It's pseudoscience isn't it?
>>16857912low iq cope shut the fuck up
>>16857916It's just astrology for men.>Finns and Estonians are the smartest despite never accomplishing anything in history ever>Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats have wildly different avg IQs despite being genetically the same>same for Czechs and Slovaks
>>16857912In and of itself, no. Look up the history of it. It was originally meant to sort people for academic skills. It measures your ability to survive in the academic system, which has correlations with job success, relationship success, and other things.However, the correlation to those other things is not 1:1. There are MANY FACTORS TO CONSIDER that influence your job success, relationship success, and so forth. IQ does not even play the largest factor. I have never once seen a study that shows IQ to be the primary factor in determining anything about your future. People wildly exaggerate the importance of your IQ score to imply like you should kill yourself or some other stupid trolly meme shit. Just ignore all of that. THAT is the psuedoscience, not the test itself.
>>16857912Yes, it's astrology for incels.
>>16857912the CIA actually tried to invent a personality typology based on IQ scores back during the MK Ultra era.I'm not even making this up, it's called the Personality Assessment System.https://www.pasf.org/
>>16857932TL;DR, the hypothesis is that, you're born with certain biologically deterministic strengths and weaknesses which are what determine your IQ. As you enter into society, you quickly learn that you need to compensate for your lack of natural intelligence in various areas. How well you do this is what determines whether you become a well-adjusted adult, or you fall apart and become a dysfunctional mess.
>>16857912Why?
>>16857920>Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats>Genetically the sameShut the fuck up, ignorant American.Fucking shut up.
>>16857912Literally nobody on the planet actually knows what IQ.You all like IQ because you want to put a number to your intelligence so you can quickly dismiss any difficult thoughts.Meaning, you want some objective reading of your own intelligence, which is actually a complex and complicated thing.>My number is bigger than yoursThat's why you "people" like IQ so much.An IQ test is usually a pretty dumbass test too, like the questions on the real IQ test are things like "how many legs do five chickens + 3 cows have". Like that's what the official IQ test is. And then you get a "number" based on that. It's a meaningless number.Then the kind of religious fairy tale manner of people like to assign fake IQ scores to intelligent people, like they'll make up Einstein's IQ based on how smart they thought he was, even if it's not his real IQ. The IQ is a failed attempt at assigning a number to something complex and difficult to assign a number to really. Lol.
>>16857912then go ahead go study and ace an iq testyou should get 200 points easyyou can do it, right?
>>16858123>The IQ is a failed attempt at assigning a number to something complex and difficult to assign a number to really>yet millions of people got the same number across their lives over multiple testskekiqlet cope
>>16858130>A test is consistent.Okay, lots of tests are consistent across people, like the personality test.But does that really mean that the number is a good measure of your "intelligence."I'll let you know I do good on IQ tests but I'm retarded, so how do you explain that then.I've taken the tests before and it's just retarded questions like how many legs does one chicken + one cow have. It's 6, that's easy, does it mean I'm smart now? No.Like how is this test meaningful, look at the questions on there, there's not much that's actually intellectually challenging on the test.It's also a timed test with a time limit.The faster you go the higher your score. If you take a long time to count the legs on chickens and cows you get a low IQ.Lol.
>>16858132People like you, who are obviously unintelligent, always score low. I've confirmed this dozens of times. That means IQ tests reflect at least something about intelligence. Cope with it.
>>16858135Ok, then, I guess I am smart after all then because I do good on the IQ test thanks, that's my takeaway, lol.
>>16857916It's not low IQs who keep making these threads over and over again. It's midwits who grew up being told they were genius by the sea of average people around them. Their entire self image imploded once they got to university and discovered they weren't remarkable, just somewhat above average. Some adjust to this but others, mostly those with no other interesting qualities, are scarred for life, going on an endless rampage against the concept that destroyed their core identity as a genius.
>>16858123>You all like IQ becauseLOL at the tourist. IQ threads are 99% raging against the concept. We get it. You thought you were special. As a child you were told you were special. Now you're an adult and completely unremarkable with no accomplishments so you lash out at those you think are looking down on you but really never actually notice you until you start attention whoring. >as correlations with job success, relationship success, and other things.It's actually highly correlated but you already knew that and decided to lie to see if you could get away with it. You'll try again in the next thread and the one after that and the one after that. You'll endlessly sea lion, in desperate hope that by "winning" a thread while people aren't paying attention, it will somehow alter reality and you can get your destroyed self image back. You'll never accomplish anything in life as long as you're consumed with envy for those more intellectually developed than you.
>>16858136>I do good on the IQ testMaking that claim in this context is a definite sign of your low IQ and more generally, it's interesting to note that low-IQ "skeptics" almost always lie about their IQs, which in and of itself is a tacit concession of the true motives behind their denial.
>>16857912>iq is a scam!>go ahead then try to increase your score>ugh ugh nuh ugh s-s-shut up! shut up@ shut up! *angry monkey noises*This is every debate about IQ ever.
>>16858154Um, sweaty? I can't because I'm already 160 IQ, like all IQ deniers.
I hope not or my iq of 124 will be worthless.
>>16858154How does that prove IQ isn't a scam?
People like IQ because they want to feel intelligent because they have a big number despite having no meaningful accomplishments.We also cannot verify anyone's IQ in this thread so you can just accuse anyone you do not like of having a low IQ without any means to verify it lol.
>>16858173Your belief system implies the test is just a collection of random, trainable skills. Someone intelligent like you should be able to master them. :^)
>>16858180Those geniuses who get into Ivy League schools at 16 never make any Einstein level discoveries lol.
>>16858180Who's to say "intelligence" is something that can be measured and expressed numerically?
>>16858183>>16858184I don't care. Your belief system implies the test is just a collection of random, trainable skills. Someone intelligent like you should be able to master them. How come this never happens? :^)
>>16858190Whether one can master it or not, it's still a pseodoscience
>>16858190I'm not gonna learn a bunch of party tricks like a dog lol.
>>16857912I’ve met people with IQs of 104 who were exceptional in their fields, and individuals with IQs over 140 who were either too autistic or prone to developing mental illnesses that would have been considered crazy in the past. When we successfully develop a method to objectively measure a person’s brain weight, that will be the gold standard for individuals with high intelligence. I guess.
>>16858195>>16858197Concession accepted. If your opinions were valid, one of you pseuds would have been able to demonstrate it in the manner I described. In fact, people way smarter than you have tried it, with no major improvement.
>>16858207>I’ve met people with IQs of 104 who were exceptional in their fieldsI'm sure you've met some very impressive fry cooks.
My problem with IQ is that everyone lies about it.Even if I scored a high IQ everyone would just say I'm lying and they'd then self-impose a low IQ on me based on their own guess.The IQ test is literally just strangers online guessing your IQ score. None of you even care about what someone's real IQ score is.You make up your own IQ score and then you just dismiss everyone you disagree with and you claim they have a low IQ without even knowing their IQ.That's why you like the IQ so much, because you can just pretend anyone you don't like has a low IQ without even knowing their real score.If you are talking about IQ as "the number I made up in my head to dismiss you as unintelligent" then yeah I can see why you love the concept IQ scores so much. It is a tool that allows you to discredit anyone you don't like and arbitrarily label them as low IQ because you disagree with them. Including when you have no knowledge of their actual IQ score.Lol.
