/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12501714]

I've seen IQ grouped by occupation, race, religion. What other groupings have interesting results?

[Anonymous No.12502566]

Income

[Anonymous No.12502614]

>>12501714
>race
*ethnicity

some other phenotypical features like height or hair color would be interesting since the common assumption would be that these are not in dependence to G

[Anonymous No.12502964]

>>12502614
there's a sort of correlation with height and weight

[Anonymous No.12502986]

>>12501714
>mathematics
>almost 50% female
not my department..

[Anonymous No.12503004]

>>12501714
>Here is the source for those wondering what majors the unlabelled points represent: http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
It's interesting that chemistry is approaching 50% and biological sciences is 60% occupied by females.

[Anonymous No.12503006]

>>12501714
HEIGHT, FACE and FRAME

[Anonymous No.12503010]

>>12503004
The IQ corresponding to majors like political science, art history, and critical theory seem falsely inflated. There's no way the typical student is any of those majors is above average IQ.

[Anonymous No.12503012]

>>12503010
Cope

t. 132 IQ

[Anonymous No.12503016]

>>12502964
also linkage between physiognomic features in a more general sense would be interesting
what does a general intelligent face look like (maybe for a specific ethnicity)
are these possible features of those that are intelligent the same between different ethnicities?
how big is the deviation in those features or possible relevant traits?
>>12501714
>What other groupings have interesting results?
are you asking because you need ideas for your thesis?

[Anonymous No.12503026]

>>12503012
>Cope
Imagine studying something as frivolous as political science. That decision in itself indicates that you're < 110 IQ.

[Anonymous No.12503041]

>>12501714
>tfw no high IQ math gf

[Anonymous No.12503400]

Race/gender

White male vs female
Blacks
Asians
Hispanics

There was one that over read long ago. It started that asian women had similar iq as white men. White/black women had similar iq as black men.
Is be interested in seeing more on whether that's true or not. But we don't have anyone doing that research

[Anonymous No.12503424]

>>12501714
>statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major.
>estimates
>check website
>Subscribe now for data
>no methodology
>no citations
So you just put the dots wherever you want.

[Anonymous No.12503535]

>>12501714
I'm not sure I get the point of this chart.

[Anonymous No.12503541]

>>12503535
>hurr durr women dumb

[Anonymous No.12503543]

>>12503016
I think the height and weight correlation is about nutrition and proper developmental health
if you're tall you are more likely to have been properly fed which extends to cognitive development
if you're fat you are less able to control your diet and end up obese.
which correlates with self control and intelligence

[Anonymous No.12503547]

>>12501714
I would like to see this chart with some sort of measure of the the total size of each chart
if there are only a couple of hundred thousand in physics vs billions in social work
or maybe two graphs, of population size vs IQ and sex ratio

[Anonymous No.12503570]

>>12503012
>cope
Bro if you study any of those, you might be the one in need of some cope

[Anonymous No.12503608]

>>12503541
I get that's probably the intent, but all it's doing is giving us the average IQ of certain professions. Presumably the men in social work are also lower IQ than the men (and women) in physics and engineering. Without a further breakdown of the men and women in those professions, it's not telling us much. It does show us that women are less likely to end up in a cognitively stressful profession, but it's common knowledge that STEM is dominated by men.

[Anonymous No.12503653]

>>12503012
That’s not a high IQ btw

[Anonymous No.12503660]

>>12503012
>132
lord of midwits

[Anonymous No.12503686]

>>12503026
This.
It's mythology tier.
It's called a hobby and a shitty one.

[Anonymous No.12503711]

Listen I'm a NEET and about 6/10 on the muh soggy knee scale, but I actually wish that women were successful. I wish that they were all presidents and CEOs and SEALs and so on. Because carrying the burden of being these things and having to live up to the expectation or especially competing against people in these positions is objectively a terrible experience and there's minimal satisfaction in overcoming it. They should be the ones thrown into the rat race while I should be a stay at home NEET dad shitting up 4chan 16 hours a day with some beta female with a low socioeconomic status thinking that she's all clever by tying the knot with me. Why do I want to assume these positions anyway like all the other males? To pump up my sexual market value and get sex, of course. There's zero actual personal satisfaction in chasing them if social status and sex wasn't the end goal. Would I need to do all that when I could just be getting that sex for free instead? Think about it logically, you hit the gym once in a while and that's all you'll ever need to be a father who reproduced in that society, with some female who settled for you because she thought that she wasn't on the level of the other alpha female CEOs around her and therefor had to settle for you, like we males do for females right now, whipping ourselves like retards for not having a luxury car and apartment like the alpha males do as if any of this matters at all if it wasn't for sex.

