The value of IQ

[Rebis]

Having said that, it's only important to test your speed to learn imho. That itself is useful, but obviously doesn't define your capabilities. Some people are conditioned to analyse everything that is said, even the most mundane while others are fast and impatient, jumping in head first. Speed and prospection are on opposite sides of the cognitive stack.

See that's what gets me. Some people definitely seem to have more patience and put more thought into stuff and would do better on an IQ test than someone that doesn't want to or can't. And if an IQ test can qualitatively measure that difference, that's fine. But it doesn't tell you if that someone is putting all their cognitive potential into the test or not; or if they have had the proper academic background to get their highest score. Someone may just score bad because it's not what interests them or they don't really care about it or don't have the academic background for it.

Then you could argue the test doesn't measure certain aspects of intelligence, such as how well someone can deal with and adapt to a given environment or deal with the people around them, including knowing how to trust people, get good information, and not get screwed over. Someone with Aspergers for example could be the next Einstein, but maybe they would not at all be suited to running for President or being a social figurehead for some organization or similar type of leadership. And maybe they can't deal with people very well, which is a big factor in running most businesses or in getting people to help reduce overhead and costs, making business deals, etc.

Don't consider it to evaluate the whole scope of intelligence, it's a standardised model. So as long as you go in with that preconception it shouldn't be a worry. It all depends on whether you care about it. Also, the people that think about things too much (as in self-doubt if they've missed something) will be short for time in an IQ test.

 

[Daddy]

Also, the people that think about things too much (as in self-doubt if they've missed something) will be short for time in an IQ test.

Yeah, but I bet if you take somebody like that and repeatedly give them IQ tests, eventually they will score high, because they are actually learning from the test and not just being tested, heh.

 

[Rebis]

Also, the people that think about things too much (as in self-doubt if they've missed something) will be short for time in an IQ test.

Yeah, but I bet if you take somebody like that and repeatedly give them IQ tests, eventually they will score high, because they are actually learning from the test and not just being tested, heh.

Yeah you can learn to a degree the evaluative methods of IQ but ultimately it's speed which you can't improve. You'll still think at the same pace. There's a thing called confidence interval where you get your score but you also get a range, for example if you scored 130 you could get a confidence interval of 126-134, meaning depending on variables like maybe the time of the day for sugar levels, your sleep, caffeination and so on you can be confident to a 95% accuracy that you could have an iq of 134 given you had the variables mentioned, or 126 if your thoughts were clouded and disjointed.

 

[ApostateAbe]

IQ is the most useful and the most scientifically-robust metric in the science of psychology. It gets a bad rap because it is racist and generally at odds with what people would like to believe. If you can stare at uncomfortable truths as they mercilessly insult you, then IQ will be useful, both to you personally and to everyone in the big scheme.

For you personally, IQ can correct your career path. The first attached image comes from Linda Gottfredson, 1998, "The General Intelligence Factor." Suppose you want to be a theoretical physicist, and many times your measured IQ is 100 plus or minus 5. It may happen, and it almost certainly won't. Better think about becoming a cop instead. Go to cop school. If you have an IQ of 130 or more, then maybe you slacked off in school, and it is time to kick yourself in the ass so you can do something more useful than becoming a cop.

For everyone in the big scheme, increasing intelligence is a way to make society better as a whole. In the second attached image, you would rather live in the nations to the right (the smarter nations), not the nations to the left. To make that happen, it will take getting real about the causes of greater intelligence. Most of it is genetic--that is most certainly true among individuals within a race, and that is probably also true between races. That sucks, because it means becoming a racist before accepting it, but it is the only way to be real about it, and we need to be real, because we are on the doorstep of the age of genetic engineering, when "genetic" means it doesn't have to stay that way.

 

[Rebis]

0

I drink to that, brother.

 

[Rebis]

IQ is the most useful and the most scientifically-robust metric in the science of psychology. It gets a bad rap because it is racist and generally at odds with what people would like to believe. If you can stare at uncomfortable truths as they mercilessly insult you, then IQ will be useful, both to you personally and to everyone in the big scheme.

For you personally, IQ can correct your career path. The first attached image comes from Linda Gottfredson, 1998, "The General Intelligence Factor." Suppose you want to be a theoretical physicist, and many times your measured IQ is 100 plus or minus 5. It may happen, and it almost certainly won't. Better think about becoming a cop instead. Go to cop school. If you have an IQ of 130 or more, then maybe you slacked off in school, and it is time to kick yourself in the ass so you can do something more useful than becoming a cop.

For everyone in the big scheme, increasing intelligence is a way to make society better as a whole. In the second attached image, you would rather live in the nations to the right (the smarter nations), not the nations to the left. To make that happen, it will take getting real about the causes of greater intelligence. Most of it is genetic--that is most certainly true among individuals within a race, and that is probably also true between races. That sucks, because it means becoming a racist before accepting it, but it is the only way to be real about it, and we need to be real, because we are on the doorstep of the age of genetic engineering, when "genetic" means it doesn't have to stay that way.

Why would you say intelligence is subject to race? I mean surely you're not reducing this to pigmentation, possibly lending on the intermingling of Neandtheralis, Erectus and Sapiens. You could also reason how cold temperatures have a higher than average IQ due to the stability of cold temperatures for development as the mind is better at regulating the body's core temperature.

I think people downplay IQ because they already understand the practical benefits of IQ, but IQ does not infer intelligence as a complete model, this is a limitation of standardization and we know there are factors that contribute to IQ that aren't solely intelligent behaviour. Most have got beyond what IQ measures because it's a simple and straightforward statistical test, so the reason why it isn't discussed it because there should no be discussion. So naturally, people talk about the factors of intelligence IQ does not predictablyt measure as this sits outside the framework of IQ models.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Intelligence is not just a single number, but the single number is still pretty good. The idea behind the single number is that all the diverse tests of mental ability are correlated with each other, meaning, if you do well on one sort of test, then you are more likely than not to do well on another sort of test. The common factor of ALL the tests is "g" for general intelligence, and IQ is designed to estimate g. Even so, you can have some idiot savants who are very good at one particular task, but they are stupid at everything else, and that shows the limit.

There are big differences in intelligence (not just IQ) among races. Races are much more than just skin color, but races represent an expansive set of biological differences, both external and internal, as every medical doctor knows, and such differences include the psychological traits such as intelligence, if not genotypic, then at least phenotypic (but it is probably genotypic). Races represent subsets of a species that have diverged away from each other, following different evolutionary paths, on their way toward many different species. This happens for any species that diverges geographically. The human species is just one example among thousands in the animal kingdom, not some special exception.

So, races are more important to human biology than believed by most people, especially the academic experts, who have seemingly turned their schools into churches of anti-racism. A surprisingly large number of anthropologists freely misquote Ruth Benedict, "The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences." That would be a great slogan for a political activist committee, not a science. The purpose of any science is to get to the truth. Medical doctors are the last hold outs against the advance of anti-racist ideological corruption within science.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

Intelligence is not just a single number, but the single number is still pretty good. The idea behind the single number is that all the diverse tests of mental ability are correlated with each other, meaning, if you do well on one sort of test, then you are more likely than not to do well on another sort of test. The common factor of ALL the tests is "g" for general intelligence, and IQ is designed to estimate g. Even so, you can have some idiot savants who are very good at one particular task, but they are stupid at everything else, and that shows the limit.

