strongest kid in class when it came to understanding topics and working in class but I'm such a heavy procrastinator that my life got really fucked as a result.

I'll finish my high school diploma this summer but I'm mortally afraid of failing again.
It's not like I didn't learn anything in the past 2 years. I taught myself math up to calculus with khan academy and picked up python as a programming language but that won't help me if I can't manage to pick up a fucking book and learn my french vocabulary.
It's like I've always been smarter than the other kids but in reality I'm too stupid to live.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:32:41 2013 No.6156893 >>6156872 Maybe this will help you: >>>6156529 >>>6156532 You seem to have the genetics, but you must now live and work like a true genius.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:38:12 2013 No.6156913 >>6156893 That's nice. Thank you!

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:39:42 2013 No.6156917 I have a low IQ but I'm awesome at organization and self-motivation. Some people say "emotional IQ" is bullshit, but I think I could become an engineer if I planned it right.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 14:48:12 2013 No.6156944

>>6152745
Never been measured, but I can't imagine I'm that high compared to you guys. However, because I work so hard at what I do, and have a very science focused mind, I probably have a higher H-index than any of you.

Side note: why don't we ever compare something worth while on here when we're cockwaving? Like H-index? Or amount of citations? Oh yeah. You guys are mostly Aspergatron elitist fuckwits who are far above 'acedemia' and 'doing things' - far to focused on honing dem abstract reasoning skills.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 15:03:41 2013 No.6156973 >>6156917 Go for it. You don't need a high IQ to suck dick.

>>	Violent Simians Guy Thu Nov 14 15:23:42 2013 No.6157016 >>6152745 IQ is a GOOD predictor of POOR performance for those who score on the LOW side. IQ is a BAD predictor of GOOD performance for those who score on the HIGH side. /thread

>>	smarter than you !!6EmLjTOTG91 Thu Nov 14 16:36:41 2013 No.6157209 >>6156305 Is this a joke? It's hard to tell. Your post is the epitome of Poe's law.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 17:16:12 2013 No.6157310 >>6157016 This is not true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 17:43:41 2013 No.6157362 >>6156944 Link? I've recently published my first paper, so I'm curious. :)

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 17:44:12 2013 No.6157364 >>6156851 You cannot increase your intelligence, only the IQ number. Increasing that does not make you smarter, it just degrades the measurement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 17:53:12 2013 No.6157375 >>6156944 This isn't a competition. Why are you trying to make me feel bad about myself?

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 18:12:41 2013 No.6157405

>>6152757
Yeah, are you sure? If not stimulated properly, an intelligent person tends to fuck up his grades due to diverse factors. So if intelligence was merely measured by IQ, an high IQ would not mean automatically high grades.

I have 130-140 IQ, I know a guy with 180 IQ, and I can tell you that if this was Big Bang, in proportional terms that guy would be Penny while I would be Leonard or Sheldon. And I used Big Bang as an example just to represent how must be your vision of intelligence and greatness to say such fallacies; if you want a world with Sheldons, you're in the wrong one.

That being said: minimum intelligence is needed for any task, that's for sure, but after that limit is surpased there's almost no relevance in having more - also, contrary to what most people think, an high intelligence is very common. And all those super high IQs about great scientists and all of that... Well, you will be pleased to know that they're are almost all made up by some pseudoscientists - but somehow people with not-that-high IQs have even won Nobel prizes (which is not the ultimate goal of any scientist, but /sci/ seems to think different).

PD: Do you remember the stupid guy I said that has 180 IQ? I have another friend, with <125 IQ that has a Ph.D. and has quite some prestige. Also, the youngest vitalicious professor of Harvard is a South American guy with a very average IQ, so your theory get fucked up there too. Stop opening threads saying that people with low IQs are inferior just to ease your pain of being so gifted and so useless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 18:15:11 2013 No.6157409 Jesus christ. Can mods start banning people who start IQ threads? Every day there's at least 5 new IQ threads.

Anonymous Thu Nov 14 18:21:42 2013 No.6157415

>>6156326
I'll repeat myself: made up IQ scores. That story about "having scored 210 IQ at the age of 4" is totally made up, without any reliable sources.

