/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6811379]

Why do liberals hate intelligence tests so much? Is there a neuroscientific explanation?

[Anonymous No.6811412]

Trying to objectively quantify intelligence isn't easy. There are a vast array of cultural and psychological differences among people which can significantly influence certain traits that determine intelligence.

On that note, how do you even define intelligence? Enlighten me OP.

[Anonymous No.6811415]

Because we're all made equal in Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.6811431]

I'll just leave this here.

[Anonymous No.6811446]

>>6811431

>check out these hot correlations of incomplete cognitive assessments!

[Anonymous No.6811452]

I don't think I've seen anyone be completely against all cognitive evaluations.

I do see people rightly call out IQ for being somewhere between flawed and incomplete as a general intelligence factor.

[Anonymous No.6811458]

I don't and I've never met one who did.

[Anonymous No.6811508]

>>6811446
>>6811452

it's by fat the closest we have ever come to measuring intelligence though.

it also correlates with a fuckton of things one would expect intelligence to have an influence on

yes i know correlation != causation, and i'd buy it for any given single observation. yet with IQ, it pretty much correlates positively with every single measure of success we have that questioning its accuracy seems very odd to me.

[Anonymous No.6811543]

>>6811508
>it's by fat the closest we have ever come to measuring intelligence though.

No it's not, not even close. There are plenty of different types of cognitive assessments out there that measure types of intelligence that IQ leaves out (emotional intelligence, social comprehension, etc), and there are plenty of different types of intelligence (creativity, artistic intelligence) that we can barely measure at all - and even then, to sum up intelligence with a single number (which is a laughable concept), you have to weight the different categories in importance in order to add them together, and those weights are fairly arbitrary.

Take a look at who dominates the highest IQ scores - are they the smartest people ever? They tend to be low-functioning savant mathematical prodigies who are severely handicapped in many areas. This is a giant red flag that implies the incompleteness and internal imbalance of IQ as a measure of g.

[Anonymous No.6811562]

>Take a look at who dominates the highest IQ scores - are they the smartest people ever?
Looks like they are:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/09/24/the-scary-smart-have-become-the-scary-rich-examining-techs-richest-on-the-forbes-400/

> low-functioning savant mathematical prodigies who are severely handicapped in many areas
liberal fairytales

[Anonymous No.6811583]

>>6811543
>but muh emotions and creativity!

not measurable in a meaningful way
also no evidence of being relevant to anything at all, since none is measurable in the first place


>Take a look at who dominates the highest IQ scores
>are they the smartest people ever?

people like hawking or einstein?
yes, that's pretty much who i think of as the smartest people ever.

[Anonymous No.6811606]

>>6811583
Not him, actually consider IQ valid but:
>not measurable in a meaningful way
I disagree. You can measure emotional and behavioral control. Simplest way is a comparison of criminal offenses but it can be more in depth like how well someone deals with emotional situations by measuring time it takes for them to cool off or how intense the situation needs to be to get them fired up.

I will also point out IQ doesn't measure gullibility which is really important.

[Anonymous No.6811614]

>>6811562
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/09/24/the-scary-smart-have-become-the-scary-rich-examining-techs-richest-on-the-forbes-400/

More like got lucky in a bubble.

[Anonymous No.6811624]

>>6811614
There were a lot of people around then, dumb and smart, how come the smart ones figured how to exploit the situation and the dumb ones didn't?

[Anonymous No.6811628]

>>6811583

>Emotions and creativity aren't relevant to anything at all

Holy shit, you actually conceptualized this, thought it was a good argument, typed it out, and submitted it to the thread. Fucking A.

[Anonymous No.6811633]

>>6811583
Creativity can be measured in a meaningful way.
I call it the "did you actually come up with stuff you can show me, or are you just good at online IQ tests" test.

[Anonymous No.6811634]

>>6811614
you're aware that many of these top companies weren't even around in that era, or were pretty much unaffected by the crash?

[Anonymous No.6811636]

>>6811628
read again.
i said NO EVIDENCE of them being relevant to any outcome. because you lack the tools of measuring them in the first place. therefor discussing them on the level we can discuss IQ on is not possible.