Plenty of other factors, for example the prospective element of the Prospective/judgement domain in the INTP, when compared with the average number of sucessful applicants to mensa sits at around 0.7. I posted this on the forum a while ago, so if necessary I will bury through the trenches if you seek evidence. Motivation is another example, most tests are taking at a clock where you have to respond fast, people that are motivated to score high on the test will perform better than those that don't need statistical validation. Of a similar vein to the first point, IQ conventionally measures processing speed because it can be inferred "Well, if you think fast it follows you will grasp complexity easier" but people can garner a deeper understanding of the world through longer thoughts, I'll call these thoughts "deeper processing cycles", for the computer nerds. And lastly, people can identify different patterns in vector matrixes in IQ tests, granted this set of questions is used to measure abstract intelligence but its ultimately quantified in a standard model. There is no room for interpretation and I can certainly interpret mathematical patterns that do not yield the answer they wish for. Sure my answer isn't mediated by occam's razor but it's nonetheless intellectual conjecture in an area of abstraction.



I have no problems with IQ as an estimative measure, but all people do not fit this model. Even the commonplace of the SAT in america which is quite like an IQ test shows that the tests itself are used to show how fast people think rather than the complexity of their thoughts. I know IQ tests quite well, so I'm not ignorant to any convincing argument you give me, I'm just saying that IQ is a) static and b) representative (representations aren't totalities). So this whole endless IQ test discussion simply involves 3 parties, but I find 1 and 2 are the essence of most people's arguments, with people that speak contrary to the psycho-social frequency of success being people in the 2nd point below. So again, not ignoring IQ is the best statistical measurement for intelligence, but rather the standardized model isn't definitive, and IQ is seen as a means to define intelligence in its totality. Or at least, people in the 2nd point are opposing the people that use IQ as a tool in conversation to assert dominance over others.



1. IQ measures intelligence.

2. IQ does not measure intelligence in its totality.

3. IQ doesn't measure intelligence in anyway.

There are big differences in intelligence (not just IQ) among races. Races are much more than just skin color, but races represent an expansive set of biological differences, both external and internal, as every medical doctor knows, and such differences include the psychological traits such as intelligence, if not genotypic, then at least phenotypic (but it is probably genotypic). Races represent subsets of a species that have diverged away from each other, following different evolutionary paths, on their way toward many different species. This happens for any species that diverges geographically. The human species is just one example among thousands in the animal kingdom, not some special exception.



So, races are more important to human biology than believed by most people, especially the academic experts, who have seemingly turned their schools into churches of anti-racism. A surprisingly large number of anthropologists freely misquote Ruth Benedict, "The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences." That would be a great slogan for a political activist committee, not a science. The purpose of any science is to get to the truth. Medical doctors are the last hold outs against the advance of anti-racist ideological corruption within science.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Well, when we discuss race it should only be from a genetic standpoint. We shouldn't consider geographical differences because they are inconclusive: Geographical regions = / = propegation of a race, this is a transitive dependency we must eliminate to understand the subject of intelligence and race. When I mentioned Erectus, Sapiens and Neanderthalis that is for the most part the genetic influences of races since Neanderthalis had an isolated evolution in europe for a few hundred thousand years, Erectus mainly inhabited Eurasia/India and Sapiens stayed in africa for the 6ish million years they've been around. So yes, isolated evolution is a factor but most humans today can still propegate with each other having little reminiscent DNA of their ancestors. A person native to germany over the last 1,000 years will probably have more DNA of Neanderthals.

Though the likes of Neanderthalis and Sapiens has been proposed to have evolved from Heidelbergen subspecies, yet to be unknown but a popular belief and a suitable example of my point: Evolution causes change but it is driven by evolution. We share a lot of genes with various sub species of ancient humans to the extent that (again, a widely popular but ultimately seems realistic compared to a systemic erosion of every neanderthal) repetition and stability brings a lot of modern humanity genes into alignment. Phenotypes are not as dominant as genotypes given environmental changes have stabilised since the start of civilization: We have not went through any major extinction event, or evolved to recent changes in the climate.

Tell me what genes fluctuate between races, and how from those differences emerges differences in cognition that yield degrees of intelligence between these races if you wish to approach this scientifically. Given that people are propegating across continental, country and other artificial barriers quite rapidly over the last 100 years, all intermingling and producing progeny, the concept of isolated evolution is becoming increasingly significant in the modern landscape. Consider the andaman tribe off the coast of india: they've lived in isolated evolution for so long that a simple flu could eradicate them, it happened with another tribe who's name I can't recall. So really, the concept of race is becoming insignificant because isolated evolution just isn't occurring in the civilized world. Think of all the countries that have formed in Europe, Asia and India, and how the concept of peoples and civilizations have changed: enemy's in a bygone era intermingle under one nation, only to divide 80 years later, integrated into another nation. Now it's just ridiculous to isolate a person's genes to a geographical region hence we use visual markers like pigmentation to designate race, which really makes it an unscientific concept to that degree.


Interexchange of different genes diversified the pool, restricting genetic information to small populations causes recession: deformities, neurological diseases, organ problems: Practically anything dastardly you can think of.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

Can we please keep the race talk to Abe's race thread.

 

[Rebis]

Can we please keep the race talk to Abe's race thread.

Race you to it

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Abe, I'm busy and you're a racist.

I'm not going to mince words, because bigots aren't worth the breath. If you want to stay on this forum, you'll drop your talk of racial superiority.

You and those like you, are not welcome here.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Seriously, had to interrupt holiday stuff to put a pin in this bullshit psuedo scientific racial supremecist nonsense. Waste of goddamn time.

 

[Rebis]

Seriously, had to interrupt holiday stuff to put a pin in this bullshit psuedo scientific racial supremecist nonsense. Waste of goddamn time.

Don't worry about it, racism that constitutes hatred towards another is being eradicated in virtually all directions. Going anywhere nice? Have you bought me an incredibly surprising surprise ticket to accompany you?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Tell me what genes fluctuate between races, and how from those differences emerges differences in cognition that yield degrees of intelligence between these races if you wish to approach this scientifically. Given that people are propegating across continental, country and other artificial barriers quite rapidly over the last 100 years, all intermingling and producing progeny, the concept of isolated evolution is becoming increasingly significant in the modern landscape. Consider the andaman tribe off the coast of india: they've lived in isolated evolution for so long that a simple flu could eradicate them, it happened with another tribe who's name I can't recall. So really, the

Intelligence is not just a single number, but the single number is still pretty good. The idea behind the single number is that all the diverse tests of mental ability are correlated with each other, meaning, if you do well on one sort of test, then you are more likely than not to do well on another sort of test. The common factor of ALL the tests is "g" for general intelligence, and IQ is designed to estimate g. Even so, you can have some idiot savants who are very good at one particular task, but they are stupid at everything else, and that shows the limit.

