Why do certain sections of humanities and sociology enthusiasts worship this statistic so much?It's literally and arbitrary post-hoc construction, if you resurrected all the deceased nobel prize winners, and include the living ones, make a convent out of them and measure their IQs while keeping them isolated the average would still be 100, with standard deviations to the left and to the right.It's not a real measure.
>>18133435Its low ranges are very strong predictors of negative life outcomes. On average and high ranges it's a lot more blurry though
>the average of an entire population is not the same as the average of a specifically selected set of individuals damn, groundbreaking stuff dude
>>18133459Yeah but again it's localized, so in the U.S. for example the low ranges will gobble up coons, spics and others.But what if you do it in a homogenous Scandinavian province?
>>18133435IQ is an instrument to messure intellectual ability. Nothing more and nothing less.Some people use it as a proxy for other ideology, to look down on certain groups of people, most likely to feel better about themselves.The lefttards, on the other hand... they simply rule out that you can mess and compare intellectual ability.Why?Because they do not like the implication.This is, of course, bad reasoning, too.Basically, don't trust internet-bros that comes up with IQ and stuff like this.
>>18133467>The lefttards, on the other hand... they simply rule out that you can mess and compare intellectual ability.>Why?>Because they do not like the implication.>This is, of course, bad reasoning, too.Objectively incorrect. I work for an education department in a progressive state and we use IQ all the time because we have a cutoff ranges for intellectual disability funding.
>>18133435>It's not a real measure.The real problem is that it's a real-valued number used to represent very structural differences in how minds work. Philosophers have come up with many theories of mind over time to describe levels of consciousness, which is a more accurate way of saying if someone is intellectually superior to someone else. However, you also end up with a lot of people in middle to lower tiers of development, so I think in those cases, IQ becomes a decent way of telling them apart. As someone else said, the low range is more meaningful than the high range.
>>18133621There are still high I.Q. people that are Hylics/NPCs, like Hitchens, Dawkins or N.D.Tyson.
>>18133435It's just a quick way to say you think niggers are stupid. But of course, they never stick to their guns when you bring up how stupid everyone else is compared to Asians and jews.
>>18133655Ya, but I think this could potentially be covered by the "levels of consciousness" thing. I realize "hylic" kind of covers that, but that's more emotional than rational.I'm just beginning to understand how people with high verbal IQ can compensate for lacking other forms of IQ, and it's difficult for someone to figure this out unless you spend a lot of time around them in person.
>>18133729The point of g/I.Q. is that verbal and other forms correlate, hence one dimensional model of 'intelligence'. The two only diverge at the far end of the spectrum.
>>18133778If you have two different computing models, one which is linear and the other which is massively parallel, and then you give each tests which have to be completed in a manner of minutes, you're not really stressing the system enough to notice architectural differences that much.
>>18133464>But what if you do it in a homogenous Scandinavian province?Do you think these countries don't have their fair share of people on the lower end of the IQ distribution? They're just known as white trash.
>>18133869Ofc they do by definition, but if you put them in a southern Chicago they will likely be to the right of the mean of the curve.Tango in your pic is a middle class train station office worker, so his I.Q. is likely about 100 relative to other Anglos. Maybe even a bit higher since he has good organizational ability.
So, what are you implying? That everyone has the same intelligence? Because that very clearly is NOT the case.
>>18133435>whyit is almost as if society cares about the 1 attribute being the best predictor of success
>>18133435It's a participation trophy, it's a number people to claim to be associated with (not even have mind you, just be associated with) as an accomplishment without you having to actually do anything to earn it. Meanwhile in the real world IQ doesn't actually mean anything. If you wanted a job at NASA with your only credentials being a high IQ you'd be laughed out the front door.
>>18133435Would you rather have an IQ of 80 or 120?
>>1813629280 in Geneva is better than 120 in the Congo.
>>18136292If you found out you had an IQ of 80, would you kill yourself?
>>18133435Tell me, IQ fags, when will China become first world?