That being said, regardless of his IQ he was a very-gifted kid. Why did he reach stagnation? It's not because that's common on intelligent people, it's because high intelligence != success.

But there's also another possibility, the one you said, which is the most probable one: does something slightly GREAT, and people (especially parents) start to distort what really happened just for the sake of glorification.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 14 18:27:11 2013 No.6157429 >>6156893 Finally a nice and useful post. "Genius are made, not born" - The 10K norm and all of that. A lot of people has the potential, very few of them has the luck or the willingness.

Anonymous Fri Nov 15 04:30:08 2013 No.6158498
File: 124 KB, 1045x804, SMPY_achievements2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6157405
>making wild claims completely contrary to general scholar opinion.
>citing no sources.

You do not belong on a science board.

There is no intelligence threshold.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 15 05:01:38 2013 No.6158524 >>6158498 Your image references the actual purpose of IQ - to test how developed kids are. The people making these threads tend to argue how good IQ is at representing adults, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 15 22:25:19 2013 No.6160024 >>6158524 Adults who are less developed than kids can be considered retarded.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 00:26:27 2013 No.6160265

>>6160024
Adults who are less developed than average kids, yes. But that is because the average kid will develop a lot more. With prodigies, they tend to do all their mental development early, which is why they are so much smarter than everyone around them. Then it evens out more as the people around them get smarter.

I will admit that the people who are smarter earlier have an advantage, just like someone who has been studying a subject for 10 years has an advantage over someone who has studied it for 2.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 15:34:18 2013 No.6161494 >>6160265 >Then it evens out more as the people around them get smarter. Do they get smarter by only getting older?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 09:53:08 2013 No.6163204 >>6161494 Everyone gets smarter over time. That's why only old people are awarded the Nobel prize.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:50:08 2013 No.6164216 >>6158498 My IQ too low to understand that picture.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 22:17:07 2013 No.6164877

>>6152745
Let me tell you a story of one of my IQ tests. I went in and took it, thought it was laughably easy and waited for my results. Come back with poor results, so I review everything to see where I went wrong. Can't find any major errors so I go talk to the proctor about it. Go through the questions explaining my answers. The proctor can find little wrong with my answers other then they don't match the answer key. The discrepancy is so high and my answers so reasonable he goes to double check he has the right answer key, which he does. In the end he tells me I am too smart for the test, but still gives me a very low score anyway.

Thing is they had questions like find which one matches the pattern, A,B,C,D. I was finding different pattern sets then the ones intended, often using fewer steps but both patterns were valid. One answer I had was to just put one negative refractive plane diagonally across which made my answer make perfect sense in one move, they wanted a repeating 3 step pattern with alternating shapes. Both were perfectly defensible but only one was on the answer key.

And considering I scored a 50 and a 150 with an average at 118 it not like I am stupid under the metrics of the IQ test. My scores jumped a lot once I figured out how to think like the person writing the test instead of using my normal though process.

This leads me to think the thing is fairly arbitrary or at the very least heavily favors one way of thinking as other valid solutions can be found which are marked wrong.
As for your correlation argument, remember correlation does not equal causation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 18 03:06:25 2013 No.6165317 >>6164877 You are stupid because you lack the social cognition to understand what answers you were expected to give in the test.

Anonymous Mon Nov 18 10:33:46 2013 No.6165730
File: 55 KB, 425x393, intel_pie2j.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6165317
I would argue I was stupid in the category of social cognition and have since learned how to be smarter in that area, now I am on an average level given the data (or maybe enough people just fell to my level given how it is calculated, that's scary). However this introduces the idea of types of intelligence, which at minimum shows a significant flaw in a singular IQ score. This is why we have many other theories that including

the g factor (which was the early form of the IQ system we have now)
the IQ, EQ, SQ values (The EQ and SQ is actually some time part of the test, although it is not used very often any more)
the Gf and Gc (which fits very well with how intelligence changes with age)
the 7 distinct categories of intelligence (which includes body smart, similar to athletic ability) (pic)