>>16858226The way you're obsessed with discussing "my IQ", "your IQ", "proving my IQ", "questioning your IQ", etc. as opposed to discussing the concept confirms >>16858150
>>16857920>>Finns and Estonians are the smartest despite never accomplishing anything in history everWhat makes you think smart people would want to accomplish anything that you or anyone but themselves deem noteworthy?
>>16858233Smart people have figured out thousands of years ago (and probably much earlier) that there is nothing whatsoever to "accomplish".
>>16858233Because the concept of IQ is used politically to explain why blacks and browns haven't contributed much
>>16858241Wrong. It's used to explain why they're incapable of contributing anything in principle.
You can't simultaneously believe retards exist and and think iq is fake. Ive worked with enough morons to know iq is real.
>>16858251But how do you measure it accurately, that's the problem.Are timed tests of "this" nature really the best way to determine if someone is "smart." Do you think it's possible for someone dumb to figure this out, and do you think it's possible for someone smart to not figure this out? Is this kinda shit really the best way to rate intelligence? IQ is a test, it's literally a test of this nature, and it's timed. Faster = higher IQ.Lol.
>>16858258Why is number shit supposed to be a factor of measuring intelligence, but e.g. managing to get a girlfriend isn't?
>>16858258>Do you think it's possible for someone dumb to figure this out,How dumb?>do you think it's possible for someone smart to not figure this out?Only if he lacks the background to even understand the question.
I genuinely believe nobody in this thread has ever taken an IQ test before.Intelligence is the concept of some people being smarter than others.Intelligence Quotient is your score on the official Mensa Norway IQ test, which is an exam officially made by this company to rank your intelligence. That's their GOAL at least.Here is an official practice exam created by them if you want to actually put your money where your mouth is and take the test. It is 35 questions and all questions are just pattern recognition problem,https://www.mensa.org/mensa-iq-challenge/#testI got 107 which makes me a midwit apparently but I really think if I took it again I could have done better or worse. Go ahead and see if you have a higher IQ than me. I also think IQ is a scam by the way. Lol.
>>16857912It's not "pseudo"science but it's just boolean algebra, i don't get why it should represent your intelligence
>>16858258A few morons could slip through the cracks and get this right, but ive watched people fail to solve easier problems like this when money was on the line.
>>16858272>I got 107>on the meme Mensa online testThat means you're a ~90 in reality just like your retarded rhetoric suggests.
I just want to educate everyone that Intelligence and IQ are not the same thing. Intelligence is just the general concept that some people are smarter than others.Intelligence Quotient is an alleged quantifiable measure of intelligence that is based on this test created by a company.This test I linked in my previous post is just a practice exam and not an official one, but it's made by the official IQ company.>>16858272So don't make this a false dichotomy and say that if IQ doesn't exist it means Intelligence doesn't exist. They are not dependent concepts. The concept of intelligence can exist without IQ.>>16858281>You got 107 that means you're 90.Okay retard. What did you get?Lol.
>>16858282>I just want to educate everyone >>16858272>I got 107>on mensa.org/mensa-iq-challenge/#test
>>168582584/6/9 - April 6th 20096/14/6 - June 14th 20061027 days.The next number is 8 because the next sequence is 8 - something - 3
>>16858298>trying this hardWhat is it with sub-115s always getting philosophical about elementary things?
>>16858154I just memorized the answers to the mensa online IQ test and now my IQ is 260
>>16858245>Wrong. It's used to explain why they're incapable of contributing anything in principle.Different words to mean the same thing. Dumbass tried to sound smart and failed spectacularly. You are probably Finnish.
>>16858322You're an actual imbecile getting filtered by basic reading comprehension even after another anon gives you a huge hint.
>>16857912If IQ is a pseudoscience because it measures a complex phenomenon in a basic way, then taxonomy and time are also pseudoscientific.Almost everything concerning abstraction, classification, and stability would also be considered pseudoscientific.Are you sure you want to go down this path, Anon?
>>16858338Another retard trying defend his comrade. The anon I replied to says;>It's used to explain why they're incapable of contributing anything in principle.Unless the people are Finnish or Estonian then;>smart people don't accomplish anything because they choose not to.You are the imbecile that lacks basic reading comprehension. Probably another Finnish retard defending his peer.
Strange how these threads only get bumped at certain times of the day, every day, like clockwork.Almost as if it's the same person or small group of people who obsess over this shit, while the rest of us don't fucking care because we're not retards.
Where i found that image buddy?it's that true?
>>16858352>mentally ill retard spouts incoherent drivel because it can't tell the difference between not wanting to do X and not being able to do X
>>16857920are you retarded? thats their g
>>16858435This is how you logic reads:>Bro, am the fastest man alive.But you haven't won't any any gold medals(accomplishments) or have any evidence to back your claim.>Nah, I just don't want to show evidence but I am still the fastest man alive. Trust me bro.Don't worry bro, I believe you because you are white(Finnish/Estonian)>Bro I am the fastest man alive.But you haven't won't any any gold medals(accomplishments) or have a physical evidence to back your claim.>Nah, I just don't want to show evidence but I am still the fastest man alive. Trust me bro.Haha... you can't provide any evidence. You(Black/brown) are low IQ subhumans.This how you sound you over-grown retarded monkey. Go back to /pol where you belong.
>>16858621*haven't won any
>>16857912Correlates too much to real life success.
>>16857912You take glorified IQ tests to go to college (SAT), get into the military (ASVAB), and you even take an IQ test in the NFL (Wonderlic). When you enter employment, sometimes they make you take tests like the Wonderlic. If you wonder what those longer interview tests are, they're just disguised IQ tests like those.
>>16858130>iqlet copeNope, the fact that you can practice and improve over time or that IQ tests need to be kept secret to keep working means it isn't testing some kind of inherent intelligence factor, but ones ability to take standardized tests.
>>16858180>Someone intelligent like you should be able to master them.There are numerous classes that teach students how to do better on IQ tests and other standardized tests, its not only possible, its a cottage industry.
>>16857912this is a category erroriq is a metric with with science can be done
>>16858347>taxonomy is pseudoscientificBiological taxonomy is fucking definitely pseudoscientific. There's no such thing as a "taxonomist", no taxonomic theories and their developments, no taxonomic models with predictive power. There are only insanely bureaucratic international """""""commissions""""", registered in literal tax havens, staffed and dominated by braindead nepobaby zogbots, enforcing several varieties of deeply dysfunctional, contradictory and fully arbitrary taxonomic conventions. They all only exists because actual biologists who discover and describe new species and patterns in living organisms and their populations, naturally being deeply fucking autistic themselves, get into shitfights with these zogbots, giving them recognition and legitimacy, which is then used to siphon resources from international conservation programs and charities. Nobody in the entire fucking field with actual pubs, grants, theories or discoveries sees them as human, much less actual scientists. It's like if you were a physicist and fucking ISO people had the final say on what kind of baryon you just discovered. t. PhD in population genetics
>>16858654>There are numerous classes that teach students how to do better on IQ testsAnd they all come out in the 140-160 range, I bet. No?? Barely a 5 point increase? What gives?
