Is IQ a spook?

There are 17 million unaccounted for variables even when it's taken in children. It's not a science by definition.

It gets to be part of the useful on average but not provable "social sciences", like economics.

IQ measurement is 'test dependent' and 'population tested' dependent.

Different tests produce different results.

Each Intelligence Quotient is relative to the population tested and can only produce a ranked result relative to that population.

If you believe that identical IQ tests are rigorously applied to a statistically significant section of the world population. Good on you.

If not, then determine likely margin of error and exclude any untested population members from your claims to ranking.

By the time you have completed this task, I suspect you will either conclude the population is so small as to be meaningless, or that there are too many variables to control for worldwide and too large a budget needed to even approach relevance.

There are techniques to separate the result from environmental influences. Twin studies for instance.

You quite clearly know nothing about the subject. Stop embarassing yourself.

You're absolutely wrong, all tests measure the same quantity, g.

Do you get your information from Slate?

no it is not

Link me an article about somebody who believes they can separate the IQ test from all of it's variables, /pol/. I am thirsty for a good laugh.

You want me to link you to the entire corpus of psychometrics research?

You could start by reading the wikipedia article on g.

Moronic and yet so smug...

I really do deserve to be smug. Some guy on the internet is telling me you can take a non perimeter, make implications on a parameter and call it a science. I don't care how far your head is up your ass or the social science communities is, it's not a fucking science.

>In children on a mass scale. IQ on a single adult is literally their puzzle solving ability and does not denote intelligence.

According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[98] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[99] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[8] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[100] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[98] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[98] It is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

It is, in fact psychometrics is the most rigorous social science since it is essentially statistical analysis.

But please go ahead and remain an ignorant moron.

Stop polluting this thread with your hate facts, pol

I'm just saying definitions here. Hell i'm into finance and I respect contemporary social science discoveries more than actual contemporary science, although psychology will need to wait 100~ or so years before it has a big monetizable breakthrough.

>Hell i'm into finance
What are you, a janitor in the cafeteria?

Keep your "definitions" for when you know what you're talking about.

>still doesn't understand
Statistical analysis is social science. It's arguably more useful than actual science, but as long as it's statistics it cannot be objectively proven.

Yes, it's a social science. Doesn't detract from the truthfulness of its results.

>objectively proven
This is true, but do observations require to be objectively proven?

If a social science study shows that Japan has a longer life expectency than the USA, should we disregard that result because it cannot be "objectively proven"?

Wait 20 years until we discover which genes are responsible for intelligence. Then you'll have your "objective proof". If genetics satisfies your highness' criterias for scientific validity.

>It's arguably more useful than actual science

How so? Is it useful to a duck?

Height is heritable. But we need to know what genes are responsible for height before we make heritability estimates.

That literally makes no sense.

No, you see there's this thing called "twin studies" which allows for the study of heritability without looking into the genes.

Like I already said, please stop talking about things you are completely ignorant of.

>please stop talking about things you are completely ignorant of.

Interesting perspective coming from the likely user who posted the racist posts.

This isn't going to be a popular topic, but intelligence is itself a nebulous concept.

'Intelligence' as we understand it is nothing more than a high-appraisal of skills that individually are neither rare nor difficult to acquire, chief among them vocabulary and mathematical acumen. IQ mostly judges puzzle-solving, of course, and we tend to put a high value on things like the recitation of facts and spacial reasoning.

All of those things can be trained though some of them do seem to naturally occur in some individuals - spacial reasoning in particular seems related to some genetic, possibly even physical characteristic, such as acute senses or particularly developed portions of the brain.

Basically IQ is a placebo because intelligence itself is a placebo that people in the educated elite (myself among them!) use to feel better about ourselves. Many individuals show some of these skillsets and other, less values skillsets and aren't considered intelligent. Some people have all of those skillsets and yet it doesn't seem to have any practical impact in their life.

What racist posts?

Do you have anything to add to the discussion except from bleating "DAS RAYCIS"?

>This isn't going to be a popular topic, but intelligence is itself a nebulous concept.
No it's not, intelligence is well defined. Stop spouting whatever you read on reddit, you moron.

Read the wiki article on g before replying to me.

IQ as an indicator, is a very important one. See

>iq is more corelated to reasoning than performance
>but people with more iq "perform" better
Work a minimum wage job and tell me how you think your manager measures your "performance"

Look into how those IQ predictions of performance.

som.yale.edu/news/news/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart

Go ask some fucking professionals you dimwits.

no, but it's an abstract construct based on arbitrary reasoning as opposed to the scientific method.

mensa is a business.

prove it.