just to name some big ones.
Even since ancient times you can find the concept of street smart and book smart under different names. So why do we use such a narrow definition when it clear that there is more to it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 18 18:06:12 2013 No.6166905 >>6165730 There is only one EQ test, made by the inventor of EQ. It is highly controversial, never gained acceptance and isn't used anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 05:23:12 2013 No.6167968 >>6165730 That pic looks like esoteric pseudoscience. Who is trying to scam people with stupid shit like "self-smart yourself"?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 05:54:12 2013 No.6167992 >>6167968 It's liberal "everyone's special" feelgood mumbo-jumbo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:17:57 2013 No.6169253 >>6167992 That's what I thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 01:04:27 2013 No.6170361 >>6167992 It's even wrong. He post mentions 7 'intelligences' but the picture has 8...

>>	Carbon Wed Nov 20 06:00:57 2013 No.6170568 >>6152745 Motivation is more important in the long run Motivation correlates with success /thread I can say arbitrarily drawn assumptions as well OP

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 06:07:26 2013 No.6170572 >>6152745 It would take genius parents to make an 100 IQ child think like 2 standard deviations better.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 06:43:56 2013 No.6170601

>>6152745
There is nothing wrong with IQ tests. It can be a good indicator for analytical intelligence. But it has its limits. Many aspects of human cognition are poorly covered, such as social intelligence or artistic talent.

It also favors persons who grew up in certain environments. For example the Muller-Lyer optical illusion works better on people who are accustomed to indoor living, because they learned to interpret geometry in a certain way. An IQ test could have similar biases, which makes it more of a tool to decide how good someone is adopted to a particular lifestyle instead of measuring someones mental capacities in full. Don't get me wrong: It's still a useful tool to detect mental skills which are in demand by the modern economy.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 07:55:56 2013 No.6170635

>>6170601
>There is nothing wrong with IQ tests. It can be a good indicator for analytical intelligence. But it has its limits. Many aspects of human cognition are poorly covered, such as social intelligence or artistic talent.

There is no such thing as "analytic intelligence". There is just general intelligence. The same is not an accident. It is very, very general because every mental test loads on it.

>It also favors persons who grew up in certain environments. For example the Muller-Lyer optical illusion works better on people who are accustomed to indoor living, because they learned to interpret geometry in a certain way. An IQ test could have similar biases, which makes it more of a tool to decide how good someone is adopted to a particular lifestyle instead of measuring someones mental capacities in full. Don't get me wrong: It's still a useful tool to detect mental skills which are in demand by the modern economy.

Already tested and found to be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:37:51 2013 No.6171814 >>6170568 Where do people gain motivation?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:45:51 2013 No.6171843

>>6170635
>There is no such thing as "analytic intelligence". There is just general intelligence. The same is not an accident. It is very, very general because every mental test loads on it.

while different cognitive competencies might correlate, it doesn't mean they're all the same.

do you recognize that there's a difference between having good memory and high intelligence? what about being observant vs absent-minded and intelligent? what about focus and intelligent? quick and intelligent?
these traits may all influence test performance, and they may be correlated, but they're not the same as one's problem solving skill. Some people exhibit differences across different cognitive competencies.

>Already tested and found to be wrong.

the Flynn effect is a well known phenomenon.

>>	Carbon Wed Nov 20 19:07:50 2013 No.6171891 >>6171814 Environmental stressors (competition/pressure etc.)

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 03:09:36 2013 No.6172806 >>6171891 What if there are none?

Anonymous Thu Nov 21 05:47:07 2013 No.6172980

>>6171843
>while different cognitive competencies might correlate, it doesn't mean they're all the same.

Of course.

>do you recognize that there's a difference between having good memory and high intelligence? what about being observant vs absent-minded and intelligent? what about focus and intelligent? quick and intelligent?

Yes etc. These all correlate.

>these traits may all influence test performance, and they may be correlated, but they're not the same as one's problem solving skill. Some people exhibit differences across different cognitive competencies.

No expert thinks they are the same.

The ability profile also becomes more varied as g increases.

>the Flynn effect is a well known phenomenon.