>>16857912>IQ isn't real>That ADHD test though created by a pharma giant to sell addictive stimulant drugs is totally real.>HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY CLEARLY MADE-UP DISEASE.It's a religion, isn't it? And anyway, you're not supposed to believe in IQ because black Americans consistently score lower than white Americans.
>>16858731Wrong, you should try to research instead of making dumb bets with yourself, you would see people have demonstrated nearly 30 point increases with practice and its diminishing returns since the IQ curve is designed to be an exponential function that quickly drops at the extremes.
>>16857912What it actually is does not live up to the public perception of what it is. The parts of test batteries where some people try to argue there is a genetic factor (fluid intelligence) are also the parts that dont correspond well to our everyday undestanding of what intelligence is.The classic example is that fluid intelligence scores tend to peak at age 18, which is an embarrassing mismatch with what we usually consider intelligent. So if the argument is "africans and women have lower IQ scores, that proves they shouldnt be allowed to run things" then yeah that's a pseudoscientific statement.
>>16858711>Biological taxonomy is fucking definitely pseudoscientific.here we go, also numbers are pseudoscientific because there is no numbers in the nature and there are a lot of dysfunctions in mathematical theories, gets rid of them too.Why do we even have sciences, let's just meditate on nature without any labels and terms instead, and words are unscientific so why use them too!Ultimate science, nothing is discussed, we just sit around the campfire and meditate on the nature without using any labels, abstractions, numbers and other pseudoscientific useless stuff. Liberation from all social contructs.
>>16858743>People who violate the conditions of the test get better scores than people who don't.Wow, that's an amazing discovery you made there.
>>16858736You seem to be arguing with the people in your head. Get well soon.
Interesting thread, will add my thoughts:I define intelligence as a quality each human being possesses (I will not elaborate because I do not have to). I claim that there is some innate component of intelligence: my evidence is that in nature, people reach different levels of cognitive achievement that cannot be explained by non-innate factors. Einstein made General Relativity, but some never make it past the 5th grade. I then claim that this innate component of intelligence is a random variable in the probabilistic sense: I map each person in the population onto a number which measures their innate component of intelligence. By the Central Limit Theorem, as I take bigger and bigger sample sizes, the sample mean of the distribution of this random variable will approach a standard normal distribution.The standard normal easily maps onto how IQ is now calculated, as a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.So an IQ score is a mathematically rigorous metric for the innate component of human intelligence. Therefore, it is not pseudoscience.For some reason a lot of people in this thread seem to not know this…
it was intended to evaluate the intelligence of French school students in order to better accomodate for them relative to their scoring based on the metric, but was later on utilized for other purposes. It is by all means not even close to being holisitic. there are multiple distinct intelligences if you will and this thing and its queries that of which pertains to primarily the facets of the mind which are to contribute to the individuals ability to actually not use a calculator for the most trivial shit and the ability to find the best matching liberal art students monstrosity relative to another one.in other words the ability to NOT be retarded. which doesn't sound like a much of a high standard doesn't it? besides you can practice to get gud @ it if that turns you on so much, FAGGOT.
IQ is a good thing, as well as specialized IQs, this is how we try to understand and define intelligence.People with extremely low IQ struggle to brush their teeth or tie their shoelaces, so that parameter is good for classification, the question is how big the error is. But the answer lies in the definition of intellegence itself, the better (narrower) we define it, the easier it will be to measure.Also, narrow defined intelligence becomes kinda less sensitive in political sense. Because now instead offending someone being less human, you just tell them that they are bad in one field.
>>16858347>pseudoscience because it measures a complex phenomenon in a basic wayThis is not how you define scientific vs pseudoscientific. Gravity can be measured with a simple pendulum.
>>16858807>here we go, also numbers are pseudoscientificYou were given specific reasoning and arguments, do you have anything other than an ad absurdum to address those?>Why do we even have sciences, let's just meditate on nature without any labels and terms insteadNobody said that labels or terms should not exist. It was said that juggling labels and terms is not a science. There is a science of labels and terms, it's called linguistics, But it turns out that it, like all other actual sciences, is full of math, data, patterns and complex models. Brainlets can't do that, so they don't do that - taxonomy includes zero linguistics, or any other scientific content.
>>16859294Couple points: 1): you evince the claim that >there is some innate component of intelligence with a further claim that > in nature, people reach different levels of cognitive achievement that cannot be explained by non-innate factorswhile failing to provide evidence for _this_ claim, and also failing to relate "intelligence" to "cognitive achievement", "level of primary education", or "contribution to theoretical physics" - the latter of which I find particularly strange as you had the opportunity to define intelligence however you wanted set yourself up to be correct later just by construction and actually forewent that privilege! Very strange. However, the deeper issue with this claim is that you have not demonstrated to what I personally would regard as a sufficient degree that, had the struggling 5th grader and Einstein himself lived each other's lives, this innate component of the quality they both possess would meaningfully aim them towards the cognitive achievements they reached living lives of their own.2): let's put all that behind us and accept your claims. Then, let's say the actual measurement technique we deployed to ascertain the innate component of peoples' intelligence was "measuring the vertical distance they could jump from the ground, using a yardstick". Naturally, the rest of your post remains true in this case - sure, we'd need to scale the measurements but it's not like IQ tests ask 200 questions! but I think even you would be hard-pressed to justify the relationship between the innate component of cognitive achievement and the "mathematically rigorous metric" we are using to measure itIn any event, thanks for your thoughts! Eager to see more of them :)
>>16859845Thank you for the reply.I don't think my argument was given very well. I will have to defer to others.Please watch this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0&t=517s). As Peterson mentions, an early adopter of cognitive testing was the US military. They currently don't accept anyone who scores below a 31 on their cognitive test, the ASVAB.Peterson states a justification I agree with: this cutoff is out of absolute necessity. The US military wouldn't refuse people unless they had to. So cognitive testing has a basis: the US military uses it to filter applicants. We can call these cognitive tests "IQ tests", which measure something we call "IQ". As to your second point, I agree that it's not easy to define what a "good cognitive test" actually is. The ASVAB is a good example, but Raven's Progressive Matrices is perhaps better, as it is just pattern recognition.Do you still believe IQ is pseudoscience?
Some people just seem to take it too seriously or strongly interpret the scores. It's a rough estimate of mental performance based on an average result. Also people have different strengths and weaknesses. If someone excels at language comprehension or studying history, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will become an engineer, or vice versa.
There are obviously intelligence differences between humans, some tests measure them more clearly than others.
>>16858258>Do you think it's possible for someone dumb to figure this out, and do you think it's possible for someone smart to not figure this out?Not on expectation. Such a test item would not correlate with the underlying factors we're interested in, and so you'd get rid of it.
>>16858621>have any evidence to back your claim.You mean except for those massive leg muscles and performing well on the leg quotient test? Either way, you shat the bad by demonstrating your lack of basic reading comprehension and now you're desperately flailing to save face.
>>16858743>people have demonstrated nearly 30 point increases with practiceNo, they haven't, as clearly evidenced by your failure to provide any such properly documented cases. You also won't provide them in your next post, just to prove my point further.
>>16858743>the IQ curve is designed to be an exponential functionYou're an absolute cretin who doesn't even know what a normal distribution is. You should not be on this board.
