I'm tired of these debates on IQ

[Anonymous No.9360374]

Read pic related, came out in October, good review in nature, author has some interviews on youtube.

This is the latest, most up to date in cognitive science.

Read this fucking book because I cannot browse this board with threads telling people IQ doesn't measure intelligence, this must be a bad meme or you people are so weak you can't even tell the truth to yourselves.

[Anonymous No.9360378]

>>9360374

[Anonymous No.9360385]

IQ measures the capacity of intelligence.

It doesn't actually describe what people do.

Doing is superior to sitting.

Universal model, check it:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

[Anonymous No.9360396]

>>9360385
>It doesn't actually describe what people do.

To a point.

A <90 IQ will never get a Phd in Physics.

You know around 10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military?

[Anonymous No.9360403]

Holy fuck, it just dawned on me that the same people who shit on efforts like linguistics, historical analysis, or even people who major in other studies like english or sociology that study macrostructure and try to understand systems on a level that's larger than the constituent mechanics are the people who also praise IQ testing for its ability to determine intellectual capacity.

It's the same damn thing- you're taking some symptomatic approach of looking at some corollary rather than trying to understand mechanistically- it's like how in the humanities we look at how society is structured and try to figure out how it works using much more broad terms.

[Anonymous No.9360420]

>>9360403
Read the book.

You said nothing worth of substance btw, what's your point.

Read the bloody book.

[Anonymous No.9360505]

>>9360396
Getting a PhD in anything doesn't produce anything. Except someone prints out a piece of paper.

Anyone who legitimately believes they can get a PhD can and will get one.

Furthermore, the only way to get a PhD is to do the things to get one.

IQ and knowing what your IQ score is doesn't enter into it.


Anyways. Do you need a high IQ to understand this:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

[Anonymous No.9360533]

Someone upload a pdf and ill read it

[Anonymous No.9360536]

>>9360533
gen lib ru its there

[Anonymous No.9360540]

>>9360536
god bless you anon

[Anonymous No.9360552]

>>9360403
>we in the humanities

Please GTFO academia so the people actually accomplishing something don't have to listen to your horseshit anymore.

[Anonymous No.9360559]

>>9360505
>Anyone who legitimately believes they can get a PhD can and will get one.

Are you seriously this naive? Fucking hell, last paragraph is for you >>9360378

[Anonymous No.9360565]

>>9360540
Have fun, you will learn a lot, always follow the truth no matter where it leads it will set you free.

Truth is everything.

[Anonymous No.9360602]

>>9360552
>we in the humanities = in the humanities we

Are you ESL, or just genuinely retarded? The connotation being used is to describe a field of study from a standpoint, not to denote my affiliation.

[Anonymous No.9360605]

>>9360396

>You know around 10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military?

Ah, the Jordan Peterson viewers showed up soon.

[Anonymous No.9360626]

>>9360505
that bender guy sounds like me when I'm high and someone asks me how our eyes work.

[Anonymous No.9360639]

>>9360605
Not an argument, truth is truth, disprove it or die.

[Anonymous No.9360644]

>>9360396
>10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military
don't even want a source for this. only brainlets resort to military

[Anonymous No.9360659]

>>9360385
schizoid

[Anonymous No.9360660]

>>9360403
buzzword infested brain

you should cure yourself and learn how to think with clarity.

[Anonymous No.9360661]

>>9360559
People who don't believe they can get a PhD will not do anything to get a PhD. They fail before they start, as they never start.

Getting a PhD isn't really that important. Notice that not everyone wants one.

[Anonymous No.9360665]

>>9360626
Bender's pretty fun guy, wish he here today.

I made a flash game a long time ago where Bender flies a biplane. Someone stole the file and posted it here:

http://futurka.mypage.cz/menu/hry/baron-bender

Arrow keys and space bar were the controls. I thought it was pretty fun high or sober.

[Anonymous No.9360688]

>>9360536
Thanks

[Anonymous No.9360690]

>>9360396
>A <90 IQ will never get a Phd in Physics.
There are millions of people with a PHD in Physics. Had you known some basic statistics, you would've known that there not being someone with 90 IQ in that group is more unlikely than winning powerball 5 times in a row.

I just read the Jordan Peterson part. My sides.

[Anonymous No.9360698]

>>9360690
From 1973 until 2012, a total of 66 black American women earned physics doctorates—mostly PhD's—in US colleges. During that same amount of time, 22,172 white men earned their doctorates.

>statistics
>millions

you are a fucking retard, kindly stop posting and just lurk on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9360706]

>>9360698
Anon never mentioned the US nor what year they received them. The extrapolation of your data seems to confirm anon's claim that millions possess PhD.

[Anonymous No.9360709]

>>9360698
>US is the entire world
top kek m8

[Anonymous No.9360714]

>>9360706
so EU has 30x the American physics PHD? etc?

do we have to say exceptions to everything?

I gave a dog a "PHD" sticker with physics on it. Does that count towards the argument because we have to be so specific and literal?

[Anonymous No.9360715]

>>9360714
i'm afraid you're retarded anon

[Anonymous No.9360722]

>>9360715
There is absolutely zero evidence for
>millions of people with a PhD in Physics
from >>9360690

I would love to see statistic that supports millions when in the USA we are looking at tens of thousands and it is an education magnet.

[Anonymous No.9360737]

>>9360722
Well, my original point wasn't to give an estimate as correct as possible but to prove a point that there is someone with IQ of 90 or less with a PhD in physics with extremely high probability.
So there's 23k people in the US with a physics PhD. Let's cut that in half and round to 10k. That gives 10k / 320 million population, so roughly 30k per 1 billion people. Include Europe and Asia, that gives 5 billion people. So 5.3 billion in total = 530k physics PhDs. My original point still holds, even if there were only 50k people with PhD physics in the world. Not only that, there is probably a dozen poeple with 70 IQ with a PhD in physics.

[Anonymous No.9360764]

>>9360722
He brought up a statistic that said over 22,200 people obtained a PhD in US in 2012. It also only accounted for white males and black women.

It's about five years since 2012, so it would be a hugely conservative guess to say that 100,000 in the US possess a PhD. This says nothing about the world, nor does it say anything about people receiving a PhD before 2012.

The data presented suggests over a million possess PhD.

[Anonymous No.9360772]

>>9360737
You don't have to apologize. Anon that called you out was wrong and proved it.

Considering that the route to PhD is academia and academia is simply regurgitating memorized facts, this pretty much suggests getting a PhD is trivial and no high IQ required.

Memorization is one of the lowest brain functions.