>>18136314China is proof IQ tests are probably bullshit with regards to nationwide averages because they likely only based those tests on a small handful of coastie elite and not the literal 10s of millions of migrant slave workers in the interior in rural villages
>>18136292This question always kills IQ sceptics
>>18136314When they switch to capitalism
>>18133459That's not an impressive result. Low ranges include a multitude of disabilities and handicaps. We dont need ravens matrices to divine a Downs Syndrome kid wont grow up to be a brain surgeon.
>>18133459No it's not this is just a myth Taleb started. IQ is equally predictive across the board
>>18133435>Why do certain sections of humanities and sociology enthusiasts worship this statistic so much?There are a lot of people who are emotionally invested in either the notion that some classes of people are born inferior, or the notion that they were born special.These people have dominated the psychometrics field from the start, and have cooked the books and fudged the numbers to support their preferred fairytale. "IQ" is the result.It's a massive PR win though. MSM will print recurring weekly news stories about the IQ of dead celebrity genius X. "What was the IQ of Albert Einstein?" "What was the IQ of Beethoven?" "What was the IQ of Stephen Hawkins?" "What is the IQ of Roger Penrose?"In pretty much every case, the answer is a hot take pulled out of someones ass. And really tells you all you need to know about how scientific a concept IQ is, when people are consistently willing to just make some number up that sounds right.This rancid field doesnt even have a clue what actual distribution g is supposed to have, yet are perfectly willing to postulate that it's a bell curve and design their tests accordingly, while perpetuating the fiction that an IQ score says something about general intelligence
>>18136406>muh test is valid look at my factor analysis, no factor analysis isnt a poor tool for ascertaining mechanisms, so what if IQ finds that peak intelligence is at age 18, yes I'm letting my teenage son run my family, doesnt everyone??
>>18136299NTA, but you'd be stupid enough to lie to yourself about how IQ doesn't matter.
>>18136366see>>18136293
>>18133435My main issue with them, is that the statistics are not really accurate and only estimated on the life quality of these countries and development. The average does not take an IQ test, especially not in third world countries. I doubt anyone in Congo even knows what it is, ket alone take them.
>>18133435>why do people cling to an arbitrary number that they think means they are better/higher than others?
>>18136406It's not. You can take any dataset, force a linear equation on it, and even if only a part of it has a strong relationship the correlation will be "impressive". But it's not across the board.
>>18136376They did, it's been 40 years since they switched to capitalism and become one of the biggest market liberal and they aren't first world
>>18136293>t. brainlet
>>18136413You'd live a more fulfilling life if you'd simply accept your limitations and work from there.
>>18133435I think intellectuals are naturally wont to overstate the idea of intelligence and its importance.IQ is a decent approximation of intelligence when viewed within one specific society. It falls apart the more you apply it to multiple different cultures.Like when an American has 70ish IQ, you can clearly tell from even the smallest interaction that said 70-IQ-haver is retarded. The way they speak alone demonstrates their disability.But many African countries have 70IQ as the average. Are those people literally al mentally retarded? No.You can go there and just listen to them talk. They're average. Could they be dumber on average than Whites or Asians? Eh, maybe. But obviously not by 30 fucking IQ points.
>>18133435>It's literally and arbitrary post-hoc constructionAs are all metrics.>the average would still be 100If you index them against each other, yes. But that is not how IQ is measured. It is indexed against the population, meaning all the nobel prize winners would likely be way above average.But you accidentally did bring up a good point - the so-called "reverse Flynn effect". The global IQ seems to be increasing year on year so much that mathematically people in the 1800s had roughly 80 IQ points average, in today's scale. This is extremely suspicious and borderline unthinkable, it's essentially saying that 200 years ago you'd have to look up the local scholar to construct an IKEA chair on the first try. It is even more suspicious when you reflect on the fact that geniuses are becoming more and more statistically rare, so it's not like there is a growing group of ultra-intellectuals pulling our current average up. So you're right to be skeptical of the metric. But it's one of the best ones we've got in humanities and social studies.
>>18137000like this guy? lmfao
>>18137151>If you index them against each other, yes. But that is not how IQ is measured. It is indexed against the populationpsychonometric niggers dont even know the distribution of g, which they arent measuring anyway>meaning all the nobel prize winners would likely be way above average."likely" because there is a conspicuos lack of actual measurements of actually accomplished people. Instead we get "estimates" (guesses)
>>18137151>But that is not how IQ is measured. It is indexed against the populationYeah and what a population is is relative.And no a meter, as defined with the speed of light is fixed, it's not relative or defined post hoc.