[Anonymous No.12503724]

>>12501714
weight

>>12503010
nah, people that take those majors are the definition of midwits

>>12503012
this post is cope

[Anonymous No.12503729]

>>12503016
No, I'm trying to find a wife. Or rather, I'm trying to give my children a higher mean IQ. "Don't marry for money, go to where rich people are and marry for love"

>>12503711
You don't got hands anon? There are other reasons for women besides portable most holes.

[Anonymous No.12503757]

i'm in physics and i can tell you IQ is garbage

most people with crazy high IQ are idiot savant rainmen who can do insane autistic calculations and have crazy focus and specialization - but are just NPC computers and cant think for themselves

they just follow the herd and do robot calculations

[Anonymous No.12503781]

>>12503757
>i'm in physics and i can tell you IQ is garbage
Evidently you can't. You clearly don't know what IQ is, nor the difference between quantitative and verbal IQ. Why pretend to understand IQ when you clearly don't?

[Anonymous No.12503787]

>>12501714
What are all the unlabeled dots?

[Anonymous No.12503788]

>>12503608
Don't try to make sense of a troll pic, anon.

[Anonymous No.12503854]

>>12503787
>http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
There is a hyperlink on this page that presents the interactive version of the plot

[Anonymous No.12503864]

>>12503788
>>12503608
Yeah I just posted it because it mentioned IQ. I also could've chosen this pic, but it seemed even more troll-y.

[Anonymous No.12503980]

>>12503724
BMI might be better than weight

[Anonymous No.12504106]

>>12503729
>>12503543
>I think the height and weight is about nutrition and proper developmental health
if the weight is in healthy BMI range, in the case of doing analysis the BMI or "BMI relative to optimum" would be a decent feature.
>if you're tall you are more likely to have been properly fed
this is not a deal in western nations as starvation does not exist, there are no prolonged hunger periods anymore, i dont think that "properly fed" is a good classification i would instead go for something like "nutrition/quality of nutrition"
more discrete: healthy and balanced diet VS McDicks as possible extrema, as undernourishment is not such an issue as poor eating habits.
i would also wager that at a certain point caloric intake becomes negatively correlated with academic performance, without bothering to pull articles out of my ass.
>if you're fat you are less able to control
a hen-egg problem, what is first; the fatty or his poor impulse control
i would go with the latter.
this quite popular experiment should be related to significance of impulse control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
>which correlates with self control and intelligence
well you are using a bit of circular logic in the last two lines, even if i would agree with the overall sentiment.
the important fact in my opinion is impulse control and perhaps an amount of self reflection that is seemingly exclusive to more gifted individuals.
i see the fatness more as a manifestation of poor habit, discipline etc. (which obv. has adverse effects on other parts of life).
perhaps its even fair to go as far to say that fatness is a physiognomic manifestation of inferior mind and also unfavourable genetic predisposition.

fatties being repulsive rationalized and that on christmas!
crazy times.
>>12503729
>shocking news: "local anon attempts to do eugenics at home"
>(click to pay 7.99 for a monthly subscription to read the article)

[Anonymous No.12504114]

>>12503980
Maybe bodyfat% (and age) would be better?

[Anonymous No.12504124]

>>12504106
>eugenics at home
Well yeah, you'd be a fool not to.

[Anonymous No.12504148]

>>12504114
not the dude but measuring bodyfat is a bit iffy, as how the fat is distributed on the frame depends individually on genetics.
the fat that is the biggest health hazard is visceral fat.
using bodyfat% as a metric brings up lots of other questions that might not be productive to engage in
BMI seems much more conclusive and robust as a metric as it already incorporates two pieces of information and puts them into relation
maybe its also important to point out that what BMI is considered healthy depends also on the age
from a practical standpoint picking bodyfat as a feature is impractical as its hard to measure and likely most literature is targeted towards addressing BMI
i also dont see how bodyfat would give significant relevant additional information over just using BMI

[Anonymous No.12504159]

>>12501714
There are a few interesting ones here:
https://www.human-intelligence.org/i-q-validity-biological-and-social-iq-correlations/#cor113
Brain pH and pupil size.