No you can't, you can train a person with Down syndrome for years and they will never even score 100.

Not him but here is a really fucking long thing about it I am reading now.

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>som.yale.edu/news/news/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart

>Muh ivy league school
>"An inarticulate man like Bush had a high IQ, therefore..."

Listen, virtually every single person in a high IQ job field has a high IQ. The predictive power of it is monumental.
High-IQ outliers who don't do much with their lives disproves jack-squat.

Some people with down's actually have high iq. You're right about the training though.

People on the higher end of down syndrome could easilly perform the function. If you have ever attended something like a down syndrome camp, keep an eye out for a few that will be ringleading their peers.

>bush was a retard meme
This isn't youtube and I don't care if he forgot the days in a month. He was an edgy af businessman that wouldnt wipe his ass with your brain.

>muh edumication
>muh stats

You, sir, give no proof to what you have stated. You have malignantly shitposted for this entire thread and offer zero proof for your accusations. I have offered an article properly cited and sources so that you could go as deep down this rabbit hole that has been around for one hundred plus years as you damn well please.

The proliferation of /pol/acks continually spouting ideology without facts serves Veeky Forums no purpose. This thread was supposed to be about the importance of IQ in determining intelligence in a person, NOT about your racial biases. /pol/ inevitably attempts to inject the political fuel into even the smallest of fires.

You sure you meant to reply to me?

IQ Probably Measures “Intelligence”

Where should I even start?

We know that IQ tests measure intelligence because IQ tests correlate with peer and self rated intelligence. For instance, in Denissen et al. 2011 489 college students were divided into 20 groups which studied together for a period of one year. At the end of this year, subjects were asked to rate how intelligent their group mates were on a 7 point scale ranging from “not intelligent” to “very intelligent”. It was found that the better a subject did on an IQ test the smarter their group mates thought they were.

Palhusand Morgan 1997 found similar results and also showed that the correlation between peer rated intelligence and IQ increased the longer the peer knew the person being tested. They had 5 group discussion sections, and in the first section, found that in the first session, intelligence ratings were almost entirely a function of how much people talked. By the Fifth session, it was almost entirely a function of the person’s IQ – so talking a lot only increases perceived “intelligence” above IQ in the short term.

Similarly,Bailey and Hatch 1979 showed that intelligence rated by people’s close friends correlated with their IQ and Bailey and Mattetal 1977 found the same was true of spouses.

A significant body of research has also shown that IQ tests predict how intelligent people rate themselves as being (Paulhus, Lysy, and Yik 1998, ,Angelo and James 1977, and Reilly and Mulhern 1995). Clearly then, the smarter a person thinks they are, and the smarter their friends think they are, the better they tend to do on IQ tests.

So in summary, IQ tests predict life outcomes better than several factors commonly recognized to predict life outcomes, such as what your parents are like and how good your grades are. And IQ predicts one’s subjective perception of a person’s intelligence the longer you interact with them.

it is accurate to a degree

The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%. Achieving good grades depends on many factors other than IQ, such as "persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study" (p. 81).[8]

It has been found that the correlation of IQ scores with school performance depends on the IQ measurement used. For undergraduate students, the Verbal IQ as measured by WAIS-R has been found to correlate significantly (0.53) with the grade point average (GPA) of the last 60 hours. In contrast, Performance IQ correlation with the same GPA was only 0.22 in the same study.[95]

Some measures of educational aptitude correlate highly with IQ tests – for instance, Frey and Detterman (2004) reported a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor) and SAT scores;[96] another research found a correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores, with the explained variance ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design".[97]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

I'm sure there are some who are pretty much normal, but none of them can get over 100.
85-90 perhaps.

120 IQ has been seen before in several individuals.
It's a case by case basis

IQ is almost certainly a plot to categorize human beings into nice little boxes. Intelligence isn't even measured on arbitrary standards like that, it is cultivated through years of theoretical and explicative learning. Good luck trying to fix how you perceive society without some meaningless arbitrary judgment like IQ helping you.

Not without sources, no.

Bush was smart, he just wasn't a great speaker. You don't think it took him plenty of smarts to get to the presidency?