>>18137253read >>18137000 again, but slowly
>>18137257>g, which they arent measuring anywayThat doesn't make sense. If g is supposed to predict problem-solving then that's exactly what we are measuring.>"likely" because there is a conspicuos lack of actual measurements of actually accomplished people"Likely" because it's statistics. Some countries (Sweden? Finland? don't remember) test every man who joins the compulsory military training and the data are quite rich. They're one of the reasons we happen to have discovered the reverse Flynn effect.>>18137362>what a population is is relativeSo? This doesn't invalidate IQ any more than it invalidates blood pressure standards.>And no a meter, as defined with the speed of light is fixed, it's not relative or defined post hoc.Speed is relative by definition. All metrics are defined post hoc, there is not a single metric "out there" in the objective world. They are all constructs we invented to track particular phenomena as we happen to define them.
>>18133459This is correct. Mine is probably in the 130s or 140s, and I know people who are similar. No shortage of mental illness, substance use issues, etc
Caring about IQ = nihilism.
>>18136413High IQ post.
>>18137583interesting cope
>>18137487>If g is supposed to predict problem-solving then that's exactly what we are measuring.g is the primary factor in factor analysis of a certain class of intelligence tests, no more. Since the psychonometrics field is driven by people with a deep belief that people are born more or less gifted they sometimes try to call claim that g is a measure of "general intelligence", but they are in fact very aware that it has nothing to do with "general" intelligence. That they are aware of this is proven by the fact that when challenged they'll retreat to saying that g is a measure of "fluid intelligence", a more narrow concept. >"Likely" because it's statistics. What a copout. IQ tests have been promoted for a hundred years by now and not a week goes by without some pop-science report about "the smartest man in the world" or some other bullshit. Yet the confirmed scores of famous accomplished people are conspicuously absent. Instead psychonometricians elect to hide behind large datasets, statistics and factor analysis (in other words, the weakest scientific disciplines in terms of actually proving stuff conclusively)
>>18137794>g is the primary factor in factor analysis of a certain class of intelligence tests, no more.You say "no more" as if it wasn't enough lol. Developing tests which focus mostly on spotting the markers of g is exactly what we sought. You can re-phrase any piece of evidence to sound goofy - "Your honour, this is merely a series of 0 and 1 coded by light reflections of a room where I might or might not have been reflecting." Ok buddy, it's still a video of you jerking off in a library.>Yet the confirmed scores of famous accomplished people are conspicuously absent.Absent from where? If there is a place where people's private tests are published (regardless if they choose to publish them themselves), I'm signing up right now, you should have led with that. Where is the MENSA database subscription access?>large datasets, statistics and factor analysis (in other words, the weakest scientific disciplines in terms of actually proving stuff conclusively)IQ is not designed to be "proving stuff conclusively", it's an index. That means it's by definition imprecise and pragmatic. If I told you I'm 99th percentile for deadlift one-rep-max in Germany, tt doesn't actually "prove stuff conclusively" about strength either, but it gives a good enough idea for everyone who's not chronically online or jaded against deadlifts. So with IQ.
>>18137841>Absent from where? If there is a place where people's private tests are published (regardless if they choose to publish them themselves), I'm signing up right now, you should have led with that.What I'm pointing calling your attention to is that there is no lack of confirmed super-level-genius IQ test scores identified individuals but none of them are actually very accomplished individuals, and there is no lack of IQ estimates for confirmed accomplished people, but they are never based on actual test scores.>IQ is not designed to be "proving stuff conclusively", it's an index. That means it's by definition imprecise and pragmatic."Oh shit someone called me out I will respond by immediately retreating from any claim that IQ scores measure, say, or prove anything about anything that could be called general intelligence, of populations, or individuals"QED
>>18137855I.Q. is used by clinical psychologists mostly to gauge rehabilitation from brain injuries and similar stuff. Nobody is gonna pay a pro to measure I.Q. properly (WAIS - IV, it's done one on one in a clinical setting) for a bunch of nerds who fiddle with expensive toys.