PhD isn't a sign of intelligence or success. Unless you define any of those things by spending 8+ years in secondary education. Most people get enough school from grade K-12.

[Anonymous No.9360777]

>>9360737
1. first of all how did you obtain 30k/billion times 5.3 billion = 530k. fucking hell
2. and clearly the IQs of people with physics PhDs are NOT randomly distributed over the whole IQ spectrum. so your statistical argument is retarded
3. and yes, you are probably right that in some shit tier 3rd world country they give even retards PhDs so I'll grant that there exist a handful of sub-100 IQ physics PhDs (but <70? are you fucking kidding me? literal drooling retard level?)
4. but even so, your point is still stupid because there is not a single subnormal average IQ physics phd that will ever be a SUCCESSFUL physicist

[Anonymous No.9360780]

>>9360374
>he can't stand people on an taiwanese anime forum saying that the results of a ""intelligence"" test isn't worth of anything
>he literally wastes his only life on such forum debating with people he's never going to see in real life
>he literally spends HOURS of his day doing this
Congratulations, you have no fucking life. You're here everyday of the week at every hour.
My god, dude, seriously, get a life. Go outside, breathe some fresh air. Go meet some chicks, go meet some friends. Quit this shit life before it's too late.

[Anonymous No.9360786]

>>9360737
> Not only that, there is probably a dozen poeple with 70 IQ with a PhD in physics.

[Anonymous No.9360787]

Most of us here will be fucking dead in about 50-60 years, which is fucking nothing. And yet, here we are, doing jack shit.
Say what you want about the normies, but they're gonna leave this cunthole happy as can be.
Fuck y'all.

[Anonymous No.9360791]

Too many 80 IQ retards in this thread. Holy hell.

[Anonymous No.9360895]

>my dad told me that when I was born, he held me in the hospital, smiled at me and I smiled right back at him
>spoke at 8 months old, started to walk around that same time
>first memory was from when I was about to become 2 years old, my family and I were in San Diego, I remember the beach houses and palm trees from my car seat
>aunt noted that when she would babysit me (I was 1-2 years old, she did this for about a year) she would write out words to calm me down, I would stare at them and stop crying
>wrote fluent news stories when I was 3 years old
>told my parents about respect and fairness when I was 4 years old in kindergarten

Never took an IQ test, teachers saw me as a freak-case since I would escape classes to cry in my sleep and liked to forget about me

Give me an estimate of my IQ /sci/entists

[Anonymous No.9361067]

>>9360791
t. 79 IQ retard

[Anonymous No.9361097]

>>9360644
Wrong. In many countries only intellectual and physical elites are allowed in.

[Anonymous No.9361106]

>>9360698
1973-2012 doesn't account for all physics PhDs earned by still-living people.

4.4% of the world's population doesn't account for the other 95.6%.

[Anonymous No.9361134]

>>9361106
post a shred of evidence for millions of people with physics phds

[Anonymous No.9361427]

>>9360385
Yeah great forum post full of pseud ramblings

[Anonymous No.9361498]

>>9360777
avg phd IQ is only 125 going by a sane distribution there should be a few far below that and we have the population for it. There are people claiming to have a below avg IQ and a phd.

[Anonymous No.9361501]

>>9360374
thanks for the reading advice OP, I'll get back to you <3

[Anonymous No.9361521]

>>9361501
Enjoy it, it's a great read!

[Anonymous No.9361523]

>>9360780
It's my second post in this website in all my life.

>>9360777
>>9360772
>>9360764
>>9360737
>>9360722
>>9360715
>>9360714
>>9360709
>>9360706
>>9360698
>>9360690
>>9360665

You're all idiots, you should follow >>9360780
advice.

Guess what, there are extremelly stupid and smart people, IQ matters and we should find ways to raise everyones IQ, because true equality is IQ equality.

>>9360787
You are, not me.

[Anonymous No.9361528]

>>9361523
will you walk yourself to reddit or shall I help you?

[Anonymous No.9361576]

>>9361528
You will help, friend.

[Anonymous No.9361584]

>>9361528
Not an argument.

Embrace truth or perish, coward.

[Anonymous No.9361670]

>>9360374

Haven't read the book yet but I already take issue with the him even through FAQ answers he provided.

In one question he answered by saying that IQ doesn't work as a direct measurement like distance or weight but functions only as a medium for correlative effect with income due to different percentiles. Then he answers a later question by bringing up that poverty and economic disadvantages come to exist because of having IQ scores lower than 85.

At first all of this sounds fine. A correlative view of success by percentile not by numbers. But when you start delving deeper into the relevance of these statements in current and past economic ecosystems it doesn't correctly mesh well.

For example those who score high on IQ tests tend to major or have majored in subjects like physics, math and engineering. They and any major that has strong interconnection with said fields typically enjoy high amounts of success. But this happens because they exist in an ecosystem that can properly allow itself to be exploited in a progressive feedback loop. In a different ecosystem where these interests cannot properly be exploited, they lose their correlative effect to success. So intelligence (correlative to IQ percentile/ income) as it's being viewed is in actuality about context sensitivity. Not necessary due to the environment but the nuances that help govern/ express it.

Even without taking different ecosystems into account we can see the context sensitive issue in the current space. Inadequate behavior in terms of communication abilities (lack of properly divulging information, emotionally connection or obtaining human contacts) can inhibit success. Another context sensitive issue is economically popular/ unpopular subjects which influence success regardless of percentile.

The conversation ignores the role economic ecosystems have when it comes to how it actively chooses winners and losers due to traits/ quirks they have in prolonging said ecosystem existence.

[Anonymous No.9361853]

>>9361670
>environmental argument
>didn't read

Be advised, if you already believe that intelligence is due all or mostly to the
environment, new neuroscience facts might be difficult to accept. Denial is a common response when new information conflicts with prior beliefs. The older you are, the more
impervious your beliefs may be. Santiago Ramon Cajal (1852–1934), the father of
neuroscience, once wrote, “Nothing inspires more reverence and awe in me than an old
man who knows how to change his mind” (Cajal, 1924). Students have no excuse.

Historically, most researchers have assumed that intelligence, no matter how it was
defined, develops in childhood and is strongly influenced by environmental factors,
especially home life and social culture. In this view, whatever role genes might play is
minimized, and some even argue for a zero contribution of genes. Although this view about
the importance of early environment seems reasonable, and even flattering to proud
parents, the evidence for strong environmental effects on intelligence, especially in early
childhood, is surprisingly weak, as we will see. Epigenetics provides a concept for the
continued consideration of theories about the importance of environmental factors for
intelligence, but epigenetic research on intelligence is just beginning (Haggarty et al.,
2010). Nonetheless, like climate change, the data that support a major genetic component to
intelligence are compelling and the number of genetic deniers and minimizers is
diminishing rapidly.