Plenty of other factors, for example the prospective element of the Prospective/judgement domain in the INTP, when compared with the average number of sucessful applicants to mensa sits at around 0.7. I posted this on the forum a while ago, so if necessary I will bury through the trenches if you seek evidence. Motivation is another example, most tests are taking at a clock where you have to respond fast, people that are motivated to score high on the test will perform better than those that don't need statistical validation. Of a similar vein to the first point, IQ conventionally measures processing speed because it can be inferred "Well, if you think fast it follows you will grasp complexity easier" but people can garner a deeper understanding of the world through longer thoughts, I'll call these thoughts "deeper processing cycles", for the computer nerds. And lastly, people can identify different patterns in vector matrixes in IQ tests, granted this set of questions is used to measure abstract intelligence but its ultimately quantified in a standard model. There is no room for interpretation and I can certainly interpret mathematical patterns that do not yield the answer they wish for. Sure my answer isn't mediated by occam's razor but it's nonetheless intellectual conjecture in an area of abstraction.



I have no problems with IQ as an estimative measure, but all people do not fit this model. Even the commonplace of the SAT in america which is quite like an IQ test shows that the tests itself are used to show how fast people think rather than the complexity of their thoughts. I know IQ tests quite well, so I'm not ignorant to any convincing argument you give me, I'm just saying that IQ is a) static and b) representative (representations aren't totalities). So this whole endless IQ test discussion simply involves 3 parties, but I find 1 and 2 are the essence of most people's arguments, with people that speak contrary to the psycho-social frequency of success being people in the 2nd point below. So again, not ignoring IQ is the best statistical measurement for intelligence, but rather the standardized model isn't definitive, and IQ is seen as a means to define intelligence in its totality. Or at least, people in the 2nd point are opposing the people that use IQ as a tool in conversation to assert dominance over others.



1. IQ measures intelligence.

2. IQ does not measure intelligence in its totality.

3. IQ doesn't measure intelligence in anyway.

There are big differences in intelligence (not just IQ) among races. Races are much more than just skin color, but races represent an expansive set of biological differences, both external and internal, as every medical doctor knows, and such differences include the psychological traits such as intelligence, if not genotypic, then at least phenotypic (but it is probably genotypic). Races represent subsets of a species that have diverged away from each other, following different evolutionary paths, on their way toward many different species. This happens for any species that diverges geographically. The human species is just one example among thousands in the animal kingdom, not some special exception.



So, races are more important to human biology than believed by most people, especially the academic experts, who have seemingly turned their schools into churches of anti-racism. A surprisingly large number of anthropologists freely misquote Ruth Benedict, "The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences." That would be a great slogan for a political activist committee, not a science. The purpose of any science is to get to the truth. Medical doctors are the last hold outs against the advance of anti-racist ideological corruption within science.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Well, when we discuss race it should only be from a genetic standpoint. We shouldn't consider geographical differences because they are inconclusive: Geographical regions = / = propegation of a race, this is a transitive dependency we must eliminate to understand the subject of intelligence and race. When I mentioned Erectus, Sapiens and Neanderthalis that is for the most part the genetic influences of races since Neanderthalis had an isolated evolution in europe for a few hundred thousand years, Erectus mainly inhabited Eurasia/India and Sapiens stayed in africa for the 6ish million years they've been around. So yes, isolated evolution is a factor but most humans today can still propegate with each other having little reminiscent DNA of their ancestors. A person native to germany over the last 1,000 years will probably have more DNA of Neanderthals.

Though the likes of Neanderthalis and Sapiens has been proposed to have evolved from Heidelbergen subspecies, yet to be unknown but a popular belief and a suitable example of my point: Evolution causes change but it is driven by evolution. We share a lot of genes with various sub species of ancient humans to the extent that (again, a widely popular but ultimately seems realistic compared to a systemic erosion of every neanderthal) repetition and stability brings a lot of modern humanity genes into alignment. Phenotypes are not as dominant as genotypes given environmental changes have stabilised since the start of civilization: We have not went through any major extinction event, or evolved to recent changes in the climate.

Tell me what genes fluctuate between races, and how from those differences emerges differences in cognition that yield degrees of intelligence between these races if you wish to approach this scientifically. Given that people are propegating across continental, country and other artificial barriers quite rapidly over the last 100 years, all intermingling and producing progeny, the concept of isolated evolution is becoming increasingly significant in the modern landscape. Consider the andaman tribe off the coast of india: they've lived in isolated evolution for so long that a simple flu could eradicate them, it happened with another tribe who's name I can't recall. So really, the concept of race is becoming insignificant because isolated evolution just isn't occurring in the civilized world. Think of all the countries that have formed in Europe, Asia and India, and how the concept of peoples and civilizations have changed: enemy's in a bygone era intermingle under one nation, only to divide 80 years later, integrated into another nation. Now it's just ridiculous to isolate a person's genes to a geographical region hence we use visual markers like pigmentation to designate race, which really makes it an unscientific concept to that degree.


Interexchange of different genes diversified the pool, restricting genetic information to small populations causes recession: deformities, neurological diseases, organ problems: Practically anything dastardly you can think of.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

All good points, though I don't completely agree. I like to think of the major human groups (caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid), less about the isolated tribes, though they are components of the total diversity, and one tribe or one small group may become a major race in the future.

Geographic differences among the major races are essential, because that is generally how races emerge in evolutionary biology. Any of the processes of speciation (one species diverging into two or more) happens through some sort of geographic divergence, either a large distance or some sort of sharp boundary like a mountain range or a river to separate the two groups. An exception is with sympatric speciation, in which the two subsets of the species share a single environment but they have two different patterns of mating. Among the other forms of speciation, races most certainly happen with a sharp boundary and zero "gene flow" (zero mating across the geographic boundary), but they may also happen with a small amount of gene flow. Among the major races of humans, the amount of genetic differences can be quantified with Wright's fixation index, or Fst, and the average number tends to be 0.12. It is about a quarter of the genetic difference between bonobos and chimpanzees (Fst=0.5), which are barely two different species. In my estimate, this means that the major human races are about a quarter of the way toward many different species. We would have many different species when most interracial pairs can no longer produce fertile offspring.

We are evolving much faster than you may expect, in my opinion, because the last ice age ended just ten thousand years ago, and agro-industrial civilization means vastly different selection pressures. There is no stability in the current evolutionary context. It is a time of vast Darwinian chaos.

I would not claim that any of the major races can lay exclusive claim to any genetic variant, nor even any phenotype, but the differences in frequency of the alleles are still key, as that is how evolution happens (evolution is technically defined as "the change in allele frequency over time").

 

[ApostateAbe]

Abe, I'm busy and you're a racist.

I'm not going to mince words, because bigots aren't worth the breath. If you want to stay on this forum, you'll drop your talk of racial superiority.

You and those like you, are not welcome here.

Seriously, had to interrupt holiday stuff to put a pin in this bullshit psuedo scientific racial supremecist nonsense. Waste of goddamn time.

In the biological scheme, "superior" and "inferior" are subjective. There is "more likely to survive in future generations" and "less likely to survive in future generations," and, if so, the European race seems to be the loser. They are far less fertile. So, as far as I am aware, I never actually began any talk of racial superiority. Personally, I do prefer the European race, just because I am a member. That isn't the same as saying they are superior. I wish they were superior as biological competitors, but they are not.

 

[Rebis]

I suppose your ideology is you want to surpass a limitation of humans by preserving isolated evolution to lead to divergent new species, and that these divergent species will produce fertile offspring compared to inter-racial offspring that are receding to older versions of humans? I understand your point.