Yes, and well known, too, to be not g-loaded. It is not an increase in intelligence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226?np=y

"Black/White differences in mean IQ have been clearly shown to strongly correlate with g loadings, so large group differences on subtests of high cognitive complexity and small group differences on subtests of low cognitive complexity. IQ scores have been increasing over the last half century, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. Flynn effect gains are predominantly driven by environmental factors. Might these factors also be responsible for group differences in intelligence? The empirical studies on whether the pattern of Flynn effect gains is the same as the pattern of group differences yield conflicting findings. A psychometric meta-analysis on all studies with seven or more subtests reporting correlations between g loadings and standardized score gains was carried out, based on 5 papers, yielding 11 data points (total N = 16,663). It yielded a true correlation of − .38, and none of the variance between the studies could be attributed to moderators. It appears that the Flynn effect and group differences have different causes. Suggestions for future research are discussed."

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 18:43:43 2013 No.6174161 >>6167992 Why do these people deny science?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 18:58:12 2013 No.6174198 >>6174161 because science hurts people's feelings

Anonymous Thu Nov 21 19:07:43 2013 No.6174206

I remember in high school that all the kids who got mediocre or below average scores on the SAT said it didn't matter. "It's just a stupid test with no merit." The same thing happened in college with the GRE. Ultimately I think most people who shun IQ tests are just insecure about their low scores, in the same way idiots are insecure about their low SATs/ACTs/GREs.

Anonymous Thu Nov 21 19:50:47 2013 No.6174278

>>6174206
I remember in high school the only people who said that being a good football player didn't matter were skinny nerds and fatties. Same thing happened in college. Ultimately I think that most people who shun sports and focus on academics are just insecure about their wimpy little boy bodies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 20:05:43 2013 No.6174307 >>6174278 There's a lot of truth in that. A lot of academics and wannabe academics are scrawny wimps or fatties who take no pride in their health or physical appearance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 20:09:12 2013 No.6174317 >>6174161 >>6174198 Psychology isn't science its a study based on theory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 04:59:12 2013 No.6174982 >>6174317 The empirical and statistical study of human behaviour uses the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:05:37 2013 No.6176163 >>6174307 [citation needed]

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:16:36 2013 No.6176196

>>6174982
>hurrr

The only the thing empiric that you can study about human behavior is how human bodies react physically with things around them. What psychology does is how a thought process makes your body react, but applying scientific method to a thought gets you nowhere because thoughts are not physically observable phenomenon and therefore not empirically verifiable.

There isn't even a scientific explanation for what a thought is, you can make theories and they can even make perfect sense but unless you can accurately test your theory the shit isn't scientific.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:17:36 2013 No.6176198 File: 220 KB, 1838x2775, coming-apart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:18:37 2013 No.6176202 >IQ thread

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:19:37 2013 No.6176204

>>6152745
>Why do people say IQ doesn't matter when IQ is well correlated with academic success and, as a result, success in life in general?

It is well correlated but there's no indication that it is a prerequisite rather than a result of cultural and epigenetic differences in lifestyle, language, and living standards.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:22:07 2013 No.6176218

>>6176198

funfact: the IQ of the US has increased by standard deviations as the culture and living standards improved.

In fact, even in the Bell Curve Richad Lynn and Charles Murray conclude that the increase is dominantly in the lower portions of the spectrum pushing upward rather than the highest portions increasing further.

It seems apparent that change in culture, living standards, and lifestyle are sufficient to increase average intelligence of any population by standard deviations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 21:23:06 2013 No.6176222 it's mostly supremacists spamming threads because they think people will be convinced of their ideas if they don't present them politically.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:12:36 2013 No.6176306

>>6152745
I would imagine success is attained by children who latch on to the ideas of motivation and discipline first, that could be at any time.

as for the "IQ tests" discipline would definitely help with the listed skills, as skills can be learned by any one, some slower or faster.

tldr IQ is a skills test to see who latches on quicker and multiple would need to be taken to get an accurate picture of IQ.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:17:38 2013 No.6176313

>>6176218
>IQ is affected by environment
we already knew that

It seems like its much like building muscle mass, an ectomorph can still be a very large body builder but an mesomorph gains mass much quicker. eventually the ectomorph will reach a genetic limit, but will still have impressive mass.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:25:07 2013 No.6176322

>>6154172
Yet one can also suggest that those who accept the IQ test do so just to validate their own insecurities regarding intelligence as they require an objective way to show that they are intelligent enough.