>>16860028g-loaded IQ tests don't allow for that either way. It's more a verdict on poorly carried out IQ meauring.
>>16860040See >>16860028>failure to provide any such properly documented cases. You also won't provide them in your next post, just to prove my point further.Your shillscript is well known.
>>16857912All social science with pretensions to quantification is pseudoscientific. Even physics had to contend with the fact that elementary concepts like position and momentum are not as simple and well-defined as it seems; the concepts of psychology and sociology are hardly ever sensible measurables, they are simply assumed to be in order to be able to actually do "studies", most of which are not replicable. It's busywork for superfluous academics.With intelligence, everyone who's ever solved complex problems knows how your performance is dependent on time, mood, interest, reasons to do it and many other variables. The idea that you can simply define a scale for that and place anyone on it is ludicrous. Reminds one of "happiness studies", and how the residents of Bumfucktown are 7.34 points worth of happy, within a sigma of the national average etc. Ooh so mathy, so sciency!
>>16857912IQ is among the most predictive and replicable concepts in all of social sciences.
>>16860074Science without quantification is pseudoscience. The rest of your post can be safely ignored.
>>16860074What do you believe your subpar performance at an assortment of cognitively demanding tasks indicates?
>>16860051It's a well-known fact in psychometrics that the g-load of IQ tests correlates positively with the stability of scores across time while minimizing outside influences. This can be read up in any book, presupposed no agenda is being pursued which seeks to invalidate IQ measuring for the sole purpose of a political doctrine.
>>16860158I know you think you're clever but what you're doing is completely transparent. Where all all these flawed, wasn't-a-real-g IQ tests that allow someone to gain 30 points through practice? I want to see a properly documented case of this happening.
>>16860128Ergo arbitrary quantification must make any field a proper science, right? >>16860129Being bad at those particular tasks. Like being bad at chess indicates being bad at chess. Nothing generalizable into such a high-level concept as "intelligence", to be sure.
>>16860236>Ergo ... Ergo everything you say can be readily dismissed.>Being bad at those particular tasks.What does this strange assortment of "particular tasks" you're bad at have in common? I know your pattern recognition and reasoning skills are extremely weak, but try hard for me. :^)
>>16860241Since you've already shown you're filtered by the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions, it's not surprising you'd want to "dismiss" what must seem like terribly complicated and confusing arguments to you.
>>16860250>you're filtered by the concept of necessary and sufficient conditionsI see that one really got under your skin and stuck with you. Don't be so sour. At least you learned something on that occasion. :^)Anyway... what does this strange assortment of "particular tasks" you're bad at have in common? I know your pattern recognition and reasoning skills are extremely weak, but try hard for me.
IQ is real. It is not a psuedoscience. However, there is a lot of psuedoscience surrounding it. It is not IQ itself that is false or fiction. It is all the implications that people assume correlate with it, many of which do, and many of which don't. The ones that don't are usually pretty obvious and a matter of common sense to dismiss, but people who are the same types to believe in astrology will cling to such claims. Meanwhile, the rest of us, who think objectively, realize that there is some truth to IQ testing, and there is some truth to the correlative data, but not all of it is accurate, and so you simply take what you read with a grain of salt, as you would with any other rapidly developing field of science.And especially with "soft sciences" like psychology, you ought to hold back your confidence and just observe how it plays out for now. You can bet on whatever horse you want, but being a prick about it is more about hiding from your own insecurity than it is about being right.
>>16860274Zero concrete, testable claims in this religious chant.
>>16860267>no ugot me with that clever retort. Very high IQ, prolly 150
>>16860274kys
>>16860300We both know what inspired you to blurt out that nonsense. It really got under your skin. :^)Anyway... what does this strange assortment of "particular tasks" you're bad at have in common? I know your pattern recognition and reasoning skills are extremely weak, but try hard for me.
>>16860303They're just random tasks. They have nothing in common besides being part of an IQ test. You're imagining patterns that aren't there, just like the pseudoscientists who came up with the tasks themselves.
>>16860309Kek. Surely, they must have something more in common since you're inadequate at all of them. Or I guess maybe you're just bad at taking IQ tests? But then why are you also bad at every STEM subject?
>>16860317>I guess maybe you're just bad at taking IQ tests?Yes.>But then why are you also bad at every STEM subject?Everyone tells me I have a real talent for the social sciences. The real kind, not the pseudoscience sort that tries to quantify everything.
Are you actually samefagging now, pretending to own me in a fictional exchange? How very very sad.
>>16860324>Everyone tells me I have a real talent for the social sciences. The real kind, not the pseudoscience sort that tries to quantify everything.iq denialism in the current year is basically a parody
>>16857920>never accomplishing anything in history everayyy lmao
>>16860324>I have a real talent for the social sciences. The real kind, not the pseudoscience sort that tries to quantify everything.???So, you're good at the pseudoscience one?
>>16857912You tell us. Pic related. Even half of their IQ is greater than anyone in this thread.
>>16860027Nah, you are a finnish retard whose country has produced nothing significant in Europe.You are trying so desperately to fit in with the smart kids(Brits, French, Germans, Italians, Russians).Despite your so-called high IQ, you have the same achievements as Blacks/Browns. (You have achieved NOTHING).You are proof that IQ is pseudoscience you fucking retard.
>>16860028Its been very well documented that ChatGPT has increased its IQ by significantly more than that over time, so your argument is BTFO.
>>16860749You are retarded if you think that's an arguement.
>>16860770No, you are clearly the lazy retard since you actively don't want to understand that IQ tests can be improved with practice because you are using that false belief to justify your lack of effort.
>>16860749>b-b-but ChatGPT...Ok. I accept your concession that there are no documented examples of humans improving significantly at IQ tests. I also accept your admission of being a 80 IQ retard who thinks applying human tests to machines is valid.
>>16860748>mentally ill retard keeps sperging out about Finns who are totally in the room with us right nowDon't care. Point still stands.
>>16860772>IQ tests can be improved with practiceYou're already conceded you can't show any cases of significant improvement, even though by your braindamaged logic, it should be trainable like any other skill with vast differences in performance between the fumbling beginner and the seasoned expert.
>>16860794I didn't concede that, its just that random test takers aren't actively being studied by science, so their "properly documented cases" will never be proper enough for people like you who actively don't want to accept the evidence being presented.
>>16860798>I didn't concede that,You just did it again by failing to provide what's requested. You will do it again in your next post. No evidence for your delusion exists because it's obviously false.
>>16860797No, you proved you can't do a basic internet search and you will dismiss any evidence that doesn't conform to your preconceived biases.
>>16860800No, you haven't even bothered to search on your own, so you will obviously just dismiss anything you find as not properly documented enough.
>>16860801>you proved you can't do a basic internet searchWhy do I need to do your "basic internet search" for you? Go do that basic internet search and come back with evidence for your belief. You won't because you can't because:1. You're a mongoloid who can't do a simple search2. Your belief is false and no evidence for it can exist
>>16860803Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to shit out dozens of replies elaborating on why you shouldn't provide evidence for your delusional beliefs instead of actually providing some and stopping me dead in my tracks. :^)
>>16860804>Why do I need to do your "basic internet search" for you?Because you will just dismiss it otherwise, if you don't do the work yourself and even then you won't likely won't accept it.>come back with evidence for your beliefPeople like you don't even accept wikipedia, there is no way you will accept some kid's blog that details his improvement or the anecdotal evidence compiled on search engine, but if you really want, just search for Naoimh Mallee,with the Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training (SMART) project.>>16860806Notice how you still haven't bothered to search on your own or you would have found numerous examples.