An example of european evolution would be white skin and blue eyes, this trait helped the absorption of vitamin D3 in geographical regions of low UV light. Africans were climitatized to a saharan desert where there was intense UV rays so UV absorption wasn't lacking. In contrast, if someone with white skin was to live in africa the pigmentation of their skin would let too much UV light in causing sunburn, skin ruptures leading to cancer and other biological problems.

I think there is a few gaps in this transition. A lot of the underdeveloped world that harbours most of the world's population (India, Africa, China) is such a large land mass. While they might percievably be the same race as we tend to just identify pigmentation as the marker, these people have only recently had a centralized structure to their country. China was nothing like it is now if you look back 60 years ago, India is developing into a world-playing economy as we speak. Africa seems to be the last developing country in this market. Anyways, I think within the geographical region of nations there is more than enough genetic variety to go around. Asian cohorts closer to india would have genetic crossovers as the Himalyan mountains are becoming ineffectual as a natural border, but again this is recent history. Population of china 1.4 Billion, India 1.3. That is a ridiculous amount of genetic crossovers. I don't think reversion to ancient alleles is really a problem and I don't see any effective means of controlling this. Mutation occurs randomly, these mutations can aid/harbour resource acquisition. Over a consistent environmental bottleneck a phenotypes will ensue, eventually transitioning into a genotype if there is no competition for evolution.

Evolution is ineffectual to the modern world, in all honesty. We're the apex predator sitting on top of all resources, we do not need to compete with other animals. Many of us are not subject to competing for food/sustenance, even as I'm typing this there is no necessity to use the physiology evolution has cradled me with: High stamina, muscle density and ketogenic reserves. We've forsaken natural processes for synthetic design, it is beyond my wildest imagination that we can ever revert to a genuine, paleo-centric world.

I don't think physical evolution is one we can artifically induce, even if we understand the causal properties. It is like knowing change can occur but not being able to arise phenotypical changes. We can't grow wings through control of the environment. We can however control social and technological evolution and that has proved successful for our longevity. Biological evolution is a product of the past, a long and gradual change in the past. 7,000 to date for civilization and the accumulation of knowledge is nothing short of phenomenal. Biological evolution cannot be given order of precedence over a method of rapid change that far exceeds it in terms of speed, and in addition to being genuinely controllable and modified at a moments notice.

 

[Hadoblado]

'thefuckoutmathread allaya

what's wrong with you people go outside or something

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's cool, i will keep topics of race out of this thread and continue thre conversation in the other thread.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

'thefuckoutmathread allaya

what's wrong with you people go outside or something

You missed an opportunity to quote shrek:get out my swamp

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[scorpiomover]

In the biological scheme, "superior" and "inferior" are subjective. There is "more likely to survive in future generations" and "less likely to survive in future generations," and, if so, the European race seems to be the loser. They are far less fertile.

I don't know who told you that. But they're wrong, completely wrong.

Demographics of Africa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Demographics of Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Looking at the estimates of populations that begin with year 0000:

Between year 0000 and year 1000, Africa's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1000 and year 1500, Europe's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1500 and year 1600, Europe's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1600 and year 1700, Africa's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1700 and year 1820, Europe's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1820 and year 1870, Europe's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1870 and year 1913, Europe's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1913 and year 1950, Africa's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1950 and year 1973, Africa's fertility rate was higher.
Between year 1973 and year 1998, Africa's fertility rate was higher.

Between 1000 and 1913, in most centuries, Europe's fertility rate was higher than Africa's, with the exception of the 17th century, that marked the start of the slave trade from Africa to Europe.

In the 17th Century, at the start of the slave trade from Africa to Europe, Africa should have been breeding less than it was before, because so many Africans were taken away from Africa as slaves. So, anomaly that has to be discounted.

It's only in the 20th Century that Africa's fertility rate was higher. But it was only in the 20th Century that infant survival rates in Europe increased radically to 99%, thanks to modern medicine. However, Africans didn't have access to modern medicine. Many people in Africa still don't have access to modern medicine, according to Mr TV. So in the 20th Century, Africans should have been dying like flies, while Europeans should have been breeding like bunnies by comparison. So those are very wrong figures that have to be discounted.

The rest of the figures show that Europeans have been breeding like bunnies. That's despite a 90% infant mortality rate for most of that time. So Europeans have been breeding like super-bunnies. They churn out kids like machines.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I will repeat the same stuff that was stated before on IQ thread that I made.

IQ doesn't measure what person you are. Ergo your motivation, morals, values, being right or wrong in terms of communication etc.
IQ doesn't measure your long-term memory. So two people with same IQ can have different intelligence when it comes to memory.
IQ doesn't measure creativity as creativity is not yet measured, nor imagination or ability to create something.
IQ doesn't measure your work ethic or approach to work. You can be methodical and by the rules, or completely unhinged and layed back. IQ doesnt not measure any of that.
IQ doesn't measure the level of ignorance. You can have the highest IQ ever and yet be the most ignorant fool to walk the Earth.
IQ doesn't measure your knowledge. At best some IQ tests measure some sort of general knowledge, by far not what you practically know and can apply in life.

IQ is NOT your intelligence. IQ is your ability to make sense of certain volume of information in certain space and time. Your intelligence is more than IQ.
Thats why some people with IQ are bottom feeders and losers and some people of low IQ can have successful careers.
IQ is not your fitness for a job. While there are jobs that require higher IQs they usually require more. For example stress resilience. Or ability to think on your feet. Or your ability to pay attention to details. Or your ability to cooperate or be diplomatic or sensible.
Psychological profile of a person goes way beyond IQ and measures more than this. Even things like maturity and mental health aren't measured by IQ.

IQ should never amount to any social capital and people who flaunt high IQ as some sort of reason to be more respected should be ashamed and they should know better.
Simple minded people who say stuff like "You have high IQ you should be president or scientist or astronaut" are highly ignorant on metrics that allow someone to perform these jobs adequately.

IQ is mere potential, but is not the same as your ability to do something. Its would be the same as saying that a caterpillar is same as a butterfly.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I will repeat the same stuff that was stated before on IQ thread that I made.

IQ doesn't measure what person you are. Ergo your motivation, morals, values, being right or wrong in terms of communication etc.
IQ doesn't measure your long-term memory. So two people with same IQ can have different intelligence when it comes to memory.
IQ doesn't measure creativity as creativity is not yet measured, nor imagination or ability to create something.
IQ doesn't measure your work ethic or approach to work. You can be methodical and by the rules, or completely unhinged and layed back. IQ doesnt not measure any of that.
IQ doesn't measure the level of ignorance. You can have the highest IQ ever and yet be the most ignorant fool to walk the Earth.
IQ doesn't measure your knowledge. At best some IQ tests measure some sort of general knowledge, by far not what you practically know and can apply in life.

IQ is NOT your intelligence. IQ is your ability to make sense of certain volume of information in certain space and time. Your intelligence is more than IQ.
Thats why some people with IQ are bottom feeders and losers and some people of low IQ can have successful careers.
IQ is not your fitness for a job. While there are jobs that require higher IQs they usually require more. For example stress resilience. Or ability to think on your feet. Or your ability to pay attention to details. Or your ability to cooperate or be diplomatic or sensible.
Psychological profile of a person goes way beyond IQ and measures more than this. Even things like maturity and mental health aren't measured by IQ.