[Anonymous No.12504186]

>>12504124
you’d be retarded to.
>choose carefully
>make one perfect child
>turns lgbt or sjw
While the ghetto dude
>impregnate every girl
>let them all fend for themselves
Who do you think is winning?

[Anonymous No.12504196]

>>12502566
underrated
someone post some stats

[Anonymous No.12504204]

>>12504106
>i see the fatness more as a manifestation of poor habit, discipline etc. (which obv. has adverse effects on other parts of life).
yes that was what I was trying to convey if poorly
hence why I said it would be weekly correlated.

[Anonymous No.12504218]

>>12504186
>make one
choose the right girl and have a bunch of kids
ghetto nigga is only successful due to child welfare

[Anonymous No.12504227]

>>12503012
>132
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12504267]

>>12501714
>when your data is so bullshit you don't even label all the points

[Anonymous No.12504290]

>>12503424
lmao

[Anonymous No.12504424]

>>12504148
Many athletes have high bmi, and good health. BMI is also imperfect. Certainly easier to find though.

>>12504159
Weird!

>>12504186
I donate to sperm banks thanks. Also my children aren't zerglings, we have other strategies than just max numbers.

[Anonymous No.12504426]

>>12501714
I'd like to see IQ grouped with average hours slept per day

[Anonymous No.12504432]

>>12501714
I have 132 IQ and I’m fucking stupid man.

[Anonymous No.12504463]

>>12501714
Albedo
Geography

[Anonymous No.12504470]

>>12504463
Theres actually a japanese paper I remember that compared IQ against latitude and skin colour in their countru

[Anonymous No.12504501]

>>12501714
This doesn't add up, because male/famale students are 50-50 in college.

[Anonymous No.12504594]

>>12504470
Dat raythist-uh!!!

[Anonymous No.12505022]

>>12504470
What did they find?

[Anonymous No.12505098]

Plotting IQ against IQ gives an spookily linear correlation

[Anonymous No.12505109]

>>12505022
latitude correlated with skin pigmentation
I can't remember what the IQ result was but I think it followed the same pattern.

[Anonymous No.12505147]

>>12501714
Cock length

[Anonymous No.12505149]

>>12505098
Ok but correlation !=causation

[Anonymous No.12505170]

>>12502986
Most of them will just end up being elementary school math teachers. Try looking at how many actual mathematicians are female.

[Anonymous No.12505456]

>>12504159
This site has a lot of info! Thanks

[Anonymous No.12505851]

>>12503729
/sci/ is truly a board of autism.

[Anonymous No.12505896]

>>12504424
Most people aren't elite athletes. BMI's biggest failure is that it doesn't account for skinny fat people, which are common. Overfat people are more common than BMI would lead you to believe due to it being increasingly common for a person to be skinny fat. The other end, where elite athletes are falsely indicated to be overfat, is so uncommon that it's not worth mentioning, but the fatties of the world will anyway.

[Anonymous No.12505897]

IQ by those who believe IQ is a valid measure of intelligence versus those who do not.

[Anonymous No.12506086]

>>12502566
Interessant zu sehen, dass der Intelligenz Quotient bei den Ingenieuren so tief liegt. Was ist hier die Grundgesamtheit, die bei dieser Auswertung zustande kam? Von welchem Land? Amerika? China? Gerade aus diesen Ländern gibt es so zu sagen ein Wettrüsten. Hierbei wird jedem der seine Studiengebühren zahlt einen Abschluss garantiert.

[Anonymous No.12506167]

>>12505897
IQ by those who believe "is IQ a valid measure of intelligence or not" is a clearly defined meaningful question vs those who do not

[Anonymous No.12506174]

>>12506086
It also just lumps engineering as all one blob which isn't really useful. That's like lumping physics, biology, chemistry and medicine as "physical science" which would also make it lower.

[Ad Lockhorst No.12506670]

Wut plittecal parties dey votes for. Dat be obvious reelly; spesjelly when dumb as shit polletishuns gits RE ELECTED.

One example would be the re-election of Diane Abbott in the UK; she is ghastly in every respect.

Though the Dutch electorate is worse, given that they are on their third Rutte government and are headed for a fourth.