[Anonymous No.6811637]

>>6811562

IQ makes money, that has already been established. Not sure what your argument is.

[Anonymous No.6811641]

I haven't read The Blank Slate, but I imagine it is something to do with the ideas (criticised) therein. Specifically, the belief that all children are capable of becoming the next genius, so any test ranking them by intelligence can give a false impression.

[Anonymous No.6811643]

intelligence is the ability to find out what to do to succeed in life

IQ measures something that's strongly correlated to any imaginable kind of success in life

sounds pretty close to me

[Anonymous No.6811645]

>>6811641
It's a good read, and sure Pinker may get shit but at least he didn't fudge his data like the liberal hero Gould.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

[Anonymous No.6811649]

>>6811412
solving problems with quick speed and creativity.

[Anonymous No.6811653]

>>6811643
>intelligence is the ability to find out what to do to succeed in life

What a narrow and arbitrary concept of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6811672]

>>6811653

it is what straightforward observation of reality gives you.

we call someone smart if he makes the right decisions in life, if he can solve his problems effectively.

we call someone dumb if he makes bad decisions even though he knew better.


logic and rational thinking (which IQ tests are designed to measure) obviously increase ones ability to distinguish good choices from bad ones, thus leading to eventual success.

[Anonymous No.6811681]

>>6811653
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.

[Anonymous No.6811691]

>>6811624
>>6811634

That's what getting lucky in a bubble is all about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/07/twitters-ipo-is-more-proof-that-tech-is-in-a-massive-bubble/

[Anonymous No.6811698]

>>6811672
>it is what straightforward observation of reality gives you.

No it's not, it's an arbitrary, colloquial view of intelligence, not a remotely scientific one. Maybe you're on the wrong board.

In science intelligence is defined more fundamentally, in terms of cognitive patterns. It has nothing to do with success, though success correlates with it.

[Anonymous No.6811700]

>>6811691
>lucky

in business, 'lucky' is what the jealous call the successful

who cares if it's a bubble? only the people who didn't recognize it early enough.

[Anonymous No.6811701]

>>6811698

how about this one?

>A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

pretty close to what i said. the ability to solve problems, in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.6811703]

>>6811681

That's better. But I still think we could be more universal with a definition, one that applies to all animals and AI as well, something more based in information processing at the neural level.

[Anonymous No.6811706]

>>6811645

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html

[Anonymous No.6811707]

>>6811543
>emotional intelligence
>social intelligence
Wut

Both of those literally just depend on an individual's level of intuition. Totally different from intelligence, which is competency in recognizing patterns and solving problems. Stop trying to make everyone a genius.

[Anonymous No.6811715]

>>6811412
Everything is inaccurate to a certain degree, that doesn't blow IQ tests out of the water.

The correlation between IQ and various other statistics is usually ±10 points.

[Anonymous No.6811717]

>>6811543
>emotional intelligence
>i-i swear guys, I know I can't pass remedial geometry, but I'm really good at talking to people on the phone. I have lots of social intelligence!
please kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6811722]

>>6811707
>which is competency in recognizing patterns and solving problems

>but emotional and social problems don't count! And no one uses emotions or social comprehension to solve problems ever!

[Anonymous No.6811726]

>>6811717

>Get frustrated with your own arbitrary definition of intelligence
>Tell other people to kill themselves over it

I bet you have a real well-rounded intelligence to yourself.

[Anonymous No.6811729]

>>6811722
but are emotional and social intelligence easier to learn than sperg intelligence?

[Anonymous No.6811731]

>>6811379

I don't think people hate the tests themselves, they just hate people over-relying on them while ignoring outside factors that influence the result those tests give.

[Anonymous No.6811736]

>>6811729

I guess that would depend on your environment and genetics?

[Anonymous No.6811737]

>>6811379
Because IQ is racist. We're all made equal in god's image, anything that debunks that is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6811747]

>>6811722
>emotional and social problems

creating a test that checks someones ability to 'solve' these (very vaguely defined) problems would be quite a feat.


the thing is, IQ tests are well-established, and their results are very accurate in that they reliably predict a persons success at everything we think of as requiring high intelligence.

no such tests exist for your 'social or emotional' intelligence, neither do we have evidence that a high 'social or emotional' intelligence is related to a measurable benefit in any way.


unless you develop working EQ tests and conduct studies on their predictive power, all the talk about 'emotional and social' intelligence is just empty talk with zero data or evidence supporting it.