Based on cross-sectional data, in young twins 4–6 years old, the heritability of
intelligence estimate is about 40%, and the heritability rises to a high of about 85% when
the twins are older adults. In other words, the genetic influences on intelligence variance
actually increase with age and environmental influences decrease.

[Anonymous No.9361874]

Who gives a fuck what IQ "measures" it's a fantastic predictor of socio-economic outcomes and that alone makes it valuable.

[Anonymous No.9361898]

>>9360374
Don't bother./sci/ is living proof the Dunning-Kruger effect is real.

[Anonymous No.9361918]

>>9360374
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9361951]

>>9361918
https://www.tumblr.com

[Anonymous No.9362640]

>>9361853

>He thinks my post is about the ""environment"" argument
>He completely ignores the topic of context sensitivity's role in intelligence that was brought up
>He thinks he can hand wave it off with a pre-baked statement retreading nurture vs. nature debate

Fuck off you robo call brainlet, I read all of his shit that didn't require me to drop a dime on his pay wall.

I'm not talking about nurture, culture or even debating the importance of nature/ genetics here. I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play. A economic ecosystem that depends highly on automation to perpetuate it's own existence will always favor the mathematically minded regardless of what IQ percentile they occupy. Which is why CS majors for example who have strong interconnection to math are finding so much success today despite being among the least knowledgeable and "g" balanced communities (on average) within the mathematics or applied sciences realm.

Just like how a economic ecosystem that depends on hunting/ gathering will favor the physically able/ nimble minded or a ecosystem that depends on agriculture/ animal husbandry will favor the time and categorically oriented. It's all about context sensitivity here, not the IQ percentile you fall under. Is the traits/ quirks an individual, community or major in question here relevant and exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem? If yes, then it achieves success and wins. If not, then it achieves little to nothing and loses.

In the ecosystem that depends on automation people who occupy the highest percentiles of IQ but majored or focused on the arts such as literature and performance will on average become the losers in an economic ecosystem because their particular traits/ quirks aren't exploitable to the continue existence of the ecosystem.

[Anonymous No.9362705]

>>9360385
This models nothing and is worthless, you are also worthless.

[Anonymous No.9362734]

>>9362640
You're so fucking stupid holy hell.

I want to fucking strangle you for using all those retarded buzzwords to hide the fact you are SAYING NOTHING.

[Anonymous No.9362749]

>>9362640
You basically make up arbitrary facts constantly

>I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play.
unproven statement. Higher IQ results in higher income on average and better life outcome. Since IQ is determined heavily by genetics it means genetics highly determines success.

You state: regardless of the genetics in play
Unfounded, stupid, retarded statement.

you fucking moronic piece of trash.

Because your little shit 95 IQ brain uses the word ecosystem and asserts nonsense with zero evidence to justify shitty models of the world you fail to realize how fucking RETARDED your entire post was.

FUCK OFF

[Anonymous No.9362769]

The existence of a free market and interest driven career choices in modern society doesn't magically means genetics do not matter.

>categorically oriented.
>context sensitivity
>exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem
>depends on automation people
top kek you fucking shit animal pig

[Anonymous No.9362786]

>>9362640
>relevant and exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem

economic ecosystem
vs
economic system

Tell me why you used the term ecosystem. What definition are you mapping to?

a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.

a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.

Why did you choose ecosystem in particular? Did it add or change the meaning of the sentence in a meaningful way?

Why do you constantly complicate your word choice while at the same time making horrible grammatical errors? Is it perhaps to hide how fucking stupid you are by obfuscating the meaning behind arbitrary mappings and vague meanings?

[Anonymous No.9362806]

>>9362640

>unfucked version

The free market system chooses outcomes and genetics don't matter. An economic system that relies on automation to exist will favor mathematically gifted people regardless of their IQ. CS Majors good at math are in high demand despite having low knowledge and low IQ compared to other STEM people.

Hunter Gatherer economies favor physically able and nimble minded people. Agriculture and animal husbandry economies favor time and categorically oriented people. It's all about the context not the IQ of the people. If the traits and quirks are valued in the economy they will achieve success and if not they will not.

In an automated world people of the highest IQ but who choose arts will on average be loser sin the economy because there is not much demand for them.

[Anonymous No.9362822]

>>9362734

How about you actually explain why I'm wrong instead of throwing insults and notating my statements as buzzwords.

>>9362749

>unproven statement. Higher IQ results in higher income on average and better life outcome.

But that's if the IQ is tied to a major, job or role indicative of being highly utilized. High IQ alone with no predetermine destination to be positioned to cannot result in better income or life outcome.

>Since IQ is determined heavily by genetics it means genetics highly determines success.

Again that success requires a destination. IQ can be determined by genetics but without the proper destination in a economic ecosystem it cannot translate into success. People born with high IQ do not automatically become successful in the acquisition high income. They need to have a proper destination for the IQ to be applied to so it can be exploited and successful.

[Anonymous No.9362827]

>>9362806
Now in reply to your unbuzzworded post.

You are simply restating what a free market system is where people choose their interests. The capacity for a human to be good at math or other subjects is linked with intelligence and genetics. No where in your post do you offer any evidence genetics don't matter. All you state is that a free market system values certain careers over others. Everyone already knows this. The author in question doesn't try and explain how actors with high IQ should make the same income as software developers with high IQ. The point is that higher IQ makes you more likely to succeed and achieve a higher on average life outcome. So for instance from a selection of software developers we can estimate the success of each one based on their IQ. Hence, genetics is an important component for estimating success.

You basically are so mindfucked by buzzwords that you can't think clearly at all and basically reframed the entire argument into something about how high IQ people will vary in economic outcome based on career choice, which is something anyone would agree with you on. You are not arguing the original point and your post lacks any substance. The only thing you said related to the OP book is: I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play.

Which is disproved by a host of literature on IQ testing's predictive power for life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.9362831]

>>9362822
see

>>9362827


You are reframing the question into career choices. No one would argue with the following statement and it does not disprove Genetic prediction powers:

High IQ is one variable for economic outcome but career choice is also important for an individual.

[Anonymous No.9362849]

>>9362822
Basically if you understood language design you would realize some things

- best languages are simple and elegant
- complex words are used rarely and only for very specific domain work when no other option exists

Your language skills are the opposite. You over complicate your points to hide the fact you are a fraud intellectually. There are entire university subjects that practice such fraud since they have no competition and can freely practice lysenkoism.