IQ should never amount to any social capital and people who flaunt high IQ as some sort of reason to be more respected should be ashamed and they should know better.
Simple minded people who say stuff like "You have high IQ you should be president or scientist or astronaut" are highly ignorant on metrics that allow someone to perform these jobs adequately.

IQ is mere potential, but is not the same as your ability to do something. Its would be the same as saying that a caterpillar is same as a butterfly.

I mostly agree. I disagree somewhat with, "IQ is NOT your intelligence." That's true, but an IQ test (or a set of many IQ tests) is still the best measurement of intelligence. The reading of a measuring tape is not your height, but that's how you know it. And, yes, IQ is not everything needed to have an accomplished career, but it is necessary. It is possible but it would be nearly a miracle for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a self-sustaining physician or lawyer or engineer or elected statesman or scientist of any sort in a white nation. Anyone can possibly role a boulder up a mountain, but a strongman is much more likely to do than a six-year-old boy. IQ doesn't count for everything, but it counts for a lot, and the common problem seems to be the underemphasis of its importance, not the overemphasis. President Trump habitually uses it as an insult, which does not help the cause. Candidate Biden also used it as an insult recently, and I would love see him challenge Trump to an IQ test duel.

 

[peoplesuck]

I know a handful of morons with high IQs, I dont think it has much relevance, other than on an iq test...
Wisdom is more important as far as being useful goes.

It is possible but it would be nearly a miracle for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a self-sustaining physician or lawyer or engineer or elected statesman or scientist of any sort in a white nation.

in a white nation? Does that have some other meaning or...
My man, why do you actually care about this?
People have a tendency towards irrational prejudice, racism is one of those.
Its easy to say a black person stole my dildo, all black people must be thieves. We naturally are that way, because it makes it easy to connect dots. I liak my dildo, black person stealed dildo, hide dildos fromt he black peopl.
correlation doesnt imply dildo stealing causation.
bro, the world has so much cool stuff in it, and you are worried about rationalizing your racism.
Micheal jordan wants you to stop it.

 

[redbaron]

being the single best predictor of something when all sungular predictors are shit doesn't mean you have a good predictor

polished turd is still a turd

 

[Black Rose]

polished turd is still a turd

There are Lies, damned lies, and statistical IQ models.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I know a handful of morons with high IQs, I dont think it has much relevance, other than on an iq test...
Wisdom is more important as far as being useful goes.

It is possible but it would be nearly a miracle for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a self-sustaining physician or lawyer or engineer or elected statesman or scientist of any sort in a white nation.

in a white nation? Does that have some other meaning or...
My man, why do you actually care about this?
People have a tendency towards irrational prejudice, racism is one of those.
Its easy to say a black person stole my dildo, all black people must be thieves. We naturally are that way, because it makes it easy to connect dots. I liak my dildo, black person stealed dildo, hide dildos fromt he black peopl.
correlation doesnt imply dildo stealing causation.
bro, the world has so much cool stuff in it, and you are worried about rationalizing your racism.
Micheal jordan wants you to stop it.

Good morning and Merry Christmas. Don't be too distracted by the qualification of "white nation." It is a necessary qualification, because someone with an IQ of 80 is actually smarter than average in a black African nation, where the averages tend to be closer to 70. It would be no miracle if an 80-IQ person would become a physician in Ghana. Racial context matters a lot when we are talking in reference to average intelligence, even if the different averages are caused by white colonialism or the lack of it or whatever else. It can not be rightly avoided.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ApostateAbe]

being the single best predictor of something when all sungular predictors are shit doesn't mean you have a good predictor

polished turd is still a turd

I am not convinced that IQ is a bad predictor. For example, a perpetually homeless person is far far more likely to have an IQ below 70 than an IQ above 130. If IQ is the best predictor but a bad predictor, then that still counts for a lot, and we should be giving IQ much more focus than the MBTI personality types or the "multiple intelligences" and all the other outright bullshit out there.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

being the single best predictor of something when all sungular predictors are shit doesn't mean you have a good predictor

polished turd is still a turd

I am not convinced that IQ is a bad predictor. For example, a perpetually homeless person is far far more likely to have an IQ below 70 than an IQ above 130. If IQ is the best predictor but a bad predictor, then that still counts for a lot, and we should be giving IQ much more focus than the MBTI personality types or the "multiple intelligences" and all the other outright bullshit out there.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The personality types identify dominant cognitive models an individual possesses, IQ test is used as a statistical model to evaluate a person's ability to problem solve under the clock. They aren't in opposition to each other.

 

[scorpiomover]

If IQ is the best predictor but a bad predictor, then that still counts for a lot, and we should be giving IQ much more focus than the MBTI personality types or the "multiple intelligences" and all the other outright bullshit out there.

The big difference between IQ tests and MBTI personality tests, is that MBTI asks you about yourself, which include questions like "Are you organised?" That allows people who are disorganised but want to be thought of as organised, to answer incorrectly. Kind of like a IQ test which decides your IQ by asking questions like "What do you think your IQ is?" and then using that as the result.

So it's not the type itself that is the problem, but the test questions.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I mostly agree. I disagree somewhat with, "IQ is NOT your intelligence." That's true, but an IQ test (or a set of many IQ tests) is still the best measurement of intelligence. The reading of a measuring tape is not your height, but that's how you know it. And, yes, IQ is not everything needed to have an accomplished career, but it is necessary. It is possible but it would be nearly a miracle for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a self-sustaining physician or lawyer or engineer or elected statesman or scientist of any sort in a white nation. Anyone can possibly role a boulder up a mountain, but a strongman is much more likely to do than a six-year-old boy. IQ doesn't count for everything, but it counts for a lot, and the common problem seems to be the underemphasis of its importance, not the overemphasis. President Trump habitually uses it as an insult, which does not help the cause. Candidate Biden also used it as an insult recently, and I would love see him challenge Trump to an IQ test duel.

Mostly missed my point there. Obviously nowhere did I state its irrelevant. Yes its true its part of intellect, but again I repeat not the whole story.

IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you. You can have a pool of people and expect a certain number of them be able to do something more with higher IQ, you cant go backwards and say I have high IQ therefore I am going to be successful.

Also there is plenty work that doesnt require high IQ. Its not only physicians and lawyers in the working force.

High IQ in reality mostly means a steeper learning curve and better ability to understand certain concepts.

Thats all there is to it.

Also having high IQ wont save you from incompetence, lack of will, inability to make sensible choices or ignorance.
I would rather work with someone who is able to cooperate and willing to work and is informed rather than someone with high IQ and ignorant and with bad work ethic.

 

[redbaron]

If IQ is the best predictor but a bad predictor, then that still counts for a lot

well no, it doesn't

 

[Black Rose]

Because of my bipolar the tests, I have taken as an adult, have been under my low energy state. It feels like I haven't slept in days (when I actually had normal sleep those days)

My low energy state caused me to score lower than my potential.

Low energy means a slow sluggish state.

Part of the bipolar is Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
It's hard to focus when you feel like your being ripped apart.


I have always been able to handle high mental complexity. But my mental health sink t down near the average. If speed was not a factor and we go by sheer mental complexity I would score 121 and not FS of 112.

Speed and complexity are what IQ tests operate on.
In my mania state, I cannot control my high energy but the complexity of my creations increases tremendously.