It goes both ways. Your implied argument regarding "emotionally impacting" is, I can safely say, assuming that those who do not accept the IQ therefore must have low scores in the IQ. This goes both ways, as I have presented above.

Clearly IQ is pseudoscience. Studies have been done showing an unreliability of the test. The validity also comes to question.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:43:36 2013 No.6176342

It's a denial of reality and a rejection of biological nature of intelligence in humans. It's sad. I'm glad that you, OP, can see through the nonsense. People are not equal. IQ doesn't mean you will never be successful, it just means you have your limits on where you can compete. Hard work still matters. Having a high IQ isn't everything if you don't apply yourself. But these facts don't discount the fact that everything being equal higher IQ is better.

Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:50:37 2013 No.6176350

>>6176342

>IQ doesn't mean you will never be successful, it just means you have your limits on where you can compete.

The argument is that IQ is altogether a poor measure of the limits of human biologic intelligence because of difficulty in controlling for confounding variables given the nature of the testing and the one dimensional scale of the score.

IQ is too limited in its ability to measure intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 22 22:53:37 2013 No.6176353 >>6176313 While they both intelligence and athleticism have biologic basis, the intangible nature of intelligence makes it considerably difficult to accurately quantify.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 03:16:06 2013 No.6176675
File: 283 KB, 999x999, without-data-quote-andreas-Schleicher2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6176218
>In fact, even in the Bell Curve Richad Lynn and Charles Murray conclude that the increase is dominantly in the lower portions of the spectrum pushing upward rather than the highest portions increasing further.

Richard Lynn did not write the TBC.

>It seems apparent that change in culture, living standards, and lifestyle are sufficient to increase average intelligence of any population by standard deviations.

The Flynn effect is not g loaded. It is not an increase in intelligence.

>>6176322
>Clearly IQ is pseudoscience. Studies have been done showing an unreliability of the test. The validity also comes to question.

You are making things up. IQ tests have the highest validity and reliability (test-retest) is all of psychology. They are in fact the tests that OTHER TESTS try to emulate in their properties!

The reliability of IQ testing is close to that of measuring height. I look up the values Jensen 1980 mentions for WAIS, and it has a 0.97 test-retest reliability.

>>6176350
>IQ is too limited in its ability to measure intelligence.

>making wild claims
>citing no evidence

You do not belong on a science board.

>>6176353
>While they both intelligence and athleticism have biologic basis, the intangible nature of intelligence makes it considerably difficult to accurately quantify.

No. Intelligence is rather easy to measure. Personality factors are more difficult. Finding the genes is however difficult due to their multiplicity and small effect size. We will find them soon enough. Found the first three recently. :)

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 03:19:07 2013 No.6176680

IQ is so fucking American. Only Americans are stupid enough to think there is such a thing as an absolute intelligence that can be measured. I have worked in practically all the STEM fields in top level universities and I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone (students, professors, lecturers, scientists, lab researchers) taking anything like an IQ test or speaking about IQ, ever. I have also interacted with students, lecturers and researchers from all over Europe, Asia and Latin America and I have never, ever, ever heard it mentioned in a conversation, casual or serious. No one cares about that shit, no one.

Except some brain-dead Americans.
America's education system is truly the most fucked up on this earth, and the sick American "winner/loser" mentality that automatically assumes some people are better than others will be the USA's demise.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 03:52:19 2013 No.6176702