[Ad Lockhorst No.12506686]

>>12503980
The problem with BMI is that it does not differentiate between a bulked up bodybuilder and a fat git.

Though bodybuilders don't really fit the mens sana in corpore sano ideal.

[Anonymous No.12506928]

>>12506086
>>12506174
>Interessant zu sehen, dass der Intelligenz Quotient bei den Ingenieuren
nicht so richtig wirklich, kevin
126 ist immer noch deutlich über der norm und durchaus sehr hoch
zudem kann bei stichprobenmengen von studiengängen wie physik, mathe, philosophie etc. von einem kleinem umfang ausgegangen werden, was die aussagekraft vermindert
ein boxplot wäre vermutlich besser gewesen um die daten darzustellen
>Was ist hier die Grundgesamtheit, die bei dieser Auswertung zustande kam? Von welchem Land? Amerika? China?
na wenn du dich auf das OP pic beziehst dann hätte es schon gereicht den im bild enthaltenen text zu lesen, da ist die sauce nämlich dabei.
>Hierbei wird jedem der seine Studiengebühren zahlt einen Abschluss garantiert
>garantiert
gewagte behauptung die sich super leicht falsifizieren lässt
college dropouts gibs auch bei den burger-boys.
>>12506174
>It also just lumps engineering as all one blob which isn't really useful
perhaps the sources provided in OP give a clearer indication about what is classified under engineering?
i wouldnt be surprised.
>That's like lumping physics, biology, chemistry and medicine as "physical science"
what a terrible analogy

[Anonymous No.12506981]

>>12506686
Body builders have access to half a dozen other ways of determining their fat percentage. They can and do ignore BMI. Complaining about BMI is a fat person cope.

[Anonymous No.12507011]

>>12505170
Emmy Noether is based though

[Anonymous No.12507022]

>>12506086
>>12506928
English, Pablo.

[Anonymous No.12507328]

>>12505851
Which is why I came here. (From /trv/)

>>12505896
Maybe uncommon, but you wouldn't want to misfile your future genius wife because they're also an elite athlete.

[Anonymous No.12507337]

>>12503757
Sort of like Tech Lead on YouTube?

[Anonymous No.12507376]

>>12507022
>Pablo
close but no

[Anonymous No.12507386]

>>12506928
>perhaps the sources provided in OP give a clearer indication about what is classified under engineering?
i wouldnt be surprised.
It doesn't
>what a terrible analogy
It's not

[Anonymous No.12507434]

>>12507386
>It's not
it is
grouping subgroups vs grouping supergroups are fundamentally different things

[Anonymous No.12507602]

IQ versus musical taste
IQ versus favourite supermarket

[Anonymous No.12508968]

>>12507602
You have any hot takes there buddy, or are you just shitposting?

[Anonymous No.12509815]

I'd love to see IQ versus form of media consumption. Would be interesting to see if one's interest in analysing art is linked to IQ, or if hiQ autists are similarly unlikely to research an artist's intentions and cultural background. Personally I've come to believe for it to be the midwit's domain, while sub 110 IQ consumes media the same way 140 IQ autists do: for ze big exprosionz.

[Anonymous No.12509883]

>>12509815
>media consumption
Low IQ is likely still in the TV domain and midwits are probably representative of the social media (twitter, reddit, etc) demographic. Most people who have intellect spend their time doing things less vapid, and more time doing things of meaning.

[Anonymous No.12509930]

>>12506981
did you not fucking read the context he posted that in
he's explaining a flaw of correlating BMI with IQ

[Anonymous No.12510585]

whose iq is generally higher:

>humanities student that wins every meritocratically awarded monetary prize, does research the uni shows off etc etc

>physics student scraping by with Cs and accomplishing nothing of note

[Anonymous No.12510599]

>>12510585
doesn't the average humanities IQ sit around 105? while physics is around 130?
so that's almost two SD different
so only around 2% of humanities students will be smarter than the average physics student or something

[Anonymous No.12510631]

>>12510599
This

[Anonymous No.12510681]

>>12510585
There's no concept more misused than "IQ". IQ doesn't mean that you're productive, intelligent, skilled or will be appreciated. It merely means you have somes sort of potential, not that you actually have the drive or discipline to achieve anything in the field you're said to have potential in. Your question resonates this sort of humblebrag STEMfag attitude that's been plaguing (social) media as of late. STEMfags who pat themselves on the bag for being "smarter", while they compare themselves to those who write their laws, solve their problems, tell them how to live their lives and aren't narcissistic enough to even take an IQ test in the first place. At the end of the day, it's not the autistic STEMfag whose "intelligent", it's the lawyers and economists who utilize the STEMfags approximation and turn it into a business model or a way to drive political and sociologial change. Those two groups run the world, and if intelligence is so be accurately measured by anything, then it's that.