Measuring mental complexity is something I think could be improved in IQ tests.
IQ tests are not completely about speed. They serve to gauge a mind's ability to understand complex relationships. The ability to see how it all fits together.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think I have brought this up before but isn't it crazy to think that half the population has a sub-100 IQ? And about 1 in 6 has a sub-85 IQ? When Im on public transport I enjoy playing a game where I try to guess who that is.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you. You can have a pool of people and expect a certain number of them be able to do something more with higher IQ, you cant go backwards and say I have high IQ therefore I am going to be successful.

although its correct that variance goes down as you pool more people together, it will still be a predictor on individual level.

 

[Black Rose]

recognize complex relationships
create complex relationships
store complex relationships

representative memory and working memory (parallelism)

 

[ApostateAbe]

The personality types identify dominant cognitive models an individual possesses, IQ test is used as a statistical model to evaluate a person's ability to problem solve under the clock. They aren't in opposition to each other.

I agree, MBTI does not compete with IQ, but it is still generally bullshit (the competing established theory is the "Big 5"). IQ is denounced generally because it is ideologically uncomfortable, not because of its lack of predictive power. So many other psychological metrics are much worse, and yet we don't hesitate to invest so much more time and thought into them. IQ correlates moderately with both success in school and success on the job, and "moderately" counts as the best.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I mostly agree. I disagree somewhat with, "IQ is NOT your intelligence." That's true, but an IQ test (or a set of many IQ tests) is still the best measurement of intelligence. The reading of a measuring tape is not your height, but that's how you know it. And, yes, IQ is not everything needed to have an accomplished career, but it is necessary. It is possible but it would be nearly a miracle for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a self-sustaining physician or lawyer or engineer or elected statesman or scientist of any sort in a white nation. Anyone can possibly role a boulder up a mountain, but a strongman is much more likely to do than a six-year-old boy. IQ doesn't count for everything, but it counts for a lot, and the common problem seems to be the underemphasis of its importance, not the overemphasis. President Trump habitually uses it as an insult, which does not help the cause. Candidate Biden also used it as an insult recently, and I would love see him challenge Trump to an IQ test duel.

Mostly missed my point there. Obviously nowhere did I state its irrelevant. Yes its true its part of intellect, but again I repeat not the whole story.

IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you. You can have a pool of people and expect a certain number of them be able to do something more with higher IQ, you cant go backwards and say I have high IQ therefore I am going to be successful.

Also there is plenty work that doesnt require high IQ. Its not only physicians and lawyers in the working force.

High IQ in reality mostly means a steeper learning curve and better ability to understand certain concepts.

Thats all there is to it.

Also having high IQ wont save you from incompetence, lack of will, inability to make sensible choices or ignorance.
I would rather work with someone who is able to cooperate and willing to work and is informed rather than someone with high IQ and ignorant and with bad work ethic.

"IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you..."

When it comes to me or you, then you can make a lot of intermediate probabilistic predictions with it. It is useful for making tentative judgments of individuals, not just for groups. For example, if you know that I have an IQ between 70 and 80, then you know that I am far less likely to have graduated high school, far more likely to have abused drugs or alcohol, far more likely to be fired from many jobs, and so on. It isn't the whole story, maybe not even most of the story, but statistical means it is predictive. The belief that IQ can't be predictive for individuals seems to be most common among the experts, strangely enough, even Charles Murray. It is either a foolish fallacy or it is directly dishonest, in my opinion, though I hate to think such a thing about Charles Murray.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

..isn't it crazy to think that half the population has a sub-100 IQ? And about 1 in 6 has a sub-85 IQ? When Im on public transport I enjoy playing a game where I try to guess who that is.

IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you. You can have a pool of people and expect a certain number of them be able to do something more with higher IQ, you cant go backwards and say I have high IQ therefore I am going to be successful.

although its correct that variance goes down as you pool more people together, it will still be a predictor on individual level.

Looking at strandard deviation, people seperate by 1 SD (15 points), difference between someone with 115 IQ and 130 IQ is negligable when you parse out all other factors. Truth is knowledge is the determining factor when it comes to most things, and knowledge these days, in the right places, is abundant. While there is a a slight correlation with IQ and income, IQ and net worth do not have any if not slight correlation. Granted I heard that most billionaires are 2SD off the curve (130), but IQ creates statistical anomalies, as it does not explain politicians or people like Alcapone who reportedly had an IQ of 80 but was one of the most troublesome figures entire securitiy agencies could not take down. He died of syhpalis but that's not the point.

The more IQ deviates from the mean, the less accurate the results will be due to the ucommoness of people at the extremes. It is not perfect and people in general should be looking to dismantel all models we have in search of a new better ones. IQ makes a lot of people think that we have defined intelligence and know what we are doing, which is simply not the case.

The personality types identify dominant cognitive models an individual possesses, IQ test is used as a statistical model to evaluate a person's ability to problem solve under the clock. They aren't in opposition to each other.

I agree, MBTI does not compete with IQ, but it is still generally bullshit (the competing established theory is the "Big 5"). IQ is denounced generally because it is ideologically uncomfortable, not because of its lack of predictive power. So many other psychological metrics are much worse, and yet we don't hesitate to invest so much more time and thought into them. IQ correlates moderately with both success in school and success on the job, and "moderately" counts as the best.

IQ is denounced because the Nazi's and friends have used it as a benchmark for personhood. Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder. Life is a game and there are many play styles for success. IQ above 130 negatively correlates with wellbeing, people think more IQ = good bar none, this is why it's horseshit. MBTI at least is just used to gauge a persons presonality, not to define them as a whole. Are there any studies that correlate big 5 to MBTI?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder.

False

although its correct that variance goes down as you pool more people together, it will still be a predictor on individual level.

Its cool that you can predict some shit, but mostly for low IQ people, the higher the IQ the less you can be sure of anything.
Basically at some point your IQ is irrelevant and the discussion is more about other traits and your ability to adapt. Obviously if I have IQ 50 you know I cant drive much or take care of my self. Also IQ has been rising overall and people with IQ 90 are pretty smart in context of the past IQs. Looking down on people whos IQ is 90 as in incompetent people is pretty lame. Obviously IQ gives us competitive advantage, but still its not the whole story and people with relatively similar IQs are hard to be assessed. In other words you can have people with similar IQs and with great difference in performance.

"IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you..."

When it comes to me or you, then you can make a lot of intermediate probabilistic predictions with it. It is useful for making tentative judgments of individuals, not just for groups. For example, if you know that I have an IQ between 70 and 80, then you know that I am far less likely to have graduated high school, far more likely to have abused drugs or alcohol, far more likely to be fired from many jobs, and so on. It isn't the whole story, maybe not even most of the story, but statistical means it is predictive. The belief that IQ can't be predictive for individuals seems to be most common among the experts, strangely enough, even Charles Murray. It is either a foolish fallacy or it is directly dishonest, in my opinion, though I hate to think such a thing about Charles Murray.

Tentative is bullshit. You are making predictions based on bullshit. You cant predict that much. Obviously having lower IQ its more accurate. As in its easy to see that someone with difficulty to read and IQ 70 is too dumb to do stuff, but that doesnt necessairly translate to them being completely incompetent. And obviously you dont want them working in NASA and checking out the satellites. But that doesnt mean you can magically see what there is. People have potential that can be different based on IQ> Ergo most people are about 100 IQ. But there are clear differences between the people of IQ 100. I have seen people with IQ 100 that have done stellar job at high school. I have also seen complete losers with same IQ. When you go higher with IQ you can have stellar difference too. You can have a theoretical physicist with IQ 180 and a complete psycho loser with same IQ. Surely you dont want to give someone an IQ test and the hire them because they have superior IQ.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder.