Your sentences and points are only acceptable to use among those circles you little piss brained shithead. Stop using them in public among human beings.

[Anonymous No.9362850]

>>9362786

>Tell me why you used the term ecosystem. What definition are you mapping to?

I'm using ecosystem to highlight the fact that it's interacting with life mostly humans as it pertains to our state of affairs in the greater environment. The definition can be map to the fact there's an entire field of study concerning this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics

>Why did you choose ecosystem in particular? Did it add or change the meaning of the sentence in a meaningful way?

Again an entire field of study exist. It is it's own thing and not the same as a economic system which involves logistics and allocation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system

[Anonymous No.9362862]

>>9362850
I'm using ecosystem to hide the fact I'm a fraud and we have to constantly make up new words so no one can analyze what we are saying.

An entire field of study exists on this new word of ecosystem because of massive fraud. Instead of answering the question I'll just link some fraud studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_economics

[Anonymous No.9362877]

Feminist economics is the critical study of economics including its methodology, epistemology, history and empirical research, attempting to overcome androcentric (male and patriarchal) biases. It focuses on topics of particular relevance to women, such as care work or occupational segregation (exclusion of women and minorities from certain fields); deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining; new forms of data collection and measurement such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and more gender-aware theories such as the capabilities approach.[1] Feminist economics ultimately seeks to produce a more gender inclusive economics.

[Anonymous No.9362890]

>>9361097
what are you smoking? That would be officials, cannon fodder just needs to be able to walk 10 meters without pissing themselves.

[Anonymous No.9362899]

>>9362831

>You are reframing the question into career choices. No one would argue with the following statement and it does not disprove Genetic prediction powers:

There has not been any attempt to refraim the question as the original post specifically highlights career choices.

>>9362640
>Which is why CS majors for example who have strong interconnection to math are finding so much success today despite being among the least knowledgeable and "g" balanced communities (on average) within the mathematics or applied sciences realm.

>>9362827

The reason why I didn't mention any evidence in genetics not mattering is because I never contested the fact it has a definitive role in IQ determination. My contesting involves the the income/ success because it needs some kind placement to be exploited.

>You are not arguing the original point and your post lacks any substance.

If you believe this then you have not been paying attention the my posts at all.

[Anonymous No.9362931]

>>9362899
>>9362899
What is your point you fucking retard. Genetics determine IQ to a large degree. You agree with this. You disagree that IQ has any impact on success then?

So the IQ distribution within computer scientists doesn't matter? What about IQ relation with career choices?

[Anonymous No.9362937]

>>9362862

>notes I'm a fraud despite providing an entire field that has been academically accepted.
>notes I'm making up new words despite said words are utilized in both the field and economics in general.
>only reason feminist economics is brought up in debate is because the source I provided mentions it thus you latch on to it as a last ditch effort to save face by an attempt to discredit all my previous posts and the field of ecological economics itself.

[Anonymous No.9362941]

>>9361498
"claiming to"
insane facts right there mang. You can't just come up with numbers then say "my point is proven because statistics". Mainly because if PhD is an IQ filter then your whole statistical argument is defeated.
You can't just assume things like "normal distribution is applicable to the physics PhD population" maybe its log-normal (which I would bet for).

[Anonymous No.9362946]

>>9362937
lysenko was academically accepted
you fail to justify the use of the word ecosystem vs system, not to mention using a domain specific word outside of that domain in public
A good degree of academics on the arts and humanities side is junk

[Anonymous No.9362964]

Again your argument, boiled down, is that an economic system is important for outcome. This is not something people are arguing against. People are arguing that within such a system IQ is a very important factor for outcome and overall success of an individual and of the system itself.

It's not a surprise to say a communistic system would likely result in worse outcomes even with similar IQ or that a high IQ person on an island alone would not achieve middle class American income.

You are taking it absurdly out of context and then using it to prove nonsensical points.

[Anonymous No.9362980]

>>9362931

>You disagree that IQ has any impact on success then?

I disagree with idea that IQ innately determines success from the start.

>So the IQ distribution within computer scientists doesn't matter? What about IQ relation with career choices?

IQ distribution for the computer scientists matters when you are only comparing them in a vacuum independent of outside affairs. IQ in relation to career choice is matter of choice and opportunities.

>>9362946
>you fail to justify the use of the word ecosystem vs system,

I've been only stating economic ecosystem and ecosystem in my posts. No where am I trying to justify "system" as it's own element to the debate.

>A good degree of academics on the arts and humanities side is junk

Are trying to say ecological economics counts as arts and humanities? Or are you trying to use the questionable nature of academics in arts and humanities as an argument for why ecological economics is "junk"?

[Anonymous No.9362984]

>>9362980
reading your posts is like watching a baby putting pegs into the wrong holes. Except instead of a baby it's a retard using buzzwords too.

[Anonymous No.9362993]

>>9362980
Also yes, it is junk. Equivalent to the weird adware on a grandparents windows 98 computer. They are the fault of not formatting the system and getting rid of the trash. Poor systems design.

[Anonymous No.9362996]

>>9362640
holy shit, someone should invent an award for filibusting, because you just won something.

[Anonymous No.9363005]

>>9362984

That's not answer to the questions I asked nor is it an informative statement about why the posts are bad. Just because you keep using the term "buzzword" to describe the posts does not mean it is a sufficient explanation to highlight why they are bad.

>>9362993

Well if believe the field is junk you best inform said organization about it so they do not have to waste any more of their time on such matters.

http://www.isecoeco.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Ecological_Economics

[Anonymous No.9363006]

The IQ debate is really pointless to be honest. No one on this board even cares about IQ, what they really care about is how IQ effects them personally, "me,me, and me" attitude so to say. Why are you on such a crusade about IQ anyway, OP?

Let me talk about the relation of IQ and Mathematics. Having a high IQ in Mathematics allows one to see low level patterns quicker and thus apply their internalized definitions to get the answer. This is why a high IQ individual should be able to ace exams with very little revision, since questions on math exams are rarely ever deep and penetrating. A high IQ individual who seems to effortlessly pass his math exams with very little studying is just performing a kind of symbol pushing within a system; hence, such a person would flounder when asked to apply his knowledge outside of such a constrained system. From personal experience, it seems like there is another element one needs in order to come up with a key insight involving a non trivial research problem in Mathematics. If anyone wants intuition regarding what I'm talking about here, I would suggest reading about Alexander Grothendeick.

[Anonymous No.9363010]

>>9363005
Because you obviously have a disease-infected mind incapable of rational thought anymore. It was more of an interest of mine to interact with such a diseased drone. More than anything I just feel pity for the fact you are low IQ and also infected with cloudy thought.