>>18137855>confirmed super-level-genius IQ>none of them are actually very accomplished individualsI'll take it that you use "none" as an extreme exaggeration, otherwise this is just a nonsensical hypothesis. Your point then boils down to, there being a great deal of people who have the capacity do perform extra-ordinary feats and yet they never noticeably do. That is completely uncontroversial in terms of IQ, strength, endurance, agility, singing, painting etc. It's a fact of life. Not a criticism of a metric.>retreating from any claim that IQ scores measure, say, or prove anything about anythingThey measure and say quite a lot. Nobody said they "prove stuff conclusively". It's social sciences we're talking about.I apologize for being blunt but it seems your sentiments don't necessarily settle into actual arguments. You're complaining that an index is imprecise and that people waste their gifts. This should not trigger awe in you if you were born before yesterday.
>>18137862Sounds like we can agree that 95% of everything referred to as "IQ tests" is junk and argue about the remaining 5%
>>18137874>Your point then boils down to, there being a great deal of people who have the capacity do perform extra-ordinary feats and yet they never noticeably do.My point boils down to that if IQ tests were apparently accurate, we'd have plentiful concrete tangible examples of them, mostly, being accurate, rather than embarrassments like Christopher Langan and "b-b-but these stats say we have covariance of 0.4 with income bracket">They measure and say quite a lot. Nobody said they "prove stuff conclusively". It's social sciences we're talking about.Exactly. The same social sciences where we typically have different camps that conclusively fail to ever prove anything.But when it comes to IQ tests, as opposed to say the aggregate economical behavior of millions of individuals, designing empirical trials that would actually yield useful results is quite conceivable. But psychometricians dont do it, presumably because it would expose their field as fraudulent.
>>18137900>>designing empirical trials that would actually yield useful results is quite conceivable>if IQ tests were apparently accurate, we'd have plentiful concrete tangible examples of them, mostly, being accurate, rather than embarrassments like Christopher LanganWe do. IQ predicts problem-solving and task competence ceteris paribus. You've got no idea what you're talking about, Anon.
>>18137915I'll design an empirical trial for you anon, maybe you can use it for a thesis. The test subjects are put in Ravens Matrix school for 6 months. Curriculum includes subjects like "how to design Ravens Matrixes", "the most common Ravens Matrices used in testing", etc. Then they are awarded $1000 for each 1 point they are able to increase their IQ test score.
>>18137929Thanks
>>18137932You're welcome. That would be the first thing you'd want to test, as a Scientist, right? You hear of a test, a written test, that accurately measures innate qualities. So the first thing you'd want to do is do everything in your power to try to falsify that hypothesis. Agree?
>>18137940As a scientist I'd like you to improve the metric. If showing a well-known way in which written tests in general can be hijacked is a necessary step, have at it. Never enough peer-review I suppose. But you better turn it into something interesting because we've known that written tests can be contaminated before IQ even existed.
>>18137947Note that your "hijacked" is the smarter guys "there are pieces of knowledge that changes the test-score and have nothing to do with innate intelligence and I havent bothered to find out more about them, because I dont want to find out".
>>18133498That's only because leftists are not consistent. IQ has been proven reliable several times, but it also has negative implications about genetics which goes against their belief in tabula rasa. So they believe in IQ when it suits them and denounce it when talking about equality/equity. This is, of course, completely retarded. But you have to remember normies think with emotion not reason.
>>18137968put another way, the distinction between "contamination" and "potentially millions of such factors in the wild that I am completely unable to control" is completely imaginary and faith-based
>>18137968>I havent bothered to find out more about themAgain, test contamination is a well known effect. Is this truly what gave you such atrocious confidence? Finding out written tests can be contaminated? There is no way lmao...
>>18136413>These people have dominated the psychometrics field from the start, and have cooked the books and fudged the numbers to support their preferred fairytale. "IQ" is the result.This is misleading enough to be false. If you are talking over 100 years ago, yes. But since then especially since 1960 the field has been dominated by people whose preferred fairytale is liberal concepts of equality. People suggesting IQ as an explanation for group disparities in todays academia are instantly de-credentialed and shunned. The fact that IQ data remains steady enough that it is still a good predictor of success despite the extreme censorship it has faced is strong testament to its reliability.