[Anonymous No.12510704]

>>12503010
I think that you may just not understand how dumb the average 100 IQ person is. Universities are where those of above average intelligence attend, and likely most of your future work colleagues will be of above average intelligence. Most people don't even attend university because high school was too difficult.

[Anonymous No.12511299]

>>12503757
most of the physics majors I know are exactly like this. their critical thinking and non-math intelligence levels are on par with an 8th grader, but they can understand mathematical systems like nothing I've seen before.

[Anonymous No.12511335]

>>12507386
>it doesn't
yes it does, they have like 6 different types on the interactive map https://chart-studio.plotly.com/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/#/

[OP No.12511959]

>>12510681
Certainly true. It would be foolish to only look at IQ. The Big 5 measure of contentiousness, as well as sub categories of the others are also important aspects of a human (spouse). Along with beauty and height as a proxy for general health.

But I wouldn't go so far as those who run the world are the best, by definition. The will to power is too often sociopathic. Besides those who truly have the most influence on the world over time are the prophets and philosophers.

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.12511965]

>>12511959
Big 5? More like Big gay.

[Anonymous No.12511979]

>>12503006
based

[Anonymous No.12512011]

>>12501714
>bottoms out at 100
keep going and you'll see garbage man, warehouse worker, janitor, construction etc.

[Anonymous No.12512014]

>>12501714
Where do these all fit in the "dirty, difficult, dangerous and dull" categories

[Anonymous No.12512026]

>>12504159
>pour bleach into brain
>turn into doctor manhattan
later virgins

[Anonymous No.12512133]

>>12503653
>>12503660
>>12504227
132 is 98.3551 percentile. That's pretty fucking high.

[Anonymous No.12512207]

>>12512133
it ok fren, smaller brain = less head hurty :3

[Anonymous No.12512213]

>>12511965
It is imperfect, but there is little else to go on.

>>12512014
More like the required math. Also women can "pursue your passion", while men know most of their value is from their paycheck.

>>12512133
No. It's 1 out of 60. Woohoo the smartest person in half a block. Not even the smartest in your grade, much less your school or town. At 1 in 100,000 and you might need some effort to meet someone smarter than you. At IQ175 you might never find an equal no matter where you look. A lonely existence, let me tell you.

[Anonymous No.12512377]

>>12506174
>medicine
>science
the others can safely be grouped together, though.

[Anonymous No.12512831]

>>12505170
There's a separate math education department at my university where all the women go

[Anonymous No.12512856]

>>12512213
hahah fucking retard stop larping 175iq you're 115 max ya midwit retard

[Anonymous No.12513614]

>>12512856
Yeah, just jive talking. I maxed out the high IQ test, which only goes up to 160.

[Anonymous No.12513623]

>>12501714
Where are biologists on this chart?

t. biologist who didn't check his IQ

[Anonymous No.12513720]

>>12512213
No, lets put the highest mean population of high school students 1,468 (Hawaii) in 2000. if we put in the numbers in basic fucking algebra. The number of people who have an IQ of that or higher is 24.466666667 or 24 if you round the fucker up. Do some numbers next time.

[Anonymous No.12513772]

>>12513623
See >>12511335

>>12513720
Don't forget to study your language arts as well, because I don't know what you are getting at.

[Anonymous No.12513983]

>>12513614
>the high IQ test
huh? the what? take a proper IQ test and then someone will care

[Saint Seiso !Mahdi26/jg No.12513987]

>What other groupings have interesting results?
MBTI

[Anonymous No.12514106]

>>12513983
Why should anyone care in any case. Everything after ~120 doesn't seem to matter that much.

>>12513987
Astrology is not very useful.