[Anonymous No.9363014]

>>9363010
Not the guy you are replying to but you need to neck yourself. You sound like an insecure kid who keeps using the word "buzz word" in order to shout down the opponents points. I hate people like you.

[Anonymous No.9363018]

>>9363010

Well I'm glade you graced me with your replies and presence anon as they were so enlightening to me. I'm sorry my disease infected mind with a low IQ inconvenienced you.

[Anonymous No.9363023]

>>9363006
More of a side effect of not understanding intelligence much. Humanity relies on it like a "magical force" instead of really doing intimate and detailed study. There are some approaches that can be taught for how to deal with unknown problems though. With ML, Neural networks, and everything related to AI/Neuroscience we will start to understand it better instead of viewing it as a sort of magic.

One of the best ways I've personally used is conversion of something to a very geometric form. See stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_geometric_algebra

The most exciting thing is to imagine something not constrained by the human mind's infrastructure. Meaning our language capacity or visual capacity which is what we seem to use a lot for examining data. It will be amazing to imagine the creation of something that has a "brain" wired for intuitively understanding quantum mechanics or very complex mathematics.

Intelligence is the most important subject of interest right now.

[Anonymous No.9363095]

Why is IQ such a highly debated topic when people here don't care about discipline/willpower/resillience which is more important for success?

[Anonymous No.9363107]

>>9363095
People want to be told they had the "potential" to be the next Gauss because of some sequence of digits. Very unlikely if you have a bellow average IQ, but it's also impossible if you don't have the drive to try to take the shot.

[Anonymous No.9363152]

>>9363107
>>9363095
Because the science behind it is denied.

[Anonymous No.9363301]

High Conscientiousness + High IQ = sucess in pretty much any field

That's way you see so many High IQ people that fail in life, that have low Conscientiousness or other problems or variation , IQ is just one puzzle (a big one) in the overall quest for sucess or be high successful.

But, guest what, Conscientiousness is 0.49 to 0.58 heritable, so, yeah, you can deny IQ, but you can't deny that sucess somewhat is heritable or runs in the family. "but I know a rich kid that is dumb as fuck!" Regression to the means, son.

[Anonymous No.9363354]

>>9362877
>deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining

I trust this to have more worth than whatever that other guy is going on about.

[Anonymous No.9363397]

Does this mean that IQ acts as a ceiling for determining intelligence?

[Anonymous No.9363516]

>>9360374
I'll read the book, but can you tell me how much it says genes contribute to intelligence?

[Anonymous No.9363574]

>>9361670
No...those are weak arguments. There are certainly areas in which outside influences help to develop some facets of our intelligence. But there is also the intelligence we are born with, and those who were born with a lot of it can only chuckle at your attempt to minimize its innateness. A properly administered IQ test (forget the online ones - even the university-sponsored ones are absolute rubbish) is focused on innate intelligence, and does its best to filter out the noise from what you refer to as the "ecosystem".

[Anonymous No.9363585]

>>9361898
It wasn't this way in the past. There has been an invasion of shills & shitposters (flat-earthers, christians, etc.) and popsci-kiddies. It has chased the truly brilliant people off the site and rendered it a waste of time. I appreciate the fact that stupid threads slide fairly quickly, but it would be far better to make a containment board for the obviously shitty topics that dominate (and ruin) this board, and get serious about deleting unwanted threads.

[Anonymous No.9363589]

>>9360374
>I cannot browse this board with threads telling people IQ doesn't measure intelligence
This never happened

[Anonymous No.9363591]

>>9360536
The Bell Curve 2.0?

[Anonymous No.9363610]

>>9360374
>IQ doesn't measure intelligence despite all the scientific evidence in the world, because it conflicts with my egalitarian worldviews!

[Anonymous No.9363656]

>>9363610
>it don't do
>>but it do
>why tho
>>reasons you won't like
>you're right I hate them
/mensa

[Anonymous No.9363659]

>>9363656
>t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9363661]

>>9363610
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9363679]

>>9360374
>tired of "muh intelligence" threads
>create another
Genius.

[Anonymous No.9364035]

>>9362640
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. IQ works similarly. Compare two writers, or literature majors if you must, and compare their success outcome using number of favorable reviews, how favorable they are, number of readers, average rating and cultural impact. If the people with higher IQ, on average, are more successful writers than those without, then IQ has a valid correlation to success.

[Anonymous No.9364045]

IQ is not a measure of intelligence, as animals cannot take IQ tests.
IQ is also not a measure of success, the implied redeeming quality of a high IQ, as humans are generally more tarded and vulnerable to harm and death than many animals.
IQ is finally not a measure of quality of or duration of memory.
IQ is bullshit.

You can trust me because I have a high IQ.

[Anonymous No.9364124]

>>9360536
>>9360540
Hi, sorry for this, I can only find a review publication for the material and not the book itself.
Can anyone give me better info to search with or a full link?

[Anonymous No.9364136]

>>9364045
>animals cannot take an IQ test
how can you be this brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9364152]

tl;dr
People doesnt like to get offended and tend to criticise others instead of doing something about it. That's why intelligence tests doesnt matter.

Don't reply if you don't agree. This is internet. Everybody is a specialist

[Anonymous No.9364154]

>>9360374
Another day, another breakout of pure autism.

Never change, /sci/. Love you.

[Anonymous No.9364215]

>>9363610
IQ does not measure intelligence, retard. IQ has a correlation with being successful, that's not intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9364224]

>>9363591
Anyone writing on intelligence who doesn't want to be excluded and dragged through the mud, will no doubt omit racial statistics.

[Anonymous No.9364237]

>>9361670
>But this happens because they exist in an ecosystem that can properly allow itself to be exploited in a progressive feedback loop. In a different ecosystem where these interests cannot properly be exploited, they lose their correlative effect to success.

This is contradicted by several sources of evidence. For example IQ studies have been done on people with different jobs and within any job, not just physics and engineering, a higher IQ of the worker was a better predictor of their job productivity than factors like their childhood socioeconomic status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Job_performance

[Anonymous No.9364241]

>>9364215
Iq does measure intelligence you retard.

If you're given two people and informed that 1 hour ago they both took an IQ test and person A scored 130 and person B scored 80 , which person are you going to put your money on for being more intelligent?
Are you going to guess at random because you think IQ tests don't measure intelligence ?