>>16860811Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to shit out dozens of replies elaborating on why you shouldn't provide evidence for your delusional beliefs instead of actually providing some and stopping me dead in my tracks. :^)
>>16860812The bot is broken.
>>16860812Notice how you can't even read well enough to see the evidence that was provided because you just want to bitch and whine.
>>16860814> see the evidence that was provided In your next post, quote the "evidence that was provided". You're actually, literally mentally ill. I can see now that you struggle with the concept of evidence in general. You have no idea what this word means.
>>16860815Notice how, even when given a second opportunity to see that Naoimh Mallee with the Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training (SMART) project was clearly cited as evidence, you can't search the larger internet or accept evidence that contradicts your preconceived biases.
>>16860817>see that Naoimh Mallee with the Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training (SMART) projectOk, but what about it? Man, you're actually disabled. I'm fully serious right now. Do you understand that name-dropping something you believe improves IQ doesn't demonstrate that it does?
>>16860818If you weren't an early model bot that is domain restricted to this site alone, you would be able to search the internet and know all about it and see how they raised their IQ nearly 30 points and documented the process over 12 weeks with that SMART project.
>>16860821Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to shit out dozens of replies elaborating on why you shouldn't provide evidence for your delusional beliefs instead of actually providing some and stopping me dead in my tracks. :^)Also see >>16860818
>>16860822Notice how the evidence is here, all you have to do is look into the name and organization I provided, but you can't even search to see their full breakdown that can't even fit in a single 4chan post.https://braintraining.svbtle.com/my-iq-went-from-120-to-148-in-12-weeksNotice how you can't go to sites outside of this domain to check the evidence for yourself and you have to keep using semantic gambits to get real people to spoonfeed prompts to you and you will be compelled to reply no matter how nonsensical and obviously ignoring the evidence that has been provided.
>>16860824>the evidence is here>https://braintraining.svbtle.com/my-iq-went-from-120-to-148-in-12-weeksYou're actually disabled. No two ways about it. Go do some "brain training" at least until you understand what the word 'evidence' means.Since you're obviously too dysfunctional to google your own slop, I did it for you:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212144723000327>We controlled for baseline levels of intelligence and attentional skills.>The SMART effect was replicated, but not after controlling for baseline intelligence or attentional skills.>Our results provide several key insights into research on SMART. On the one hand, we replicated the frequently observed effect that those in the SMART condition showed greater increases in IQ than those in the control condition. However, when digging deeper, our results painted a much murkier picture: the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.This will, naturally, stand as the only scientific evidence presented ITT. :^)
>>16860806>>16860811>>16860812>>16860814>>16860817>>16860822>>16860824>Notice how>Notice how>Notice howEven my extremely low IQ of about 80 (I have a PhD btw) is sufficient to recognize the pattern of extremely low quality schizoposting ITT. It is not sufficient, however, for figuring out what fucking point either of you is even trying to make, but I am entirely fine with never learning that.
>>16860830>my extremely low IQ of about 80At least you're honest. That makes you tolerable, unlike the SMART guy whose IQ is obviously similar.
>>16860826>Go do some "brain training" at least until you understand what the word 'evidence' means.The amount of brain training I do has no effect on Naoimh Mallee's 30 point increase, but thanks for conceding and proving that I was 100% accurate in predicting that you would just dismiss it since you are the type of person who doesn't even accept wikipedia as a source.>Results showed that there was a significant increase in IQ scores from baseline to follow-up for the intervention group only. I see you left out the important part about how the intervention group increased significantly.> appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.Which means your IQ tests aren't as good as you have implied at assessing baseline intelligence and you can get better at IQ tests by practicing which is why the IQ test manufacturers prefer to keep their tests secret.
>>16860832Ok. It's obvious at this point you're a hallucinating spam bot with no actual comprehension of what you're reading at all, let alone the ability to tell the difference between tabloid articles based on some woman's personal anecdote and a scientific study.Reminder:>We controlled for baseline levels of intelligence and attentional skills.>The SMART effect was replicated, but not after controlling for baseline intelligence or attentional skills.>Our results provide several key insights into research on SMART. On the one hand, we replicated the frequently observed effect that those in the SMART condition showed greater increases in IQ than those in the control condition. However, when digging deeper, our results painted a much murkier picture: the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.
>>16860833>Spam bots on my 4chan? HOW DARE YOU
>>16860833>>We controlled for baseline levels of intelligence and attentional skills.Which means the IQ tests aren't actually doing that because they can be gamed.>>The SMART effect was replicatedI accept your concession, it not only happens, but it is repeatable.> regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.Which means the IQ test itself could not actually determine baseline IQ and attention alone since it could be gamed by SMART.
>>16860835>Which means the IQ tests aren't actually doing that because they can be gamed.You're a mentally ill retard who can't do a google search, tell apart brain-training-products.com from a scientific journal, or even read properly. Of course you can't draw any rational conclusions. Reminder:> the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.>as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.>of baseline differences in IQ
>>16860836Yes which means they are saying the IQ test isn't measuring raw IQ, it is measuring some sort of attention biased IQ and you can game the IQ tests by learning what to pay attention to though practice over time.
>>16860837How likely is this to be the case for someone taking an IQ test?>but real life cases aren't...Unfortunately, you're a isinfo bot that deliberately drives up engagement of people with irrelevant points so as to deflect or gaslight people.Just admit the obvious; IQ testing isn't valid because it goes against the UN race equality dogma.
>>16860837I'm not even talking to you at this point since you're actually a 80 IQ drooling on your keyboard, but what the study says is that if you actually control for initial the difference between the groups instead of just assuming they're equal, the "effect" goes away.
>>16860838Its not likely if someone retarded enough to listen to you and avoid practicing, but it is likely for someone who practices and gets better at taking IQ tests to get rid of the attention and nervousness bias that has been documented to add up to 30 points.
>>16860840>someone who practices and gets better at taking IQ tests to get rid of the attention and nervousness bias that has been documented to add up to 30 points.>source:>https://braintraining.svbtle.com/my-iq-went-from-120-to-148-in-12-weeks
>>16860840AI gibberish.
>>16860839I accept your concession, I accurately predicted you would not accept the evidence and now that you have utterly failed to prove that IQ tests can't be gamed and improved with practice, you are taking your ball and going home.
>>16860843>retard who was clearly proven wrong and even his own links say you can significantly increase your IQ scores, but you will never accept it because it is contrary to your intuited false assumption
>claims practicing IQ tests gives you heckin' 30 point increase>spends ~15 posts explaining why I need to google evidence of this instead of him providing it>finally name-drops some meme training>posts no studies demonstrating its effectiveness>I google it for him>the inventors of the method in question disagree with him and do believe IQ measures intelligence>the closest thing to a scientific study in favor of the method indicates a ~7 point increase>completely in line with my initial position he's so desperately trying to refute>further study negates this simply by controlling for initial IQ differences between the test and control groups, showing a regression to the mean>turns out his source on a 30 IQ point gain is a woman claiming to have an IQ of 150 on a website that markets brain trainingThe absolute state of this board. Actual, drooling cretins post here...