[Anonymous No.12514115]

>>12514106
>Everything after ~120 doesn't seem to matter that much.
>t. 120 IQ
Also why do you say that? in terms of getting in life and not being a failure, maybe. But IQ's above 120 exists and can be measured accurately.

[Anonymous No.12514131]

>>12514115
>But IQ's above 120 exists and can be measured accurately.
Can they really?

[Anonymous No.12514333]

>>12511959
How the fuck is punctuality a personality trait like godamn nigger just type in "arrive by x time" in your google maps and take whatever motherfucking bus it says. I have the worst of every single trait in your image except for I'm punctual because I can follow LITERALLY the simplest directions.

[Anonymous No.12514431]

>>12514115
>>12514131
Most IQ tests max out around 140. Unless you've taken one specifically for high IQ, 140 is the highest score you can really claim. There are some with, I guess I'd say, a plausible claim to accuracy up to 160 IQ. However, 120 IQ seems to be where happiness maxed out, also there aren't really any topics you can't understand at that point. Higher IQ will improve your speed of acquisition and there are specific tasks higher IQ can do much better, but other factors become more important in long-term real world activities. (Also,>>12513614)

>>12514333
My Indian friends call it brown people time. They even showed up late to my wedding, missing the entire ceremony. Perhaps it is cultural, their weddings last for days, perhaps not. Black people I've known have the same problem.

[Anonymous No.12514483]

>>12510681
Everybody already seems to be using IQ the way you say. Your characterization is apt about a social stem people not moving the world much, but you'll notice than some of the richest and therefore influential people in the world right now such as Bill gates, zuckerberg, elon musk and the like are stem people, who happens to also be highly sociable.

[Anonymous No.12514508]

>>12504159
r^2 = 1 lol... wow, i think you're an engineer, but that correlation is as bad as the predictions of an horoscope as MBTI

[Anonymous No.12514522]

>>12503729
>No, I'm trying to find a wife. Or rather, I'm trying to give my children a higher mean IQ.
Anon, don't be dumb. You may be high IQ but you forgot to attend your biology classes it seems.
The inheritance pattern of something as complex as intelligence is really hard to research and determining the genes responsible for intelligence is yet to be done.
Just don't marry a retard.

[Anonymous No.12514532]

>>12503424
>So you just put the dots wherever you want.
YES

[Anonymous No.12514781]

>>12503541
More women go to university, I think this pretty much explains it all.

[Anonymous No.12514813]

I am a 119 IQ midwit but I have been successful in Astronomy. I am an aspie though and find it much easier to learn stuff I enjoy. Figuratively, would this mean my "IQ" is higher when I do stuff I like?

[Anonymous No.12514818]

>>12503010
They may seem incredibly stupid, and they are, but that just shows you how pitiful average is. It would be difficult to find someone in a university with a sub-100 IQ. Depending on the university, we're looking at an average of 115-135. You live in a world where finishing high school - a government non-barrier that logically would impede nobody - is not done by 5-15% of the population.
>>12503400
Checked but female IQ scores have been inflated for decades to make the average IQ for both of the sexes equal
>>12514522
Just tell him to marry someone with white skin and be done with it, Anon

[Anonymous No.12514819]

>>12514781
Where exactly are you going with this? Unis are pretty much a scam at this point.

[Anonymous No.12514825]

>>12514818
>Checked but female IQ scores have been inflated for decades to make the average IQ for both of the sexes equal
I've heard this before but how exactly do they pull it off, i thought they sat the same tests?

[Anonymous No.12514842]

>>12514819
If you assume that men and women on average have the same IQ, if more women are admitted to university, then you would expect they would have lower grades on average simply because there are more of them with a larger variation of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12514857]

>>12514842
This is an argument that has been used many times before and exposed for the folly it is each time. Given primarily that the educational system is biased towards compliant female behaviour patterns and men are more likely to look for work or training outside of the university system

[Anonymous No.12515022]

>>12514522
I realize we ain't gattaca up in here. But we know enough that you could improve your chances. Especially if you target an entire family for the characteristics, rather than just the potential spouse, maybe start dating at an Anglican church.

>>12514813
Your IQ is fixed, barring serious accidents, but your score can fluctuate some depending on the day.

>>12514818
The reversion to a 100 mean is disturbingly low even if two high IQ people were the parents.