You stupid fucking retard

[Anonymous No.9364315]

>>9364237
>However, Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer and Roth (1998)[71] found in their study with sales employees that objective sales performance had a correlation of 0.04 with GCA, while supervisor performance rating got a correlation of 0.40. These findings were surprising, considering that the main criteria for assessing these employees would be the objective sales.
Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.9364336]

>>9364241
The only thing that would tell me is that person A has working executive functions while person B is some what efficient in his executive functions. Perhaps a better question would be, "Choose person A who has an IQ of 100 or person B who has an IQ of 130". If the task was to solve a logic puzzle very quickly then I would pick person B but if the task was to come up with a keen insight with perhaps a longer time frame then I would really pick randomly. Thus, IQ is not an absolute measure of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9364358]

>>9360374
oh god this book seems like the next "if u dun reed dis book ur opminion don mater reeeee".

[Anonymous No.9364376]

>>9364336
>OP literally tells you to read a book that may as well be the current day's bible about intelligence so you can finally stop making brainlet posts like these
>doesn't read and continues to make retarded posts anyway

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9364384]

Welp, just read it. That does it I guess. I haven't been doing all that well in STEM but I figured as long as I keep trying I'll improve. Now I know it's pretty much impossible without genetic intelligence.

Going to drop out and probably learn a trade or something. Granted, I still won't be as good a tradesman as others who have higher IQ than me but it would be slightly less hopeless.

All the best to everyone here who's smart enough for science.

[Anonymous No.9364389]

>>9364376
That's not an argument, go sperg out over your little block filling diagrams some where else.

[software development No.9364412]

>>9364384
It aint dat bad. I get first hand experience with civic engineers in construction, still a bitch on the back but really but I don't think I'd be interested in stem related topics if I wasn't a tease for me. All I think about at work is coming back home and reading in my treehouse. At some point you have to live with being an average IQ bob.

[Anonymous No.9364413]

>>9360698
>From 1973 until 2012, a total of 66 black American women earned physics doctorates—mostly PhD's—in US colleges.
up until 1965 it was illegal for black Americans to enroll at the vast majority of colleges

[Anonymous No.9364418]

>>9364412
Yes, I realize that now. I was too proud and ingrained with interest in STEM before, but repeated failures following concentrated effort are a quick path to humility. There are things I can do, biologically, and some things I cannot. There is a certain peace in accepting that truth.

[Anonymous No.9364429]

>>9360374
IQ is bullshit
am i stupid for saying that?
t.141 iq

[Anonymous No.9364432]

>>9364429
>He proclaimed on an anonymous Chinese cartoon forum
But yeah, you aren't wrong

[Anonymous No.9364439]

>>9364429
>>9364432
Read the book. Not even all of it, just the first chapter or two.

[Anonymous No.9364470]

>>9364439
Conclusion: Iq keeps being pseudoscience
Nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.9364501]

>>9360639
ok i accept

[Anonymous No.9364510]

People reject the genetic basis of intelligence because they reject its logical conclusions.

[Anonymous No.9364553]

>>9364510
this basically.
We have a pretty dark truth ahead of us. Even the most brilliant of humans is just human after all, and will shy from this darkness. Moreover if you can see the full exent of it.

[Anonymous No.9364558]

>>9364553
Is it that Jews truly are the masterrace?

[Anonymous No.9364612]

>>9364558
Amerindians have the highest development rate, therefore they are the master race. How hard is this to get?

[Anonymous No.9364638]

>>9364510
>logical conclusions
And which ones might these be?

[Anonymous No.9364642]

>>9364638
That the SES and criminality of demographics can be traced to their average IQ and that hard work cannot fulfill people's dreams when there is no talent.

[Anonymous No.9364646]

>>9364642

American and more fundamentally capitalist society has been promoted on the basis that hard work will get you anywhere and anyone can achieve anything. This is simply untrue and the extent of the lie will become more apparent as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.9364651]

>>9364642
>implying you can't gain talent with hard work

[Anonymous No.9364662]

>>9364651
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-24655-002
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-45248-001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001165
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000810

[Anonymous No.9364679]

>>9364662
quick rundown? I skimmed a couple

[Anonymous No.9364681]

>>9364651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
Learn the difference.
Hard work is mostly crystallized intelligence

[Anonymous No.9364689]

>>9364679
IQ, or whatever it measures, doesn't only imply a rate of improvement but also a ceiling. Meaning you can't acquire talent, or more accurately expertise, even with 10,000 hours if you don't have actual latent talent, which is in most cases how much intelligence you have.

Bear in mind almost all groups, whether scientists, programmers, musicians and even salesmen all showed showed positive correlation between performance and IQ.

Essentially, the "you can master any skill in 10,000 hours" statement is false, as observed by studies.

>>9364681
Do you know what crystallized intelligence is? It's essentially knowledge and repeated behavior to memorized situations. It does not mean a person with 100 IQ can become a world-class pianist or a medal-winning mathematician, because as shown in the studies his skill level would plateau.

[Anonymous No.9364691]

>>9364689
>It does not mean a person with 100 IQ can become a world-class pianist or a medal-winning mathematician
Exactly, thus disproving you can "gain talent with hard work"

[Anonymous No.9364697]

>>9364689
Autists become world-class musicians all the time while being otherwise retarded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Tom_Wiggins

[Anonymous No.9364703]

>>9364124
search for the author's last name. it's the last result in the list.

[Anonymous No.9364717]

>>9364697
Alright, I concede it was a bad example. Autistic savants can become world-class musicians in the sense that they can replay every piece they hear, because it's memorization and mechanical in nature, and probably taps into some unconscious mechanisms of the brain that savants seem to have access to, but without a doubt they lack the capability to compose such works themselves or understand how music works.

[Anonymous No.9364721]

>>9364697
It's also worth nothing it wasn't through hard work at all that he became who he was, he was born that way.
Note "By the age of four, Tom was able to repeat conversations up to ten minutes in length but was barely able to adequately communicate his own needs, resorting to grunts and gestures.".

Tom clearly had incredible mental skills of memorization and hearing, no one is denying that, but that has no bearing on intelligence nor hard work.

[Anonymous No.9364724]

>>9364717
>>9364721
Yeah, but it also has nothing to do with IQ. This dude would have scored like in the 60s on a IQ test.

[Anonymous No.9364730]

>>9364724
So what's your point? Like I said, he didn't work hard to achieve his abilities despite his IQ, he had his abilities, maybe even because of the same genetic condition that lowered his IQ.
Nor could he even be considered the traditional definition of musician. He mostly repeated what he had heard through the piano, which people exploited by having him hear actual orchestrated music.

[Anonymous No.9364768]

>>9364730
There are people at any degree of autism, it's not always clear-cut like with Wiggins. You could say it's a "spectrum." Sometimes you'll have wiring for something, and hard work can bring that out.