>>18138009Complete bullshit. Intelligence testing started out with a wide heterogenous assortment of types of tests that originally could be said to have at least tried to test something resembling the folk conception of "intelligence" vague and nebulous term as it is, but the majority of those were thrown out in favor of those that could show a stronger primary factor under factor analysis (i.e. time constrained solving of ravens matrices).Nevermind that it led to absurd results like the finding like g peaking around age 18.
>>18137978Not exactly, no. Contamination happens when results are affected by an information that is supposed to be missing. While being one of the possible confounding variables, it is determinable. Which is for example why scientists compare blind and double-blind studies.Again, if your only point was that written tests can be hijacked by people knowing things they shouldn't then idk what to tell you. Most of us found it out in elementary school when cheating on quizzes. You found it out now and it seems to have devastated your faith in a fairly solid metric. I recommend you pull yourself together and move on. IQ is here to stay and contamination issues are so well known they have separate methodology chapters in all social sciences and even in law.
>>18133459>Its low ranges are very strong predictors of negative life outcomes.Yes but the problem is, lack of education is also a very strong predictors of negative life outcome, and IQ has been shown to improve after schooling. So it's wrong to measure someone's IQ once and assume outcomes for the rest of their lives.
>>18137978>>18138008As I've pointed out once already, it's a fiction that there is a meaningful distinction between "test contamination" in the test setting - which you and your discipline pretend you can control - and any other piece of knowledge that an individual can come across that will affect test scores one way or another. You focus on the lab setting and "contamination" because there at least pretending that you have things under control passes the laugh test. But if there is one way to improve on Ravens Matrices, then it's incumbent on you to prove how many other (you have no freaking idea!).Let's consider a written test that actually manages to accomplish what psychometrics is incapable of, to measure innate properties accurately. I'm talking about a color blindness test. The core property of the color blindness test that gives it worth where IQ tests have none, is that it makes 100% no difference whether the test subject knows how the test is constructed. Anything less than providing him with the actual answer verbatim will fail to help a colorblind person ace it. That's because color blindness tests measure biological qualities and IQ tests do not.
>>18138033>it's wrong to measure someone's IQ once and assume outcomes for the rest of their livesWhich is why almost nobody does this.
>>18138039>it's a fiction that there is a meaningful distinction between "test contamination" .... Thanks for re-stating your point. Debunked by blind vs double blind studies.>That's because color blindness tests measure biological qualities and IQ tests do not.Delightful news to someone who cares.
>>18138055>It's deboooonkedby all means, post links to the papers deboonking [something unspecified which you did not want to box yourself in on, lest it came back to bite you in the ass]>Delightful news to someone who cares.I accept your capitulation with embarrassment on your behalf
>>18138068>post links to the papers deboonkingI trust citations will do:Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub‐studies (Hróbjartsson et al., 2014)The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review (Pitre et al., 2023)>something unspecifiedWeird self-accusation.>I accept your capitulationI did not capitulate.Your arguments range from "people ditch their gifts" to "IQ isn't purely biological". These are all things we have known for a while. You are running on pure dunning-kruger.
>>18138027>Again, if your only point was that written tests can be hijacked by people knowing things they shouldn't then idk what to tell you.The point is that defining the set of "things people are not allowed to know" and the set of "things people are allowed to know" for the test to be valid is completely arbitrary. Or let's be real here. The set of "things people are not allowed to know" is defined thus: we cant let them know about how to make ravens matrices because if we did we'd soon have egg on our faces.If you are able to define a more stringent process by which "hijacking" is distinguished from "people writing the test with the knowledge they've acquired up till this point", let's hear it.
>>18138098You say "arbitrary" and "let's hear it" as though I didn't just cite two separate studies addressing exactly the way we can objectively tell lol: >>18138086
>>18138098>No, Mr. Teacher, this wasn't cheating... see the set of things we're not allowed to bring in written down is completely arbitrary. I could have a "NIKE" on my shirt or I could have the the test results. Smh authorities don't get you, do they?