[Anonymous No.6811749]

>>6811706
>Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Amen, brother. Hallelujah!

https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/

[Anonymous No.6811761]

>>6811737
>>6811749
but ashkenazi jews have the highest iq of any group.

[Anonymous No.6811776]

>>6811379

it contradicts their dogma that every human and every race is literally the same in every possible way.

[Anonymous No.6811778]

>>6811761
Indeed, interestingly other Jewish ethnicities are at around 100 or below. So the Jewish culture of learning doesn't seem to be the reason.

[Anonymous No.6811781]

>>6811761

it's not a race, it's a tiny, tiny, tiny subgroup of the jew breed. which has a huge spectrum, there are black ethiopian jews, who have 75 IQ...etc

it's like picking only russians from moscow university and giving them an IQ test, ya they're gonna score higher than normal....because they are a tiny tiny subgroup of Russians.

[Anonymous No.6811786]

>>6811761

only the smart ones escaped europe
the not-so-smart ones were found by SS guys

now there's only smart jews left

[Anonymous No.6811789]

>>6811781
Race is a social construct, Jesus is the lord of all.

[Anonymous No.6811799]

Neuroscientific explanation why liberals (supposedly) hate intelligence tests? How fucking retarded are you?

Reported for hidden /pol/ and IQ-thread.

[Anonymous No.6811803]

Because it legitimizes marginalization of disadvantaged groups like blacks.

[Anonymous No.6811805]

>>6811803
Amen, brother. The good book says "love thy neighbor" not "love thy neighbor is their IQ is high".

[Anonymous No.6811809]

>>6811803
Amen, brother. The good book says "love thy neighbor" not "love thy neighbor if their IQ is high".

[Anonymous No.6811814]

>>6811747
>at everything we think of as requiring high intelligence.

At everything YOU think of as requiring high intelligence. If you don't see the value of (or acknowledge the complex neural patterns involved with) social comprehension or artistic ability for examples, then you won't be very sympathetic to the limitations of IQ.

[Anonymous No.6811815]

>>6811809
Checkmate, atheists!
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0

[Anonymous No.6811816]

>>6811747
>neither do we have evidence that a high 'social or emotional' intelligence is related to a measurable benefit in any way.

I can't even imagine being this autistic.

[Anonymous No.6811818]

>>6811816
So we do?

[Anonymous No.6811829]

This is why elite let wymen to return to hipergamy. Musculus guys with good immune systems even if they are dumb or evil, and rich and intelligent guys will be the ones who will be able to have offspring. Meanwhile all the betas will have almost no sex, and no romantic opportunities. Betas have been very useful, when mechanic non-qualified work was necessary, but now they are a waste of resources. What will happen is that nanny-state will take care of those betas till they die (because humanitarianism), and the gene pool will be a mix of upper alpha intelligence, with lower alpha healthy bodies. The bad outcome of this is that almost everyone would be sociopath, or plain evil, because very often the other kind of alphas are bad people, and the upper alphas just care about money and power (that is one of the reasons they arrived that high). I think that this race mixing propaganda is to create a master race that will be a mixture of all other races, so they are encouraging white girls (the ones who choose) to fuck blacks and Asians. But the elite, will probably keep, breeding among Jews to be the ones with the highest IQs. Also, population in developed countries will be reduced as an intended side effect.

Other possibility, is that we start doing plain eugenics, and forbid the right to create offspring in the natural way. In that case, sex drive will be a pain in the ass to the elite, because it destroys productivity, so people will be re-engineered, to have a low, or non-existent sex drive, in order to prevent "rape" or "pedophilia" or some made up excuse.

[Anonymous No.6811831]

>>6811818

I didn't answer you because I didn't think you were actually being serious.

Are you honestly asserting that social skills don't benefit you?

[Anonymous No.6811834]

>>6811829

dude what

[Anonymous No.6811837]

>>6811831
>I didn't think you were actually being serious.
This neurotypical faggot is polluting my board.