>>6176680
I'm Australian, non-white, have a degree in biotechnology, and was fascinated by the research that led to IQ. Saying that you've never heard anyone that cares about it is asinine- I'm sure you've never heard of the c-KIT receptor tyrosine kinase, but it's relevant enough for me to have done a PhD in it. Saying that it's an American imperialist agenda is even more asinine, seeing as the concept was first developed by a french psychologist.
Look, the number of IQ threads I see on /sci/ makes me realise that this topic is too hot for it's own good. You can sit here and rail against the perceived irrelevance of the test, that you don't know anyone that thinks its important, or that it's an example of American jingoism (wtf on this point anyway? What does it have to with America?), or, being this is meant to be a science board, you can actually critique the research.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 03:59:19 2013 No.6176707 >>6176702 >c-KIT receptor tyrosine kinase Actually I have probably heard of it since all the terms are familiar, no idea what it's for though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:00:18 2013 No.6176711 >>6176702 I've done a fair bit of neuroscience and I've never heard it mentioned. I think it's just obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:00:19 2013 No.6176708 >>6176675 Empiric proof of IQ tests validity if you would give me it id appreciate it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:00:49 2013 No.6176709 ITT : people who talk about IQ instead of learning things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:01:19 2013 No.6176712 >>6176709 Lèche ma chatte.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:05:48 2013 No.6176720 >>6152745 that good feel when I filtered " IQ " on /sci/

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:10:19 2013 No.6176724

>>6176708
There is no empirical basis for anything in psychology, thoughts, as far as science knows, exist entirely outside empiric reality. There's no way to test anything because we don't know how to explain the experience of thought scientifically.

Confused as to why people are even arguing about psychology considering literally none of the theories are provable or disprovable.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:23:18 2013 No.6176733

>>6176708
My understanding is that there is none. IQ tests grew out of the observation of a french psychologist that the same small group of children were topping their class in every subject; that is, academic talent in math predicted academic talent in writing, science, geography, etc. To this end, a test was constructed that tested radically different mental skills and that relied on as little prior knowledge as possible. It was discovered that these IQ tests seem to predict academic success, future earnings after school, and a whole host of other positive outcomes. And thats it, IQ science in a nutshell, take it or leave it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:42:18 2013 No.6176744

Different people can use IQ differently.

A typical retard with 70 IQ won't be able to drive a car or read or graduate high school.

The average black person has 70-80 IQ.
A black person with 70 IQ will be able to do all of those, go to college and get a good career. etc..

IQ doesn't work the same in everyone.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 04:53:48 2013 No.6176751

If IQ has no validity how can you argue that it has 'predictive' power? If there is no valid proof as to the nature of what it recepts then how do you determine anything?

Unless by predictive power you mean 'predicts random aspects of mental processes that are indistinguishable from noise'

But that's not what people mean when they say 'predict'

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 05:13:19 2013 No.6176762 File: 33 KB, 405x304, zombies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Racism and IQ worship are two sides of the same coin: the prescribed ideology for those who feel utterly worthless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 05:14:49 2013 No.6176764 >>6176762 >mentioning facts about reality means you are insecure stay strong

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 05:18:48 2013 No.6176768 >>6176762 But that's wrong it doesn't justify me killing them, they don't even have a hunger for flesh.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 05:20:49 2013 No.6176772
File: 774 KB, 1500x4679, IQ_outcomes_regressions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6176708
>>6176724
>>6176733
When will you DO ANY RESEARCH? Even a fucking cursory glance at Wiki fucking Pedia will prove you wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Social_outcomes

IQ is well known to predict: longevity, educational attainment, academic achievement, income, atheism, criminality (negative), patents, tenure, fertility (negative), etc. etc. etc.

It is not exactly difficult to open Wikipedia to get an overview.

>>6176751
>If IQ has no validity how can you argue that it has 'predictive' power?

It has.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 05:24:48 2013 No.6176776 >>6176772 Not being born poor is also well known to predict a lot of those, but that doesn't mean children with wealthy parents are innately more intelligent.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 07:51:49 2013 No.6176935

>>6176776
Actually do look at the image. They regressed on both in this very analysis! IQ is the superior predictor for most things.

>but that doesn't mean children with wealthy parents are innately more intelligent.

But we already know this from decades of behavior genetics research.