>>18138086So your argument is that being able to learn a task is akin to a placebo effect, and therefore must be constrained, in a test purporting to be able to distinguish biologically determined behavior from trained? Lmfao
>>18138119No.>a test purporting to be able to distinguish biologically determined behavior from trainedSource?
>>18138118>No cheat sheets? Mr. Teacher thinks the history exam is akin to a placebo effect, and therfore must be constrained. Lmfao. He just doesn't know that test contamination is made-up.
>>18138121That's what double-blind is there to suppress. Expectancy/placebo and experimenter-bias. The problem we're discussing here is prior knowledge and practice. Blinding does nothing to counter that.>Source?The pop-sci understanding is that IQ measures innate intelligence. Of course, psychometricians know it does not, but do nothing to correct the record.
>>18138159The problem, like in all written tests (even color-blind ones), is knowledge and practice that contaminate the test. You claimed it is arbitrary. It was proven to be not so. Which means you think my colorblindness is healed when I get a test that I know the answers to lmao.>>Source?>The pop-sci understanding I accept your capitulation. You're not arguing against IQ. You're arguing against how some laymen treat IQ and presumably treated you this way so badly you now have a vendetta against an entire metric. It is what it is. Again, my recommnedation is you piece yourself together and move on.
>>18138176>The problem, like in all written tests (even color-blind ones), is knowledge and practice that contaminate the test. You claimed it is arbitrary. It was proven to be not so. Which means you think my colorblindness is healed when I get a test that I know the answers to lmao.So you took a paper that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and just proclaimed it proves you right because "these things are the same" because "you say so"? Fucking lol. If you're gonna claim double blind clinical trial tests have any validity as a reliable measure to filter out prior knowledge and practice then I fear your IQ is barely sentient. I get the feeling that attempt to bullshit your way out by trying to pass off double-blind clinical trials as relevant was your last hail mary, so I'm henceforth looking forward to you banging the table and shitting everywhere to distract from your defeat
>>18136314When it completely ditches communism.
>>18138176>You're not arguing against IQ. You're arguing against how some laymen treat IQ and presumably treated you this way so badly you now have a vendetta against an entire metric. It is what it is.Lmfao, fucking 99% of the people who are promoting your crappy little test out in the world only do so because they believe it gives them ammo to claim "intelligence is genetic". And then we have guys like you, whose position is "this is literally how i put food on the table for my family, please stop trying to get me fired".-I- know full well it's a tool of unclear utility, designed to identify the primary factor of intelligence testing, unit of measure unknown.
>>18136948>They didNot really. The state controls half the economy. Dictatorships tend to be bad at dealing with information because nobody wants to give the dictator bad news. https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/country-pages/china
>>18137253He did an "IQ test" from the back of a science fiction magazine. His IQ fake and gay.
>4chan posters arguing about IQ not being real
>>18138245New anon here, first post ITT. I would reframe OP's point significantly although I agree with its emotional thrust. IQ is overhyped by pic related, people who don't necessarily understand the terms they use. It's overhyped by people who want a superiority index, specifically those for whom high IQ is desirable . . . desire is usually for things you don't have. (or aren't confirmed to have) Still, it's a real thing and projection isn't why they're wrong. They're wrong because a measurement of successful fetal development has very little power on its own. It can find genetic and epigenetic defects, but two intellectually complete humans have roughly equal capabilities in a vacuum. Neither can predict the future or transcend experience. Great thinkers are made and then measured, there's so much more involved than just being bright. IQ cultists want to believe in pure heredity and things of that nature, it makes no sense beneath the surface.
>>18133435It's the materialist way of not discussing what actually helped the West win. The East Asians have higher IQs across the board, but it's hard to have modern science when the Emperor is worshipped and every waterfall might have a god. The two highest-success demographics have been the ones that allowed individual study of The Book (Jews and Protestants.)You can build the waterwheel. The river-spirit won't be offended because it's just an idol.