[Anonymous No.12515040]

>>12514819
>Unis are pretty much a scam at this point
this lmao
Higher education is no longer about learning or acquiring tangible skills, and has instead become an institution that focuses almost exclusively on networking and wrote memorization. Your individual instructors may be attempting to educate you, but why actually learn when you can just memorize some buzzwords, phrases, basic concepts, etc? Why fully grasp the material when you can parrot your way to a passing grade? Why develop the ability to think critically when you don't need critical thinking skills to graduate? After all, attempting to fully grasp a subject or develop critical thinking skills only takes away from time spent networking. Less networking means you're less likely to get hired after you graduate. No one in X company's HR department actually cares how well you understand your field, as a solid 90% of what you do will be on the job training. You just need the basics. Well, what do you know about that? That's exactly what you memorized when you were in school. The basics got you a passing grade, and they ended up getting you that 6 figure paycheck as well.
This is ignoring how politically charged academia has become over the last half century, and in general how politicking has become such an ingrained part of actually getting anything published. Imagine paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education only to find out that you can't actually get anything interesting published because it's politically inexpedient. Imagine forking over that much money only to get paid 3/4 of what you're worth. This is just how things work now. Unis have profited immensely.
In 1960, tuition at Harvard was $1,520. Inflation adjusted, that's $13,363. In 2019 tuition at Harvard was $47,730. That's a 257% increase. Want room and board? That'll be $69,607 plus tax. Oh and don't shitpost on any basket weaving forums or post pepes to twitter because you'll get expelled for being evil.

Shit's fucked lmao

[Anonymous No.12515055]

>>12505109
Makes sense. Hard to think straight in 30+ celcius weather

[Anonymous No.12515064]

>>12515055
in a temp controlled test room?

[Anonymous No.12515065]

>>12515040

Tuition is usually cheap for people who are not upper middle class, say families who earn less than 100k. Although this varies by the institution. There is a middle class trap where if your parents fall into a high enough economic bracket and squander their money, are hit with medical bills, etc. this can put you in really deep shit and limit your ability to attend uni. The main thing really is bad financial management on part of your parents so their income doesn't reflect their ability to pay for your education

[Anonymous No.12515119]

>>12515065
Which is how the WASP elite is maintaining their exclusivity. You can't actually let people into an Ivy based on merit. Many rich wouldn't get in and the school would be 95+% middle class white/asian kids who won hit the genetic lottery. How would you know which white kid is your people? So the old money white still get in on legacy and pay for it with pocket change. Plus a bunch of poor, (but not any African American) colored kids fill up the other slots. Fortunately the POCs are easy to spot, so just don't invite them into Skull&Bones, then the old money doesn't really have to deal with them. But you can't just have a 90% brown school, regular white people would notice. So let in about 25% jews. They are only hard to spot if you don't know to look for them. Meaning the hoi polloi are fooled, but it's not like Jews are going to try to sneak out on to a fox hunt with you.

[Anonymous No.12515130]

>>12515065
The median household income in 1960 was $5,600. Inflation adjusted that's $49,232. Median househole income in 2019 was $68,703. In comparison to the 257% increase of Harvard's tuition, we see that median household income only increased by 40%. That said, this ignores labor force participation rate. Women's labor force participation rate in 1960 was 38%, while it is 57% today. Men had a labor force participation rate of 83% in 1960, while it is only 69% today. What does this imply? Shit's fucked, that's what.
Upper tier Universities like Harvard are pricing the middle class out and have been for nearly a century. These institutions are now for intellectual abnormalities coming from dirt poor backgrounds and people making more than $500k a year.

>>12515119
da woosps

[Anonymous No.12515134]

>>12515119
Yes I'm sure that's why they let in so many jews to elite institutions
>fox hunting
>elite
around here it was pretty much anyone with a pony, fuck blair

[Anonymous No.12515139]

>>12515134
no you don't understand rosenbaum is a traditional anglo saxon surname ok jeez

[Anonymous No.12515140]

>>12515130
>Men had a labour force participation rate of 83% in 1960, while it is only 69% today.
How in the fuck did that happen? how can there be so many unemployed men?

[Anonymous No.12515148]

>>12515140
Dual income families increased from 25% in 1960 to nearly 60% in 2020. Women have essentially acted as labor scabs. Traditional households with a breadwinner husband, a homemaker wife, and children under the age of 18 have made up only a single digit percentage of the total for almost 20 years now.

