What is the hardcap for female IQ?
>>16784096There isn't one.
>>16784096lmao
Soft cap at 85, hard cap at 95
>>16784096around 115 seems about right. The most intelligent woman I ever knew was a solid midwit.
>>16784110wasn't there an image showing that her git commits were just making it look pretty or something
>>16784096
>>16784436so above 130 there are roughly twice as many men as women?
we are not tapping into the potential of male intelligence because young boys are absolutely feral in the classroom compared to girls. if we made school strict again we'd see a huge resurgence of innovation. problem is schools elevate female mediocrity and suppress male genius because boys are being allowed to outwit teachers and get away with being shits while girls complete their schoolwork
OPs pic is the perfect example of what level of intelligence all human experts are truly. There are no intellectuals apart from me on this planet. Fucking spastics on this board as well, all equal to Cult of Passion spam.
hardcap of female iq is whoever she mates with.
>>16784096daily reminder that IQ is normalized around 100 IQ by definition.It DOES NOT measure intelligenceAn Intelligence Quotient score is an approximation of one's position on the normalized Intelligence Quotient distribution curve.There is no hard limit for how much a single statistic can deviate from the standard.IQ measures IQ, get that through your heads.And it adapts to your peers that you are being compared to, and the tests being used; it's not an absolute value.It's like trying to compare wealth using different currencies in different regions across distant points in time. It's quite a different context.I'd rather if my fellow humans had been gifted by chance and upbringing with intellectual curiosity and greater brainpower too, than be able to celebrate being ""superior"" in the context of vast slop. There are more ways to bring yourself up than by pushing others down~read:Measure TheoryCentral Limit Theoryhuman intelligence (undefined)
>>16784314yes, but so what? she designed the algorithm, implementation was delegated to the codemonkeys
>>16784447>OPs picI was just looking at name root meanings so here we go;>"Yosha" has Sanskrit origins meaning "girl" or "young woman".>In Hebrew origins it means "God saves" or "salvation". I find it interesting that "young girl" would Evolve into "salvation/God saves" for Hebrew...mayhaps has something to do with Matrilinian descent.>The surname "Iglesias" is Spanish and means "churches". >all equal to Cult of PassionBeing the "Measure of Hue-Mankind"; All are equal, but some are more equal than others.https://youtu.be/9sNCetw9kbk
>>16784096This is the weirdest /sci/ meme ever. Even ignoring historical accomplishments, surely most people in STEM have female classmates and professors that are definitely much much smarter than them. If anything, there is no great black scientists or mathematicians.
>>167840962.5-3× whatever the male hardcap is.So, 212.5-255 or so.Why?
>>16784516No, every female on my courses is a fucking moron who can't do math (lecturers included)
>>16784587Don’t go to mickey mouse university.
>>16784485>It's like trying to compare wealth using different currencies in different regions across distant points in time. It's quite a different context.economists do that all the time using the concept of purchasing power. stupid example.
>>16784589NTA. I went to waterloo and uoft for undergrad and grad school and same story. Those schools are almost assuredly higher ranked and better than all but a few of the schools you have even heard of.
>>16784516>This is the weirdest /sci/ meme ever.Agreed. The smartest human I ever met was a young woman who could pick up any skill with ease. She knew history, poetry, calligraphy, picked up German in a month or two, in addition to doing a Physics postdoc. People like that are so far ahead you really wonder how it is possible.
There's no "hard cap", but their bell curve for PIQ has a much lower mean.
>>16784607it's a /sci/ meme because at large women are simply not present at the highest levels. Exceptions exist and it's retarded to pull a midwit move and deny and reduce female accomplishement when it is real. Just as midwitted to look at an overwhelming trend of, lets say, asian women are short and then blog about how you know a 6' chinese woman and how could anyone be so dumb to think they are short. Reality is female achievment in science is feasible to catalog and count because it's so incredinly sparse to white european male achievement. Cope about it how you will.
>>16784101>the Polgar sisters were homeschooled from the age of 3 to do nothing but excel at chess by their father, a chess teacher who was running a social experiment on his own children>She is the only woman to be ranked in the world top 10 (and one of only three to make the top 100), the only woman to achieve a rating of over 2700, and the only woman to compete in the final stage of a World Chess Championship. [she finished last among 8, once]And by the way, she's Ashkenazi, of course, like her fellow prodigy sisters.Too bad Laszlo had no sons, it would have been funny to see how far that one would have gone.
>>16784314she only did 2.3% of the fucking work... even Grok will confirm this: >In summary, Bouman's "actual % of changes" is approximately 2.33% based on lines added, aligning with the figure you mentioned—but this is widely regarded as an incomplete measure. Her true impact, per collaborators like Chael, was far greater, enabling the black hole image through innovative algorithms. For deeper dives, see the repo's contributor graph or EHT papers (e.g., Bouman et al., ApJ Letters, 2016).Why Grok feels the need to sugarcoat this cold hard fact with 'muh everyone gets a trophy bullshit'? who the fuck knows.
>>16784441If you consider 1.839:1 to be roughly double, yes.
>>16784598I did not deny that this occurs, only that these are not true objective comparisons insofar as such a thing can exist. The farther apart in time and space, the less meaning those statements have.Of course Foreign Exchange markets make use of such conparisons and they are USEFUL which is more important than anything else. That is different than for example: putting a 2025 USD value on Shaka Zulu's empire.. It gets the idea across but don't mistake it for anything other than an approximate relative comparison >needless insult>appeal to the expertsif economists jumped off a bridge, wouldye change yer fate too?