False

Not true

 

[Black Rose]

A low IQ is only a problem when it comes to complexity. When doing tasks that require tracking multiple things at once a high IQ is necessary. You need to consider many things at once. That is why most complex jobs require a high IQ. But having a low IQ doesn't make anyone absolutely incapable. Doing things one step at a time can be very useful. Not overthinking things and a practical mindset.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The more IQ deviates from the mean, the less accurate the results will be due to the ucommoness of people at the extremes. It is not perfect and people in general should be looking to dismantel all models we have in search of a new better ones. IQ makes a lot of people think that we have defined intelligence and know what we are doing, which is simply not the case.

View attachment 4930

interesting plots, where are they from?

what I see from that one is that 1) as expected, IQ is a much better predictor on the low end than high end, 2) median income doesn't change much in the 100-130 range but the mean certainly changes since the distribution becomes very right-skewed as you get up in the 120, 130 level.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Its cool that you can predict some shit, but mostly for low IQ people, the higher the IQ the less you can be sure of anything.
Basically at some point your IQ is irrelevant and the discussion is more about other traits and your ability to adapt. Obviously if I have IQ 50 you know I cant drive much or take care of my self. Also IQ has been rising overall and people with IQ 90 are pretty smart in context of the past IQs. Looking down on people whos IQ is 90 as in incompetent people is pretty lame. Obviously IQ gives us competitive advantage, but still its not the whole story and people with relatively similar IQs are hard to be assessed. In other words you can have people with similar IQs and with great difference in performance.

when it comes to assessing the validity of a metric like IQ, one obviously has to talk in terms of all-else-being-equal. Someone with 85 IQ can become, say, a better mathematician than someone with 115 IQ by studying harder, but all else being equal I would sure as hell bet that the 115 one will be better.

and that holds for any statistical predictor unless you have a situation where this one predictor explains 100% of the variation in outcome

 

[ApostateAbe]

..isn't it crazy to think that half the population has a sub-100 IQ? And about 1 in 6 has a sub-85 IQ? When Im on public transport I enjoy playing a game where I try to guess who that is.

View attachment 4928

IQ is statistical so you cant predict jack with it when it comes to me or you. You can have a pool of people and expect a certain number of them be able to do something more with higher IQ, you cant go backwards and say I have high IQ therefore I am going to be successful.

although its correct that variance goes down as you pool more people together, it will still be a predictor on individual level.

Looking at strandard deviation, people seperate by 1 SD (15 points), difference between someone with 115 IQ and 130 IQ is negligable when you parse out all other factors. Truth is knowledge is the determining factor when it comes to most things, and knowledge these days, in the right places, is abundant. While there is a a slight correlation with IQ and income, IQ and net worth do not have any if not slight correlation. Granted I heard that most billionaires are 2SD off the curve (130), but IQ creates statistical anomalies, as it does not explain politicians or people like Alcapone who reportedly had an IQ of 80 but was one of the most troublesome figures entire securitiy agencies could not take down. He died of syhpalis but that's not the point.

The more IQ deviates from the mean, the less accurate the results will be due to the ucommoness of people at the extremes. It is not perfect and people in general should be looking to dismantel all models we have in search of a new better ones. IQ makes a lot of people think that we have defined intelligence and know what we are doing, which is simply not the case.

View attachment 4930
View attachment 4929

The personality types identify dominant cognitive models an individual possesses, IQ test is used as a statistical model to evaluate a person's ability to problem solve under the clock. They aren't in opposition to each other.

I agree, MBTI does not compete with IQ, but it is still generally bullshit (the competing established theory is the "Big 5"). IQ is denounced generally because it is ideologically uncomfortable, not because of its lack of predictive power. So many other psychological metrics are much worse, and yet we don't hesitate to invest so much more time and thought into them. IQ correlates moderately with both success in school and success on the job, and "moderately" counts as the best.

IQ is denounced because the Nazi's and friends have used it as a benchmark for personhood. Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder. Life is a game and there are many play styles for success. IQ above 130 negatively correlates with wellbeing, people think more IQ = good bar none, this is why it's horseshit. MBTI at least is just used to gauge a persons presonality, not to define them as a whole. Are there any studies that correlate big 5 to MBTI?

"IQ is denounced because the Nazi's and friends have used it as a benchmark for personhood."

Yes, I agree. Not that the original Nazis had anything to do with IQ (it was a British and American thing at the time Nazis had power, not a German thing), but the popularly-perceived association of IQ with something Nazi-ish is the problem. That is why the science of IQ is denounced today. The unpopularity of IQ has nothing to do with its actual empirical value. It would be the most useful metric in the science of psychology but for the persisting prevalence of American World War 2 propaganda.

"Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder."

That may or may not be true, and I wouldn't count on it (one study that caught a lot of attention studied only members of Mensa, but the members of Mensa are a lot of misfits who probably do not represent the high-IQ generally). An important lesson drawn from the science of human intelligence is: life isn't fair. A bunch of people in the world really do have better genes in every way that we commonly value, and they don't deserve it. There is no trade-off. Life is not a role-playing game where we distribute points to this trait at the expense of that trait. In the biological scheme, greater intelligence is only at the cost of energy. This would matter in the energy-scarce environments of our ancestors, not for the modern calorie-rich world.

"Are there any studies that correlate big 5 to MBTI?"

Maybe. All I know is that MBTI is generally ignored in academia, because it is largely subjective, the results of the tests change from day to day, and the results merely feed back whatever you put into it. The MBTI became more popular seemingly because it is less likely to hurt anyone's feelings than a Big 5 test.

 

[Rebis]

The personality types identify dominant cognitive models an individual possesses, IQ test is used as a statistical model to evaluate a person's ability to problem solve under the clock. They aren't in opposition to each other.

I agree, MBTI does not compete with IQ, but it is still generally bullshit (the competing established theory is the "Big 5"). IQ is denounced generally because it is ideologically uncomfortable, not because of its lack of predictive power. So many other psychological metrics are much worse, and yet we don't hesitate to invest so much more time and thought into them. IQ correlates moderately with both success in school and success on the job, and "moderately" counts as the best.

I don't think it's bullshit because like an IQ in the minds of the average person, they do not associate it as a high IQ having a dependency of success for example, or an INTP designation having a dependency that all who are of this type are pure bred logicians. Really these are used as models to understand potentialities, IQ is no different. However an IQ test in particular can predict less information compared to a MBTI personality test, an IQ is a single measurement where as dimensions of thought represented in INTP have way more directly deduced branches that we can genuinely understand a lot of our behaviours through a personality type. Secondly, think about the actual conversation inferred by an IQ designation, what substance can be added to a numerical number? It's a generality, so obviously people would not discuss IQ because it is not a matter that evolves, nor is it qualitive or interpretive. When people refer to ability in the social sphere the multi-varied factions that influence ability: Motivation, punctuality, self-discipline, latent ability........ etc, they can only hope to be qualitative given inter-relating qualities that ultimately produce success.