>>18133655>N.D.Tyson.LOL
>>18136801What about it
>>18136947Yes it is. Taleb is just a dumbass who is making shit up
>>18138879correct although the IQ itself isn't doing much. It's a stand-in for elite or minimally correct upbringing going back at least a generation.
>>18136406Amazing anyone still takes him seriously after he shat his depends over dying from the wu-flu
>>18136947>>18138879>>18138911IQ-income relationship becomes practically random when you leave the lower percentiles. This is shown by studies, not thrown into the air by a talking head.
>>18138879He is literally the best statistician in the world.
If IQ correlated with success across the board then you'd expect it to also correlate with fertility, as successful people have more children. Yet it doesn't.
>>18139141Women stopped sexually selecting for it.
>>18139153More like women were given material independence. Women never select for men with lower income than them, which of course wasn't a problem until a few decades ago. But back on topic, the upshot of this observation is that IQ and success are simply not correlated, positively or negatively, above the lower ranges of IQ.
>>18139160Women nearly always had material independance, this is a historical meme.They simply don't get wet over an iambic tetrameter poem anymore, just fake filter looks on socmedia.
>>18139174No, women being barred for working altogether is the meme, but they were most certainly not materially independent, making them select for more men than today as well as having severely harder consequences for divorcing than today.
>>18139184Sexual selection goes back to HG tribes.
>>18139209And hunter-gatherers weren't the proto-Communist egalitarians that you think they were.
>>18139212Neither were they Salic law level discriminatory grain cucks.
>>18137855>t. iqlet
>>18139129This is true. Anesthesiologists make a lot of money. Doctors and many lawyers too. Professors and creative artists generally don't.
>>18139129This is false. IQ is also predictive for >100 IQ people
>>18139137Taleb isn't the best statistician in empty room
>>18139741another one
>>18138222>t. nigger
>>18139129You mean the other meaningless superiority index is also meaningless? Keep me posted.
>>18139741>r=0.29>r=0.25
>>18138879Actually he's right in the sense that low IQ is highly predictive of a low outcome and high IQ is not predictive of a successful outcome, except by survivorship bias where the only people who get tested and score high are elites.
>>18139807correlation with parental income is even lower than that
>>18139749Study design doesn't fit the problem. Binned.Fee-fees about your life and career are not the same as success, a mentally retarded person's life achievements can be predicted with near certainty. The same is simply not true with high IQs. Not least because success is relative and mental retardation is absolute. The higher your IQ the fiercer the competition.
>>18139741Now use PCA to filter out the noise and try again.
>>18139841Why? Because Taleb's claim got refuted and this is your last-ditch effort to salvage it?
>>18139846NTA and I liked his first argument better, but he is right. I see very few low IQs in the high bracket and quite a number of high IQs (which should be rarer) in the low income bracket.
The image of guys like Socrates, Archimedes, Nietzsche, Einstein, or Newton sitting under the apple tree and achieving enlightenment like Buddha . . . has been a disaster for the human race. Those men were made, not just born.
>>18139846...because when you do regression models it's good to keep only the components that capture the most variance.
Reminder that psychometricians had to fudge the books so much to find a viable primary factor in their factor analysis that their junk tests now show that 18 year olds are more intelligent than 45 year olds.
>>18140120they do have higher neuroplasticity
>>18140144Report back once you've abdicated your home to your teenage son. It illustrates just how far removed the primary-factor optimized version of "intelligence" is from the conventional meaning of the word.
>>18140211* not to get into how ridiculous the idea that neuroplasticity = intelligence, even fluid intelligence
>>18136406>TalebI think Taleb is a faggot, but that doesn't mean that straight lines last forever (in anything, not just IQ).>IQ is equally predictive across the boardCompare a society whose men 99% have 115IQ with a society whose men 99% are evenly distributed between 100-130IQ.Same average IQ, same population, and let the remaining 1% be an equal occurence of outliers and geniuses and heroes necessary to break stagnation.Which society would be more pleasant to live in? Which society would out-compete the other?
>>18140120Depends on which tests you are using. If you're just testing fluid intelligence and cognitive speed you'd expect youths to get better results. More comprehensive tests (e.g. not the ones they do at Mensa) include crystalized knowledge which older people are expected to have more of.