The model is simple:

Higher g parents → higher g children (heritability)
Higher g parents → higher income parents (g x income correlation)

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 08:11:48 2013 No.6176955 >>6176935 What a bunch of bourgeoisie baloney, Gauss' mother didn't know how to write yet he came out of the pussy solving integrals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 08:24:49 2013 No.6176964 >>6176955 >arguing from sample size N=1 Science is not for you. Try becoming a welder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 08:35:19 2013 No.6176971 >>6176964 all the good welding jobs are taken.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 12:34:17 2013 No.6177206 >>6176964 >welding Good money though... especially underwater and stuff

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 12:47:48 2013 No.6177230

>>6176772
Apparently you don't understand the difference between a prediction in n ACTUAL science that deal in physical phenomenon and a social science, but that's OK because I'm more than happy to explain it to you.
Correlation isn't the same thing as a prediction. It is only a statistical likelihood of a given outcome, in probability theory correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relation between two random variables.

Which means very simply that IQ holds NO predictive power. Its like trying to tell time with a broken watch, if the hands don't move it gives the same answer every time you look at it even though it isn't evidence of anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 15:37:47 2013 No.6177458 >>6177230 >does not understand statistical prediction Not sure if trolling or stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 15:40:47 2013 No.6177467 Not a science question, povo cunt. Try /b/ or /soc/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 15:41:48 2013 No.6177468 >>6177458 No, you just don't get that correlation thingy but it's okay, just don't do anything that requires rigour.

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 16:23:51 2013 No.6177558

>>6177458
A random outcome predicting a random outcome is not a prediction.

A scientific prediction is something that happens every single fucking time. Something thats entirely random is not a prediction its unreliable noise.

Which is something you'd realize if you werent fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 17:41:27 2013 No.6177764 >>6177558 This post just increased the probability of trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 17:43:27 2013 No.6177770 >>6177764 >T-T-TROLL!! yea ok buddy

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 17:48:57 2013 No.6177776 >>6177770 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology#Applications Meteorology is a hard science and deals mostly with statistical/indeterministic predictions. There is also quantum mechanics which also yields statistical predictions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 17:49:57 2013 No.6177778 File: 14 KB, 257x200, hahaha oh wow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6177776 >Meteorology is a hard science

Anonymous Sat Nov 23 17:55:57 2013 No.6177793

>>6177776
In fucking Meteorology we have physically observed the atmosphere and because of that we have the supporting evidence to make reliable predictions.

In psychology you make theories based on a phenomena that is entirely unobservable.

Until we can scientifically explain the experience of thought and make a reliable method of measurement then any theories relating to thought are incredulous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 18:27:56 2013 No.6177859 >>6155082 I kinda agree. The equation would be: Good grades=IQtime studyingsome weird constant with many variables

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 23 20:00:56 2013 No.6177983 File: 8 KB, 211x193, 1346001882848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6177859 >some weird constant with many variables >constant with many variables >constant >variables m8 u wot

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 24 09:15:48 2013 No.6179213 >>6177983 Constants can be parametrized.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 24 12:51:27 2013 No.6179544 >>6179213 But then they'd be variables

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 24 18:54:43 2013 No.6180415 >>6179544 Not if you fix the parameters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 02:50:14 2013 No.6181324 Please stop posting on this

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 03:38:14 2013 No.6181353 ITT: an OP is butthurt that joining mensa means nothing. he wants his high IQ score to really mean something in the real world, but will later find out it truly does not.

Anonymous Mon Nov 25 05:27:58 2013 No.6181424

>>6152745
It matters if you want to find out if you're too stupid for med school, or for an engineering degree. It doesn't matter at the high end, because if it's reasonably high, like say 125, then that's enough to do things that no one has ever done before, which is something that most people >140 don't end up doing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 05:40:30 2013 No.6181444 >>6152745 Can you please put "IQ" in your subject next time OP so that I can automatically filter you

Anonymous Mon Nov 25 05:43:29 2013 No.6181449

>2013
>still fucking believing in IQ

Take your shitty new age numerology bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Seriously though you guys took what was essentially a program for children and turned it into some monster that's supposed to show your general mental ability through a numerical snapshot. Mind you a numerical snapshot that is pretty much worthless because it's being weighted against an average on a scale that has little insight on the mental totality of modern man and cannot account for the chaotic social and evironmental interactions that has influenced him for thousands of years.

Good fucking job jackasses, maybe you'll have better luck with your IQ when you can build a time machine or make a isolated population where you can simulate and measure their processing abilities for thousands of years.