[Anonymous No.12515162]

>>12515148
So rather than increasing the total labour they have just displaced men?

[Anonymous No.12515179]

>>12515162
that's oversimplifying it, but generally you would be correct

[Anonymous No.12515183]

>>12515179
And I suppose without the incentive of a family to support many men simply ducked out of the workforce

[Anonymous No.12515192]

>>12515183
That would make sense, but i haven't seen any numbers to back it up so idk. Either way, a labor force participation rate comparison between single and married men wouldn't give us much evidence anyway, as we would have no clue whether or not the men aren't married because they aren't working or whether they're not working because they aren't married. Similarly goes for unmarried fathers compared with unmarried men with no children, as it's likely that said unmarried fathers would've been working prior to the birth of their children anyway. The most likely answer is that it's a combination of factors.

[Anonymous No.12515197]

>>12515064
If you live your life not being able to think straight in blistering weather you aren't going to build up the aptitude to do those tests even in optimal condition

[Anonymous No.12515259]

>>12515183
>>12515192
did some more digging and apparently men have actually lost money since the early to mid 70s due to inflation
median income of full time employed men in 2020 dollars
>1955 - $41,287
>1960 - $47,623
>1965 - $52,665
>1970 - $60,134
>1975 - $61,710
>1980 - $58,778
>1985 - $58,515
>1990 - $55,108
the actual median income of full time employed men in 2019 dollars was $57,456
vs this for women
>1955 - $26,401
>1960 - $28,950
>1965 - $31,582
>1970 - $35,701
>1975 - $36,296
>1980 - $35,361
>1985 - $37,786
>1990 - $39,466
the actual median income of full time employed women in 2019 dollars was $47,299

Essentially, men have been stagnant since the late 60s when you adjust for inflation while women have been skyrocketing up up and away. Interesting stuff. I wonder who's behind such a phenomenon.
Ignore "real" dollars in pic related, as it's inflation adjusted to 1993 when the data was published.

[Anonymous No.12515275]

>>12501714
would be interesting to split the data for each gender

[Anonymous No.12515281]

>>12503980
BMI is brainlet tier.
it doesn't accoubt for musle mass.

[Anonymous No.12515287]

>>12507602
there was one for music, showing pop & rap to be lower IQ

[Anonymous No.12515295]

>>12510599
u dont know how it's distributed so u cant say percentage.

[Anonymous No.12515302]

>>12510681
jesus bro careful not to overdose on copium, u brainlet paper pusher.

[Anonymous No.12515311]

>>12515140
Unemployment implies looking for and unable to find a job. There are people like me who could get a job but don't currently want one. I do software development, which pays pretty well. As a single man with no children, I don't need a lot of money. I don't even have a video game habit that consumes income. So I will work a couple of years and then take a couple of years off. I used to travel during the off years as travel can be very inexpensive if your schedule is flexible. This year of course the pandemic ruined that but my state isn't too bad on restrictions so I get out to do hiking and camping. I get requests on LinkedIn constantly from recruiters asking if I'm available. Think the closing of the borders has hurt their H1B pipeline so now they're desperate to find Americans to work those positions.
Around the end of 2021 I'll need to find a new job, which I'll probably work for two years, saving enough to cover my expenses for a couple more years of not working. Probably lots of other single childless men doing similar things though maybe with parttime jobs rather than fulltime off and on like I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.12515318]

>>12515281
You're fat. You're not part of the 0.0001% whose muscle mass messes up BMI. Fatties bringing up athletes to justify their high BMI numbers is a terrible cope.

[Anonymous No.12515319]

>>12503757
i like to think of a IQ as horsepower, which is independent of the rider's ability to use it.

IQ is one dimentional while intelligence isn't.
i think what you refer to is lack of critical thinking and agency, which would be interesting to be able measure.

[Anonymous No.12515338]

>>12515319
IQ never claims to be 1 to 1 with g factor, it merely approximates it.

[Anonymous No.12515431]

>>12515130
The eternal Anglo is no joke.

>>12515134
So why did they do it then? Just need the money? They sort of seem to have just lost the will, maybe in a Spengler kind of way? Also, I'm not familiar enough with Britain's castes. It was just an example for America.

>>12515139
There are quite a number of anglicized Jewish names in the US. (Shhh, nobody tell /pol/.)