Also the 10k hours thing can refer to physical activities as well. You think you need a high IQ to be amazing at a sport?

[Anonymous No.9364776]

>>9364418
You are a pussy. IQ can be trained, I remember taking an IQ test as a high schooler and scoring 101 or some shit, but now that I'm a senior math major my IQ has been measured around 120's. I implicitly trained my mind to do well on IQ tests since I have done a lot of math and can see the test on a meta level by considering each operation as a logical primitive operation such as "xor". Anyway I'm sure a lot of butt hurt fags are gonna say that my abilities were always innate, I can see why Feynman self reported an IQ of 125 since the whole charade involving it is quite annoying.

[Anonymous No.9364789]

>>9364776
Irrelevant. IQ as a whole has been accurate, individual aberrations can be caused by hundreds of variables and are ultimately meaningless.

Not to mention your aberration is well within the data, as throughout adolescence IQ can be up to 40% environmental which is later reduced to 15%, and you neglect to mention what types that tests you took were and whether they were the same.

Regardless, in childhood or not, education has not been shown to increase intelligence, so whatever are the causes for your anecdote they don't mean much in the face of studies and meta-analysis of thousands of people.

Math majors IQs are on average around 130, which measures up perfectly with yours. The fact that you chose that subject and succeeded in it tells me enough.

[Anonymous No.9364792]

Everyone knows that IQ is a meme, but everyone uses IQ either ironically or to impress the sheep.

[Anonymous No.9364795]

>>9360374
I'll never understand why people go to such lengths to deny that intelligence has a genetic basis. It's so painfully obvious, they are either ivory tower intellectuals or basement dwellers.

[Anonymous No.9364806]

>>9364795
Obvious, yes, but is it really that hard to understand why most deny it? It would mean there is no hope, no reason to try. Imagine if you told most children the most they can aspire to is the physical labor they've been either actively screamed at by their parents not to become or passive-aggressively told they're special and talented. If instead of great scientists, musicians, writers and the like you'd show them retail workers, dish washers and janitors. Why bother participating in the first place if that's all that's waiting in your future?

[Anonymous No.9364871]

>>9364806
>It would mean there is no hope, no reason to try
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. Take yourself as an example. You are most probably never going to make a groundbreaking discovery in physics and win a nobel prize for it. Is your life finished? Are you going to kill yourself? Of course not. Because the purpose of life is not to be the best.

It would be much healthier for society if intelligence variations were recognized, especially in the education system, where marxist ideology holds firm which causes the standards to be lowered to cater for the lowest common denominator, hurting those of higher intelligence, and also hurting those of lower intelligence (who would be much happier working a job instead of wasting time reading things they cannot understand).

[Anonymous No.9364882]

>>9364871
>Have 130 IQ
>"Why haven't you won a Nobel prize yet?"

[Anonymous No.9364887]

>>9364871
>You are most probably never going to make a groundbreaking discovery in physics and win a nobel prize for it. Is your life finished? Are you going to kill yourself? Of course not. Because the purpose of life is not to be the best.
There is a world of difference between "most probably because you would need to work very hard" and "you are already finished don't even try to resist something will always go wrong".
>Because the purpose of life is not to be the best.
Life has no purpose with determinism.
>and also hurting those of lower intelligence (who would be much happier working a job instead of wasting time reading things they cannot understand).
t. fag who never had any ambitions.

[Anonymous No.9364888]

>>9364882
>be luckier than 98% of the population
>sadness covers me...

[Anonymous No.9364894]

>>9364888
>Lucky
>Nothing to show for it

[Anonymous No.9364913]

>>9364789
Well, that's good that you understand IQ for what it is, a statistical measure. I think we should ban all discussions of IQ on /sci/ that try to relate IQ to measure of individual self worth, since it's retarded to do so. Even Scott Alexander, the biggest IQ proponent guy, advocated against applying IQ to self.

[Anonymous No.9364918]

>>9364887
>There is a world of difference between "most probably because you would need to work very hard" and "you are already finished don't even try to resist something will always go wrong".
Not really. And not winning a nobel prize is equivalent to something going wrong? What?

>Life has no purpose with determinism.
That is not determinism fucktard, you can just do whatever you want within your own limitations. If you're less than 6 feet tall you'll never play in the NBA, but that isn't "determinism".

>t. fag who never had any ambitions.
I bet you're a basement dwelling neet.

[Anonymous No.9364920]

>>9364913
I agree, nothing more scientific than banning a scientific topic because it hurts someone's fee fees...

[Anonymous No.9364926]

>>9364918
>Not really. And not winning a nobel prize is equivalent to something going wrong? What?
Not being able to achieve your goals in spite of your work is something going wrong. When most of semblance of responsibility for outcomes is removed human mind has no trouble just giving up on everything. I mean why would you feel remorse if you shooting 30 people dead was just caused by some gene, same with dropping out of college.
>That is not determinism fucktard, you can just do whatever you want within your own limitations. If you're less than 6 feet tall you'll never play in the NBA, but that isn't "determinism".
It's precisely determinism. Not everything needs to be the hardest determinism ever, but determinism has always been a philosophy about putting outcomes out of the reach of self. If you will never ever be able to play in NBA it IS determinism.
>I bet you're a basement dwelling neet.
You bet wrong, the education part to be precise.

[Anonymous No.9364944]

>>9364918
Most math or physics majors aren't going to win a nobel prize, but the average IQ there still narrows them down to only 2% of the population. Forget the nobel prize, graduating with a major in one of those is impossible for the average man.

[Anonymous No.9364948]

>>9364920
I'm sure people don't write papers about how IQ relates to individual feelings. It just turns this place into /r9k/ or /r/incel where people obsess over a sequence of digits rather than physical looks. If you go over to /lit/, people are over there discussing ideas rather than shoving sticks up their asses talking about how will they survive with an iq score of x. Shit, the math threads on /lit/ are better than the ones on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9364981]

>>9364948
/lit/ is a cesspool of irrational mysticism and pseudo-intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9365001]

>>9364981
You just ousted yourself. It seems like soft scientists always fuck everything up, even physics is no longer free from the grasp of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.9365032]

>>9364689
Ok so what exactly is talent then, if you can't gain it?

[Anonymous No.9366519]

>>9364681
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
>[citation needed] through the whole text

kys

[Anonymous No.9366521]

>>9364691

>disproving

pls fuck off

[Anonymous No.9366710]

>>9364612
Don't copy me, fagtron.