>>16860845>I accurately predicted you would not accept the evidenceThe evidence:>https://braintraining.svbtle.com/my-iq-went-from-120-to-148-in-12-weeks
>>16860848>claims practicing IQ tests gives you heckin' 30 point increaseAnd it did for Naoimh Mallee>spends ~15 posts explaining why I need to google evidence of this instead of himNope, not only can you not count, if you would have actually googled it on the first post instead of negging for a bunch of posts, you would have come across Naoimh Mallee.>finally name-drops some meme trainingonly because Naoimh Mallee credited it for their 30 point increase and they were the one to name drop it>posts no studies demonstrating its effectivenessBecause I wasn't posting about studies I was posting evidence someone could increase their IQ test scores through practice>google it for himYou found a study that confirmed the method leads to significant increase in scores.>the inventors of the method in question disagree with him and do believe IQ measures intelligenceExcept your whole argument is that the study showed that the increase in test scores can be negated by taking it with respect to a baseline IQ rather than the tests.>completely in line with my initial position he's so desperately trying to refuteNo, your initial position was >>16858731 barely 5 points, so even that claim is off by half.>further study negates this simply by controlling for initial IQ differences between the test and control groupsIE the tests don't actually measure intelligence, you have to take a bunch of different tests and average them, but the individual tests can all be gamed if you know what to pay attention to.>a 30 IQ point gain is a woman claiming to have an IQ of 150 on a website that markets brain trainingAnd I completely accurately prediced that you would outright dismiss any anecdotes that don't conform to your biases even though the study you provided proves that a number of people had significant gains with practice.>Actual, drooling cretinsI know, right, why did you say you would accept the evidence and it would shut you up, but here you are?
>>16860853Yes direct first hand evidence that you refuse to accept just like you refuse to accept wiki links that disagree with your assumptions.
Does biological variance suddenly stop once it reaches the brain? Jesus Christ. Having a high mental capacity, or IQ, is not a guarantee you will think sensibly or be productive, either, even if IQ is quite possibly the best assessor we have for success. I’ve seen high IQ people waste away in their thoughts and doubts, while retards are so cocksure they actually get somewhere, however successful. Again, Jesus Christ, it’s not hard to see why the topic pisses people off, but you shouldn’t scream at nature like this.
>>16860826Additionally, my extremely low IQ (supplemented by basic bitch, primitive, ape-like troglodyte level skills such as using libgen) allows me to perform tedious, robotic tasks, such as actually reading scientific articles, and not just highlights or abstracts.. Having actually read the entire 2023 Roche et al paper linked above, my extremely low IQ allowed me to conclude that:>a period of SMART training did show increase in IQ test scores among children involved in the study>the sample of the involved children was insanely unbalanced regarding distribution of retards and non-retards between the control group and the SMART training group, which makes results inconclusive if we try and adjust for that>much more importantly, the sample itself was just, disgustingly smol, way the fuck below what would be considered robust, holy shit, who ever thought that you could conclude anything from just 32 kids your entire fucking chart is whiskersAdditionally, this was nowhere near the only publication concerning SMART training. But regardless of my extremely low IQ, I will not be goaded into writing a full review of the all the materials published in connection to the project and similar works for free, since (being a low-IQ knuckledragging cretin) I already do that for a living.
>>16860859>derp if you lie over and over while completely ignoring the truth, the lie becomes the truth
>>16860863Concession accepted: practicing regularly increases IQ scores.
>>16860865I don't even know which of the >Notice how schizoids you are, as my extremely low IQ prevents me from differentiating the patterns in your streams of insults.
>>16860863>80 IQ simply repeats my argument to me like he's teaching me something
>>16860866Already debunked>>16860856Repeated lies don't magically become truths.You can not refute the fact that Naoimh Mallee improved by 30 points and a bunch of people in the study had significant gains which completely disproved your claim that scores could barely be improved by 5 points.You were wrong, thanks for playing, if it makes you feel better you can copy/paste your debunked misconceptions again, but they will still be wrong, people can still make significant gains on IQ tests with practice, no matter how many mean names you call people who point this out or try to ignore the evidence of people increasing their scores significantly with practice.
>>16860867I am the one who won the argument by providing significant evidence that regularly practicing IQ tests can help you improve your IQ scores.
>>16860869Well, no, even my extremely low IQ doesn't stop me from pointing out that "your argument" consisted of two lines provided by ScienceDirect auto-generated highlights, and half a paragraph from the auto-generated snippet taken from the Conclusion section. Even with 80 IQ, I managed to notice that you never addressed the largest limitation of the study, tacitly sidestepped by the authors, that being the extremely limited sample size. I don't blame the authors btw, being an 80 IQ semi-humanoid ape I do the same all the time, perhaps Roche et al are fellow low IQ drooling hominids with Neanderthal physiognomies similar to mine. You also never pointed out that this is just one of the slew of publications concerning just this particular project, not to mention the problem, and both you and your opponent seem dead set on never quoting any of the large number of much more substantial and influential papers, such as works of Claudia Bartels or Lazar Stankov. Giving them a cursory reading, it does seem to a low IQ non-specialist (me) that the academic consensus on the issue of impact that training has on IQ testing is more complex than what either of you present or satirize as you pretend to have even lower IQ than me. This all somewhat diverges from your argument. It seems to me like most cognitive researchers agree that repeated, frequent test training does impact the scores, and quite substantially, but this effect can be accounted for in the methodology of how testing is carried out, but at the same time it is repeatedly pointed out that testing is basically never carried out in a consistent and reliable way when undertaken at a remotely substantial scale.
>>16860871>I am the one who won the argumentWho arbitrated that tho? It's just you two and me ITT. You guys have a bit of a conflict of interest regarding arbitration, not to mention you are both schizos. Meanwhile I am impartial, but also happen to be a lowbrow slow bloke with extremely low IQ, which might be detrimental for my capacity to determine the winner of this bout. In practice, it is a possible reason for why I can't see any winner, or even a coherent point being made across the entire discussion.
>>16860880Sounds like ChatGPT gibberish.
>>16860871Yes, you "proved" if one violates the conditions of the test, you can make the test invalid. Congratulations, you discovered cheating.
>>16860874>mentally ill paragraphsDon't care. Not reading any of this. The fact of the matter is that even a bare basic effort like controlling for initial differences between the groups makes the "effect" go away. That's the only scientific evidence of anything ITT and it goes against the claim of anyone gaining 30 IQ points from this crap.
>>16860891Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to shit out dozens of replies elaborating on why you shouldn't provide evidence for your delusional beliefs instead of actually providing some and stopping me dead in my tracks. :^)[Prompt generated by ChatGPT]
>>16860893Looks like I unironically mindbroke at least two different tards...
>>16860886>>16860893>>16860886>>16860891Please, I am not mentally ill or an LLM, I just have extremely low IQ and an actual academic career.
>>16860898100% mentally ill retard. Maybe if you repeat 10-20 more times how you have an "academic career" it will be real outside your mind as well.