Anonymous Mon Nov 25 06:38:29 2013 No.6181487

>>6181449

I think people obsess over "IQ" because it's a useful crutch to blame your problems on.
If they couldn't accomplish something, it's because they weren't smart enough, not because they didn't work hard enough.
So they blame something "out of their control" when the blame could very well be something within their control (how hard they work).
It works the other way too, when people with "high IQ's" can get away with never accomplishing anything because they've already proved that they're "smart". Basically, people also use IQ as a get-out-of-jail card to allow for intellectual laziness.

Both cases are detrimental to anything academic. Instead of worrying about your "IQ", worry about learning what you love and putting all your effort into it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 07:59:28 2013 No.6181532 >>6152751 Reality is subjective

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 08:05:28 2013 No.6181537 >>6152745 Yes, they are insecure. It's a worse thing in the USA where everyone is brought up hearing they are special and unique.

Anonymous Mon Nov 25 08:06:29 2013 No.6181539

>>6152745
Med school is memorization and diligence, the ability to think critically isn't very important unless you're doing research.

And that goes for any applied science. You don't really need to be terribly intelligent if all of the science has been done for you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 25 16:10:57 2013 No.6182268 >>6152751 Success is objective. Intelligence is objective.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 05:05:27 2013 No.6183721 >>6155381 Good summary of the thread.

Anonymous Tue Nov 26 08:22:37 2013 No.6183840

>>6153890
The average IQ is steadily increasing. While 100 was the norm a decade ago, we can expect to see 110 or even 120 become standard in the next couple of years. Look at how many people have ludicrously high IQs on this website!

By 2100, nearly everyone will have higher IQs than the top MENSA members.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 10:31:07 2013 No.6183930 >>6183840 This is not true, actually average IQ is getting lower

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 10:32:08 2013 No.6183933 >>6183840 http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/05/23/Last-century-Western-nations-lost-an-average-14-IQ-points/UPI-77081369362633/?spt=hs&or=hn Mass immigration happened

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 10:48:07 2013 No.6183963 >>6152745 >IQ >>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 10:59:37 2013 No.6183986 >>6183933 100 IQ is by definition average, thus if the third world has had a higher IQ growth it will look as if though european intelligence has decreased, while it in fact hasn't

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 14:51:07 2013 No.6184552 >>6183840 The Flynn effect is hollow, not g-loaded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 14:56:07 2013 No.6184561 Exactly why is it that IQs are normally distributed over all of mankind? Is it a bullshit hypothesis because everything is a gaussian (or linear) for a psychologist or did they actually design it that way?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 20:14:44 2013 No.6185287 >>6184561 Not many people know distributions that are neither gaussian nor uniform.

Anonymous Tue Nov 26 20:18:14 2013 No.6185297
File: 111 KB, 708x832, Has+Science+gone+too+far+.+What+is+going+on+with_8cb03a_3965133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Correlation=/=Causation

It might be that IQ causes higher levels of academic success, but it could just as easily be that academic success results in a higher IQ.

It might seem like a strange concept, but studying might just make you smarter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 26 20:30:44 2013 No.6185327 >>6185297 Easy to test, and surprise, has been. The causation is entirely or almost entirely from intelligence to academic achievement.

Anonymous Tue Nov 26 20:36:14 2013 No.6185341

>>6184561
Quite a lot of physical measures follow a normal distribution, e.g. height. Intelligence is very similar to height, both in its heritability and distribution.

Many of the subtests that are used have normal distributions (digit span, vocabulary size) and correlates of g also have normal distributions (brain size, nerve conduction velocity).

For the long answer see: Jensen, Arthur R. "Bias in mental testing." (1980).

Chapter 4.

Free: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:13:29 2013 No.6187434 >>6185297 What if there is a third factor causing both?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 14:45:21 2013 No.6189037 >>6185327 [citation needed]

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 15:02:51 2013 No.6189102

>>6189037
There is a huge literature on the subject.

The most obviously useful is to look at child IQ scores and adult academic achievement. Does the correlation remain? If yes, then it can't be from AA→IQ.

Googling it finds lots of such studies. Here's one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652919/

IQs measured at age 7-9-11 predicted lots of things 40 years later.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]