I personally didn't find anything better in terms of self-actualizations with the Big 5, it has a neutoricism domain sure but nothing much from it really. I understand that IQ plays a role in success, however that is typically not the subject of people's debate: They understand that IQ isn't conclusive, yet paradoxically IQ is the only "accepted" method of defining intelligence as science relies on quantitative measures. Because IQ only provides a quantitative statistics, it is not comprehensive enough for the likings of many. Due to the uninterpretive nature of quantitative data people can't help to resist such a simplified model that doesn't factors in 10s, if not 100s of cofactors. "They have an IQ of 160, but they're not stephen hawking, why?" we use IQ as a proxy for geniuses and that causes superfluous conjecture.

I think the problem mainly is we reduce success to constituent factors and tend to evaluate these characteristics individually rather than being cofactors to success. If IQ was measured in relation to personality tests and other executive-oriented qualities, it would not be disagreed with so much, but it is, so it will.

The world is becoming simplified, there is less jobs requiring excellent IQ.

TLDR: IQ is trying to quantify/generalise outlook on the world while personality types do not try to regiment your qualities to deterministic dualities but allow for a mix-match of dominant/submissive functions (I/E, N/S, T/F). IQ measures intelligence without factoring in other important factors. That is the problem, it has been represented as the way to measure intelligence that all other methods are not accounted for. Out of all the measures of the pscyhe, singularity is not nor ever will be accepted.

 

[Rebis]

And personally, I find IQ a bad measurement in my experience mainly because I'm not seeking consistency. I seek true "characters" for a lack of a better term, excellence.
I think it's also the scalar, like after a threshold IQ becomes increasingly irrelevant and the main properties that lead success is the personaltiy of the character. I find anything after 120 is more than sufficient.

If you've ever met people with ridiculously high IQs you understand that they're people like any others, with an innate ability to perform better, but not necessarily adapt to their level or "potential" : a lower IQ might sacrifice 4-6 hours of studying while IQ boy studies 2 hours and they get the same result. The conceptual models that govern all knowledge fields are qutie similar to each other, and really aren't counter-intuitive. Motivation and desire play a higher role in success after a certain threshold in IQ.

Consider the distribution of IQ in a population:

1 in 10 people have an IQ of 119. That's pretty common if you ask me. Are these people necessarily going to be successful? Not sure.

Though lost in translation, I don't believe people are actually debating the importance of IQ: What they are debating is that IQ isn't a completely definitive picture of a person's abilities. You need to see past the words people are communicating through. No one deny IQ is a predictor to success because consistent studies over a long time have presented this.

What's your work score mate? Mine is 63, my friends is 48.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The more IQ deviates from the mean, the less accurate the results will be due to the ucommoness of people at the extremes. It is not perfect and people in general should be looking to dismantel all models we have in search of a new better ones. IQ makes a lot of people think that we have defined intelligence and know what we are doing, which is simply not the case.

View attachment 4930

interesting plots, where are they from?

"Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth,income and financial distress."

"Whatever causes higher IQ is likely a biological tradeoff as the higher it is the more likely it is to have a mental disorder."

That may or may not be true, and I wouldn't count on it (one study that caught a lot of attention studied only members of Mensa, but the members of Mensa are a lot of misfits who probably do not represent the high-IQ generally).

Are you implying that there are different breeds of high IQ people? The paper implies that sensitivity to stimulus/environment is part of what causes high intelligence, which would make sense as creativity (intelligence trait) and sensitivity are strongly correlated.

An important lesson drawn from the science of human intelligence is: life isn't fair. A bunch of people in the world really do have better genes in every way that we commonly value, and they don't deserve it. There is no trade-off. Life is not a role-playing game where we distribute points to this trait at the expense of that trait. In the biological scheme, greater intelligence is only at the cost of energy. This would matter in the energy-scarce environments of our ancestors, not for the modern calorie-rich world.

You must be one of those superiorly intelligent people then. While I'm sure there are "neurotypical" intelligent people, I doubt that many exist, and the ones that do likely come from families where mental illness is a problem. Ashkenazi Jews who have higher IQs on average and we can count on for the most part being genetically homogenous are predisposed to schizophrenia. If you're alluding to a superior upper class that has somehow been carefully able to eliminate genetic markers for mental illness over the many generations that it would take to do that, I would like an example.

TLDR: IQ is trying to quantify/generalise outlook on the world while personality types do not try to regiment your qualities to deterministic dualities but allow for a mix-match of dominant/submissive functions (I/E, N/S, T/F). IQ measures intelligence without factoring in other important factors. That is the problem, it has been represented as the way to measure intelligence that all other methods are not accounted for. Out of all the measures of the pscyhe, singularity is not nor ever will be accepted.

I feel like we are at least narrowing down why IQ is shit. It is quantitative data, but it is so shit it actually appears more like qualitative data.

IQ partially falls into qualitative data, or at least maybe I think that because the way people interpret it, but I feel like there is merit here. Think about it, what unit of measurement is used? IQ score of course. But that IQ score is indicative of what? We don't have an answer for that, it's an abstraction. Brain structure, connectivity, conditioning, IQ tells us none of this. Some genes may just be better at creating brain structures, and this would lead us to so many questions because as seen through things like meditation, we have a lot of influence over our brain, so it would lead us to a growth mindset unlike fucking dimwits that try to do other wise -_-.

 

[Rebis]

I feel like we are at least narrowing down why IQ is shit. It is quantitative data, but it is so shit it actually appears more like qualitative data.
View attachment 4931
IQ partially falls into qualitative data, or at least maybe I think that because the way people interpret it, but I feel like there is merit here. Think about it, what unit of measurement is used? IQ score of course. But that IQ score is indicative of what? We don't have an answer for that, it's an abstraction. Brain structure, connectivity, conditioning, IQ tells us none of this. Some genes may just be better at creating brain structures, and this would lead us to so many questions because as seen through things like meditation, we have a lot of influence over our brain, so it would lead us to a growth mindset unlike fucking dimwits that try to do other wise -_-.

It isn't qualitative data but it is used in tangent with markers that try to predict a quality: Success. IQ can be effected by some truly subtle things, neural efficiency with glucose, STEM-cell structure, antioxidative properties, Neurogenesis in SGZ/SCZ, Acetlycholine supplemancy, Diet (B-vitamins for a lack of fatigue), consolidation from a healthy sleep, DEC-2 gene-variant for reduced sleep, REM activity during sleep phases, Neurotrophic Factors, Serotonin/dopamine uptake, investment in understand concepts. There are just way too many factors, I think the key reason that IQ is a predictor of succes is very simple: Time is of the essence in the workplace, response time is everything in a lot of occupations, especially ones that are constantly subjecting the individual to new documentations: Think law where a lawyer will have to revise a 40 page law for a case, or computer science where you'll have to pick up new languages quite easily if you switch jobs or you have to read about a specific computer architecture to compile/optimise programs.

It's important to make the distinction between success in the workplace and an individual's intelligence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Not true

Higher IQ is associated with better mental health and physical health. The only exception are few mental disorders that have higher incidence in higher IQ people however overall mental health is better in high IQ people.

 

[Rebis]

I'd agree with that. The troubled genius is one that has suffered at their perception of the world without being able to make amends. So naturally, imagine the troubles of a person that has quite a low IQ and as a result cannot impact the world, or their life?