>>16860899>100% mentally ill retard. Maybe if you repeat 10-20 more times how you have an "academic career" it will be real outside your mind as well.I only stated it once and implied it indirectly once more. It is highly likely that my extremely low IQ keeps me from noticing any other instances in which I might have implied it without my own awareness, but that would not be indicative of schizophrenic hallucinations, like the entire performative discussion you had with that other anon concerning a minor article that neither of you even read.
It doesn’t matter if IQ is real when it will never not piss off the mentally inadequate
>>16860901Not reading any of your deranged slop. Sorry.
>>16860918That is understandable, seeing as I have an extremely low IQ. Thank you for your time anyway and sorry if I said anything even more stupid than what should be naturally expected from someone with such a low IQ.
>>16860928>I have an extremely low IQ.Yeah. But even you managed to see how a bare basic effort like controlling for initial differences in IQ between the groups negates the effect of the "intervention". In that, you are more advanced than your fellow retard.
>>16860931> But even you managed to see how a bare basic effort like controlling for initial differences in IQ between the groups negates the effect of the "intervention". But anon, even someone as low IQ as me knows that the article in question doesn't state that between hypotheses "A" and "B" the sample issues mean that the answer is "B" instead of "A" which would be apparent without considering unbalanced sampling. The article in question states that the present sampling issues make outcome inconclusive, so the outcome is "we don't know if it's either A or B because the experiment was not conducted properly". I once again remind anyone present that I have a very low IQ, but even someone as low IQ as me is aware of the fundamental principles of a robust study.
You can let it be a positive, a negative or nothing Girl I know has 135 IQ but puts herself down and works a stressful job and applies great effort towards artistic goalsI'm sure her IQ is higher than mine yet I'm the one who has seen 30x returns on investments and holds off on many luxuries confident I'll have plenty of time to consider those laterIQ is a tool in your kit but deciding what you'll build and actually doing it are other important aspects of life
>>16860937>I have a very low IQIndeed. So low that you fail to see how making an alleged effect disappear by simply controlling for initial IQ differences between the groups undermines the validity of the effect. Like a typical 80 IQ, you mumble something irrelevant and preprogrammed line about low sample numbers, with no ability to explain how you've determined the sample number is too low to support the conclusion of the study.
>>16858123People might not understand it but it does seem to offer a vital clue in figuring out what the HELL is wrong with the blacks
>>16860948>with no ability to explain how you've determined the sample number is too low to support the conclusion of the study.Why, by doing something even someone as low IQ as me would be capable of. Namely, by reading the article in question, like page 194, Discussion:>"Our small sample size constrains the confidence one would have in any inferences drawn from such an analysis"Or page 196:>"However, the current study fell between two stools in neither providing a sufficient sample size and power to function as an adequate group design and the omission of single case experimental design techniques that would qualify it as a powerful small n design"And again the same page:>"Although we must interpret these null effects honestly and openly, it is also important to point out that a single null effect is not indicative of systemic failure of the SMART approach and theoretical model."Now I don't know shit, but can't help but feel like it would be an especially high IQ move to present a published paper and it's findings as a valid argument, and then try to argue against direct quotes from said paper.And even someone as low IQ as me would expect them high IQ people like you to know what "null hypothesis" and "null result" are supposed to mean.
>>16860887Ok, but if practicing was cheating, you should have just said so from the start instead of repeatedly falsely insisting that IQ test scores can't be improved by practicing IQ tests and demanding proof that people have improved their scores with practice instead of just asserting that practicing is cheating like you have done now.
>>16861351The sample size doesn't matter when the point was to prove that people COULD possibly improve their scores significantly, not that everyone WOULD consistently improve their scores with practice.
>>16861359I don't think that's what our high IQ friend meant that.
>>16861369It is, its why the IQ test manufacturers do their best to keep the content of the IQ tests a secret.
>>16861360>The sample size doesn't matter when the point was to prove that people COULD possibly improve their scores significantly, not that everyone WOULD consistently improve their scores with practice.But anon, even someone as low IQ and clinically retarded as me can understand that there is no question whatsoever regarding repeated testing leading to different IQ scores, which includes improved scores. People can improve their test results between two test due to an infinite fucking amount of factors. In the very study we see IDs 2 through 7 and and 9 through 15 in the test group and IDs 19, 21, 31 and 32 in the control group significantly improving their results. To disagree with that is to state that the same person would achieve precisely the same result on the same test even if he took it an infinite number of times, which is so stupid that even someone as low IQ as me would not make that claim.The problem with the study, as acknowledged by the authors, is that unbalanced sampling (the test group being made up exclusively from children who performed very poorly) meant that the signal form the effect of SMART training is lost in the noise of general score improvement which is typical for children who performed poorly but then take the test again. If the authors claimed (as you do now) that their hypothesis concerned only the possibility of improvement, then they could indeed disregard the sampling issues and claim the entire experiment as a total success that proves their hypothesis - the overwhelming majority of children who took SMART training did improve their results significantly, so it's possible, so hurray. Now you might mean that it was (you)r claim, not that of the authors, but that just makes it weird why would you use that - mostly irrelevant and questionable - paper as proof, instead of citing, I dunno, the much more impactful (a goriilion citations and the like) above-mentioned study by Bartles (10.1186/1471-2202-11-118) instead.
>>16861376>To disagree with that is to state that the same person would achieve precisely the same result on the same test even if he took it an infinite number of times,No, the discredited anon who disagreed clearly said that the scores would change, but specified that the top and bottom scores would barely be 5 points different. >>16858731>Now you might mean that it was (you)r claim, not that of the authorsNo, my claim was anecdotal, just citing one specific person who documented the process that took them from scoring 120 to 148 (notice, its not actually a very poor performance form the outset as you tried to assert), they were the ones that credited the SMART training, the other anon just tried to cherry pick a paper that debunked SMART training, but it still showed consistent significant improvement among the sample population.
>>16861351>someone as low IQ as me>I don't know shitOk. So as predicted, you have no explanation for how you've determined that the sample size was inadequate.
>>16861376>The problem with the study, as acknowledged by the authors, is that unbalanced sampling ... meant that the signal form the effect of SMART training is lost in the noise of general score improvementI like how you're replying to your own impotent sockpuppet with impotent paragraphs. I'm not gonna read any further than the quote above because you're already blatantly lying: what's acknowledged by the authors is that they made the effect go away by accounting for initial differences in IQ.
>>16861400>what's acknowledged by the authors is that they made the effect go away by accounting for initial differences in IQ.So you are saying that IQ tests don't actually measure IQ and you need some other test to assess baseline IQ and attention before administering an IQ test?
>>16861403Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to think using IQ tests to confirm that an IQ-increasing intervention is fake means:>IQ tests don't actually measure IQ
>>16861404No, I noticed how you said that IQ tests can't be said to accurately measure IQ unless a baseline IQ has already been established.
>>16861407>you said that IQ tests can't be said to accurately measure IQ unless a baseline IQ has already been established.Your psychotic illness caused you to hallucinate this, too.
It's all a Dick waving contest
>>16861410Nope, its exactly how you justify the increased scores, that the IQ test alone was not adequate in assessing IQ and a baseline IQ first needs to be established in order to account for any increase in scores in subsequent testing.