[Anonymous No.9366719]

>>9364948
as someone who spends time over on /lit/, their math threads are pure unadulterated shit compared to the threads here. Most here are shit, but everyone once in a while you'll get something quite beautiful like the guy who was posting Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology stuff earlier, or even just interesting ideas.

[Anonymous No.9366721]

>>9364981
>/sci/ is a cesspool of irrational mysticism and pseudo-intelligence

[Anonymous No.9366742]

>>9360378
Nurturists BTFO'd already in the preface

[Anonymous No.9366805]

>>9366742
>impying pre-natal phase and first 3 years isn't important

[Anonymous No.9366829]

>>9366805
>>9366742
Not only that but the preface is just like
>Intelligence is purely biological. Sorry nurturists, we have neuroscience now.
But... that's completely missing the role environmental factors play. Environmental factors trigger certain gene responses to influence the way the brain develops. Yes, we have neuroscience to study how the brain manifests intelligence, but neuroscience doesn't really concern itself with brain development.

So intelligence is all in your brain. Genes develop and change your brain, ultimately making it what it is. But the environment can influence gene responses.

[Anonymous No.9366909]

>>9360396
inb4 research shows a Phd in Physics gives you a 91+ IQ

[Anonymous No.9366960]

>>9360690
Oh my God you're a retarded, pretentious twat. Since there are "millions of people with a PHD in Physics" (untrue btw), that means that some of them MUST have a <90 IQ? Yeah, it's not like PhDs are an EXTREMELY SELECTED statistical group, and one of the criteria for selection is precisely high IQ. No. They must respect the IQ distribution of the general population. Some of them are geniuses, some are retarded and the average PhD has an IQ of 100, right?

TL;DR You're a fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.9366985]

>>9366960
No, you're the fucking imbecile. Nowhere did I say the distribution is the same as the general population's you absolute dumbfuck, I only said that the curve is shifted, therefore there is extremely high probability that someone with 90 IQ has a phd in physics. Educate yourself in statistics moron.

[Anonymous No.9367519]

>>9366985
As high as the chances of finding a five foot tall NBA star.

[Anonymous No.9367537]

>>9367519
Five feet is more than a standard deviation from the norm, mssr. tard.

[Anonymous No.9367797]

>>9367519
holy shit you're actually mentally handicapped
no, you're automatically excluded from NBA if your height is below a certain threshold
you're not excluded from doing physics just because your IQ is below a certain threshold
so someone with 90 IQ still has a low chance of getting a PhD, while someone below certain height has a 0 probability of getting into NBA since height is a requirement
besides, if your IQ wasn't 2-digit you would've noticed that there are a couple hundred players in the NBA, while there are hundreds of thousands people with PhDs in physics and average height in NBA players is 6'7, which is 3.5 SD above average, and average IQ in physics is 134, which is slightly above 2SD
and I hate to break it up to you, but the shortest NBA player was 5'3, which is 5.92SD below NBA average, so that would correspond to a 50 IQ physicist
just end yourself

[Anonymous No.9367836]

in the online multiple choice one, figure out each answer, but before you select it, close your eyes, then move the mouse randomly, then with them still closed try to select what you figured was the answer. All your IQ's should improve.

[Anonymous No.9367842]

Even guessing the answers should probably improve your IQ's.

[Anonymous No.9367855]

Even guessing the answers should improve your IQ's, as long as you don't govern your choices with thought relating to probability and/or chance.

[Anonymous No.9367856]

>>9367519
>>9367797
Damn bruh you rekt that nigga.

[Anonymous No.9367857]

>>9360374

To me personally there's no utility in telling people they're limited for life? What's the point? The most intelligent humans have consistently acquired positions of power and prominence throughout history. Who is bright and who isn't is often very evident early on in their lives. Not only that but also how bright or dim they seem to be. So what is the point in telling people they'll never amount to anything because of their genetics? What is the point in further shaming them for something they couldn't even choose. It's fine if you want to understand intelligence, study it as much as you want. However, is there any practical utility of these IQ tests? People will sort themselves out anyway as they always have without them. It seems to me that the only thing you're actually doing is making some people conceited and others crestfallen. I know this is not a scientific argument in the least, but fuck does way people act in this thread make me sad.

[Anonymous No.9367870]

>>9367855
>>9367836
You all subconsciously know the 4 digit IQ answers.

[Anonymous No.9367995]

>>9360378
Is this book position that intelligence is mostly/partially/entirely genetic?

[Anonymous No.9368208]

>>9364981
>mysticism
>irrational

Can you please explain to me how I somehow have an individual, unified permanent self distinct from the environment it exists in despite existing as a physical entity constructed out of particles that potentially exist independently of me?

[Anonymous No.9368239]

>>9367857
>So what is the point in telling people they'll never amount to anything because of their genetics?

To stop them from acting like monkeys in the same schooling system as smarter people.

> What is the point in further shaming them for something they couldn't even choose.

The point is that they should be shamed less than they currently are. They just shouldn't be interfering with the education of people with more potential.

[Anonymous No.9368668]

>>9368208
>what is an emergent property

[Anonymous No.9368671]

>>9360378
I was actually interested until I read this.

[Anonymous No.9368831]

>>9368668
>Not understanding that mysticism is explicitly skepticism that this 'self' as a distinct entity exists at all, as opposed to something that assumes some spiritual voodoo explanation for it

My question was asking you to demonstrate the affirmative (which mysticism denies), not assuming that I do have a distinct self identity and that (whatever wooish thing you think mysticism is) is needed to explain it.

[Anonymous No.9368840]

>>9360378
>This book is not neutral, but I believe it is fair.
What did he mean by this?

Seriously, what the fuck does this mean??

[Anonymous No.9368916]

>>9360378
Wow scientists really need to learn how to write Jesus that's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.9368924]

>>9360690
Yeh you're fucking dead wrong and just parading it around like an idiot lol

[Anonymous No.9368926]

>>9361874
Only single rational comment on IQ I've ever read on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9369574]

>>9361874
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.9369625]

>>9360396
>You know around 10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military?
Doesn't surprise me. 10% of the US population is probably borderline retarded

[Anonymous No.9369662]

>>9360536
>>9363591
>>9364224
Does that matter any more though, given how some of the universities have gone that seems like it shouldn't be enough

[Anonymous No.9369665]

>>9364776
>You are a pussy. IQ can be trained, I remember taking an IQ test as a high schooler and scoring 101 or some shit, but now that I'm a senior math major my IQ has been measured around 120's
You also got older and you brain developed. You will also lose intelligence once you get old enough. You need to factor in your age here

[Anonymous No.9369673]

>>9368916
Why should scientists waste their time learning """how to write""" when he still gets his point across?