>>16784598CPI wasn't invented until the rise of the Federal Reserve. Everything you think you know about economics is a jew trick. It is not science. It is a lie. Look at those big numbers while your countries are mass invaded and communists are killing your whole nation.GDP GDP GDP UP. Now cut off your penis if you're not a chud.
>>16784314>an image showing that herit's all the usual tricks from the destroy-western-civilization playbook
>>16784314if I remember,her contributions included (but were not limited to) updating files containing large amounts of raw data or some such in .json files.. of course GitHub or whatever will show a larger amount of lines of code atrributed to her if she's the one being assigned to do that under he credentials.Compare that to someone who works on the core logic of the application and may have less raw lines of code across their git commitsLines of Code is not a great metric for representating productivity or individual impact, especially having no further context as to was assigned to do what in the team effort, and if commits do accurately represent physical work done by a single person or if perhaps some credentials were overloaded and used by multiple people (it's even easy to do by mistake). Nor is there enough information here to assert that it was done with the consideration of "making her look good", and consider whether that should even matter in the case that she had a tiny but significant impact being publicly amplified by commenters like (You) and I
>>16784096There has not been a recorded case of a female cognitive proficiency equivalent to those found in James sidis or Gauss as early prodigies, has there?
>>16784096>What is the hardcap for female IQ?90 on a good day, it seems to me.And we must be nearly that stupid because we let them vote.
>>16784788>we let them voteOnly for the last 100 years which begs the question how and why did male simps gain the upper hand for the first time in the long history of our species around 1920? Our male elders knew what a retarded idea it was to give women the right vote for the last 100,000 - 300,000 years; wtf changed a 100 years ago? What gave male simps an evolutionary advantage for the first time our species' existence?
>>16784797One consequence of our problem-solving ability is that we have made it a LOT easier for retards to survive and thrive whereas they used to die out while still quite young.
>>16784721Emmy noether and Marie curie
>>16784618he planned to adopt an African child and coach him in chess to the same extent. now THAT would have been something to see.
IQ isnt an ico
>>16784443There's zero incentives for boys k-12. Girls thrive on the head pats from adults and good report cards. If you want to motivate boys you'd have to give them something real in exchange for grades. Money. Study from home privileges instead of having to come in. Access to better after school jobs. An extra month of summer break. Something that gets him dates and makes him powerful or wealthy relative to the other boys. Not something that gets him shoved in a locker for "sucking up" to the teacher. Just giving a boy good grades is actually a punishment in some circumstances.
>>16784096IQ isn't accurate in general, but it's especially inaccurate at the tails, by it's own admission. Talking about "IQ hardcap" anything is nonsense
>>16784608The covariance of g is undefined for group comparisons
>>16784800antibiotics and haber-bosch process are primary causes?
op posting about iq on sci just outted himself as a layman
>>16784802Whether they can be put forth as proportional in pure cognitive capacity to James sidis and Gauss is in reasonable doubt, the data is affirming of an assymetry in distribution between men and women, when in consideration of IQ where male deviation from the mean is substantially higher.
>>16784622She did the most important 2.3% though.
>>16784652> does this look like the LinkedIn profile of someone who made a huge breakthrough algo?Yes, absolutely. Academics don’t make much use of LinkedIn and tend to have a cursory presence there. What a dumb fucking image.
>>16784988>the data is affirming of an assymetry in distribution between men and women, when in consideration of IQ where male deviation from the mean is substantially higherthat's nonsense, see >>16784866
>>16784436It's that simple. Males have more variance. Also arguably females are less likely to be autistic/obsessed enough to be great at chess. In combination, these factors make it very unlikely a female will be the greatest chess player at any time, or even top 10.
>>16785452>males have more varianceit's not just that, males are simply smarter too. If they were only higher variance but otherwise equal, you'd see males having a significantly higher ratio in the low IQ categories, but even at the >70 and >80 level the ratio is a mere rounding error away from equality, meanwhile the ratio is already over 1.2 in favor of males above 110 IQ.It's not counted but the data implies 572,494 males at or below 70 IQ vs 511,123 females, a ~61k difference, but there are ~731k more men than women above 130 IQ at the other end of the curve.
>>16785478OK, sure, the mean is slightly different too.
>>16785452>>16785478>>16785492How many times do you retards need to have it hammered in? IQ test issuers literally state "buyer beware, not valid for measuring groups, only individuals, and preferably individuals close to IQ 100"
>>16785657
>>16785657Then, how come there are millions of IQ studies on groups? Are the tens of thousands of researchers all incorrect, but you're right?
>>16785025how's the weather in tel aviv?
>>16784503>designed the algorithmSynthetic aperture has been a thing for a while (1951)What part of the algorithm was new? The use case was new, I guess. Synchronizing observations across the globe was the hardest part. Maybe atmospheric noise/distortion was a new ingredient. The AI shit that tagged along was strange.If nothing was really new computationally and it was just an implementation feat, shouldn't the implementors get more credit?They got their woman in STEM and a black hole "picture" for the woke news so who cares.
>>16785677>woman in STEM
No hard cap, just lesser variance. An IQ (extremely high or low) that shows in in one in a million men will show up in one in several million women>>16784622The mere fact you defer to an AI on this (or any) subject in any way (on /sci/ of all places) is embarrassing