>>16861415>mentally ill retard simply can't grasp that if you want to measure an improvement, you need to measure a before and after for the actual subject instead of comparing him to another subject simply assumed to be equal
>>16861417>you need to measure a before and after for the actual subjectYes, the first test, then the second test. You are inserting a third baseline doping metric to dispel the increased score because the IQ tests themselves are no longer accurate if someone has practiced the methods contained in the test.>instead of comparing him to another subject simply assumed to be equalThat isn't what happened, though, each individual subject took the same test multiple times and got significantly better scores on subsequent tests that could only be mathed away by coming up with another baseline normalization factor to fudge the numbers with.
>>16861420>the first test, then the second test.Yes. > You are inserting a third baselineNo, you're just actually having a psychiatric emergency.
>>16861421>you're just actually having a psychiatric emergency.see>>16860826So why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test count to you if you aren't using some baseline function to reduce it back to the near the levels of the first test?
>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861425>Because it's only an "increase" relative to the control group.Yes that is how all IQ tests work, they compare your answers to the population control group with 100 set as the average. >If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. Yes that is why IQ tests metrics change over time because 100 is always set to the current populations average, averaging it again among a small group of people that specifically increased their scores by practicing is just further proof that IQ tests can be games with practice.>You are 100% a retard, You literally don't understand how IQ tests work since you clearly demonstrated that you didn't understand that individual scores are always taken relative to the overall population and further doping it with a population that has learned to game the IQ test just shows that the group as a whole improved their scores enough that taking it relative to the normal population IQ tests are calibrated to instead of only the test practicing population will signal a significant increase.Also remember when you said you would stop dead in your tracks >>16860812 if I showed someone who increased their score by nearly 30 points, yet here you are making more posts trying to cope with the fact that large groups of people have been trained to increase their scores, to the point you only want to consider them in the population control?
>>16861432>Yes that is how all IQ tests workI thought you were losing your mind but the more I think about it, the more I realize your posts bear all the hallmarks of a hallucinating LLM.
>>16861436Thanks for proving you don't know how IQ tests work and that 100 represents the average score of the population set.
>>16861437Thank you for proving that you're a hallucinating LLM shitting out incongruent token strings. >>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861439Nope, nothing incongruent about explaining how IQ tests determine 100 to someone who clearly doesn't understand.>Because it's only an "increase" relative to the control groupOk and if you only use everyone that scored 150 or higher as a control group instead of a bunch of people who improved, you will also shift your 100 dramatically and make it look like people who scored 150 are actually much lower, but that doesn't mean they didn't increase their scores significantly, it means you had to use completely different math than the IQ tests typically use to come to your conclusion.
>>16861444>mentally ill biobot doesn't know what the word 'incongruent' means>goes from incongruent to incoherent with even more nonsensical drivel
>>16861445Don't worry, tardbot, I didn't expect software that clearly doesn't even know how IQ tests determine 100 to be able to explain how a post is incongruent.
>>16861451>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861454>Because it's only an "increase" relative to the control group.No, its an increase based on the IQ tests, the control group is used to math away the increase that is common among the SMART participants. You are the one that doesn't understand IQ tests and clearly got filtered by a paper you yourself presented.
>>16861456>bot breaks even harder this timeTwo-three more posts and you'll be writing pure gibberish...>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861458>Two-three more posts and you'll be writing pure gibberish...You have been claiming posts were pure LLM hallucinated gibberish for far more than six-seven posts, dipshit.>Because it's only an "increase" relative to the control groupNo, its an increase relative to the overall population as represented by IQ tests, the control group is used to bring it back down.> If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups,Which IQ tests don't do, they account for the differences in the overall population, not just in some control group that also engaged with IQ test increasing programs and practice.>You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.You are too retarded to even understand how IQ tests calibrate a 100 score and why using a different control group than the overall population would result in massive changes.
>>16861466>mentally ill drivel about an alternate fantasy realityReminder:>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861475IQ tests aren't weighted with respect to control groups, they are weighted with respect to the overall population. If you weight it based on something than the overall population, you are doing completely different math than an IQ test measurement.Notice how you can't actually engage with the argument itself and you have to resort to deceptive rhetorical tactics because you don't even understand how IQ tests work or what 100 IQ means.
>>16861483>IQ tests aren't weighted with respect to control groupsChatbot starts hallucinating nonsense again. kek. I don't know why it's so funny to torture-test this thing.
>>16861487>Chatbot starts hallucinating nonsense again. kekNope, if you actually knew how IQ tests work, you would know they are weighted with respect to the overall population, not some control subgroup and you still can't actually engage with the arguments because you know you have been BTFO, so all you can do is repeat retarded lies that demonstrate that you know nothing of the topic and can't even explain what 100 IQ means.
>>16861488>they are weighted with respect to the overall populationThis has absolutely no bearing on the following:>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861490>This has absolutely no bearing on the following:It does since weighting it with respect to a control group of SMART participants rather than the overall population will drastically change the math.I see you still can't even explain what 100 IQ means and how using a control group instead of the overall population would drastically change the calculation.
>>16861492>mentally ill retard simply can't grasp that if you want to measure an improvement, you need to measure a before and after for the actual subject instead of comparing him to another subject simply assumed to be equal
>>16861493>you need to measure a before and after for the actual subject Yes and they took the test before and after the SMART training.>instead of comparing him to another subject simply assumed to be equalYet you somehow can't seem to understand that comparing to a control group of other SMART participants instead of maintaining the overall population comparison inherent in IQ tests is doing exactly that instead of consistently measuring with respect to the overall population.
>>16861499>they took the test before and after the SMART training.Yep, at which point the supposed "increase" went away. You can post hundreds more seething paragraphs and I will simply rub your face in this over and over again.Why are mentally ill imbeciles allowed to go online without their tradwrangler's supervision?
>>16861500>Yep, at which point the supposed "increase" went away.No, the increase went away when they weighed them with respect to a control group instead of the overall population. Remember at first glance, the IQs went up, it wasn't "murkier" until they used a control group instead of the overall population.
>>16861505>mentally ill biobot hallucinates againReminder:>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16861506>>mentally ill biobot hallucinates againNope, you are just retarded and can't remember your own posts.>>16860826>On the one hand, we replicated the frequently observed effect that those in the SMART condition showed greater increases in IQ than those in the control condition. However, when digging deeper, our results painted a much murkier picture: the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ and attention.Also remember when you said you would stop dead in your tracks >>16860811 if I could show you someone who increased by nearly 30 points, but even afterward, you made dozens of unhinged posts about hallucinations instead of engaging with the evidence and arguments?
>>16861507>the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQYeah.Reminder:>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away. How can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
>>16857912yes it is
>>16861512>Yeah.Thanks for the concession.You can repeat your lies again since it appears to make you feel better about being wrong.
>>16861516>mentally ill retard simply can't grasp that if you want to measure an improvement, you need to measure a before and after for the actual subject instead of comparing him to another subject simply assumed to be equalReminder:>>16861424>why doesn't the significant increase that comes in the second test countBecause it's only an "increase" relative to the control group. If you actually account for the initial differences between the groups, this "increase" goes away:>the apparent impact of SMART appeared to be driven primarily by a regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ>regression to the mean effect as a function of baseline differences in IQ>a function of baseline differences in IQHow can you keep getting filtered by this literally dozens of times? You are 100% a retard, in the objective, clinical sense.