He really never showed any evidence of having much of an inner life, much intellectual curiosity or any particular respect for intellect in others. On top of being a very poor public speaker he was an inept administrator. When you're from a wealthy, very well-connected family with oodles of preexisting name recognition, I don't think you have to be particularly smart to become a somewhat successful politician, and when you're a somewhat successful politician, luck (and money) are just as important when it comes to securing the presidency as smarts.

I'm not saying he was as dumb as some people've claimed, probably average-to-slightly-above-average, but he was no genius. A class C+ dude elevated beyond his level by a solid class A father.

And yet studies by he NCES find the gap between blacks and white narrowing on several different categories on several age groups, indicative of impoverished families slowly being able to provide more potential to their child's ability to learn in school through more household capitol. This slow rate of change is likely due to the low economic mobility prevalent in the US.

nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2009455.aspx

>Work a minimum wage job and tell me how you think your manager measures your "performance"
What about all the data on all the other people who aren't oppressed, is that invalid too?

Since you're so sure of your anti-racist position, but can't refute IQ as a valid metric why don't you link to the blogs, articles and website that made you think so. Please send them the link to this website: thealternativehypothesis.org/

The authors are keen to have debates with people who claim to have debunked IQ, the existance of races, spout memes such as "the irish were considered not white"

>literal alt-right recruitment

No thanks.

I'll turn you away like I turn away all the religious nutters who tell me to repent in Christ.

What is specifically narrowing? Is the economic rise of the south factored into recent black prosperity? Do you factor in the absurd artificial job creation programs and preferential hiring?

I can see the white-black IQ gap narrowing due to admixture. Not much else, American blacks are multiplying at the bottom.

What is narrowing is poverty among blacks.

*what is narrowing is grade gap due to decrease of poverty among blacks

What is preferential treatment in university admissions; Preferential hiring in bureaus, public services and publicly-owned corporations?

Minority business grants, and preferences in government issued contracts, and let's not forget self-imposed affirmative action by private companies.

You're raise out of poverty is due to meme economics. A lower median IQ will mean a less diversified labour force, and therefore low grade labour gluts.

Iq is the most empirical finding of psychology. It's reproducible and everything.

>g.
the fuck is a g you retard, is it "psychology" or "psychometrics" or some shit
does "g" include """""""""""""""verbal"""""""""""""" IQ too, because that's the most environemntal shit you can imagine
>but iq correlates
yeah which way is the arrow going => ,

or
This no longer has bearing in history or humanities.

>There is a third cause of Down's syndrome which is the much rarer mosaic variant, in which there is a mixture of trisomy 21 and normal cells

so less physical and cognitive issues

Everyone in the left just kill themselves slowly with prescription drugs and street drugs so it's a different type of issue going on in the left. They also have no jobs so big depression factor there

it all depends on which stage of the very initial
zygote -> 2 cells -> 4 cells -> 8 cells etc the failed disassociation of the daugher cells happened so one of the daughers had 45 chromomes and died, while the other had 47 and lived on

you have down cells in your body, statistically speaking

ps
pic unrelated
white power btw

Since IQ is not linear the difference between asians and whites AND whites and hispanics is about the same

fascinating, so here's another graph i downloaded from pol
IQ is humanities

Politics is /pol/

this isn;t politics though, just proving the asian race is superior based on averages(deep purple places)

btw humans have fewer than 4 limbs on average, makes you think

It's race politics based on previous posts, it doesn't matter what veneer you place over it.

And of course it would, even if you have 99 people with 4 limbs and 1 person with 3 limbs, it would be 3.9 repeating or so, into math my friend.

>And of course it would, even if you have 99 people with 4 limbs and 1 person with 3 limbs, it would be 3.9 repeating or so, into math my friend.
OH REALLY?

can't you see i'm being facetious with these posts, it's satire and argumentation at the same time

btw if you remove """""verbal IQ""""" which you should asians would be blowing whites even worse out of the water, what is going on

It's hard to tell with /pol/ sometimes.

I believe that it is a result of cultural differences, but we know so little on how the brain functions and develops it is foolhardy to say what it is atm.

asian > wh*te > m*sl*m > nigger

Stop shitting up this board

It matters for athleticism and physical capacity however there is dissonance approaching cognitive determination it is accepted for dysfunction but not for functioning. heredity and cognitive aptitude have a correlation is .60 at the most conservative based on separated identical twins

Why did Asians evolve better genetics?

To appease the libtards. #notallasians are smart, yes yes etc.

I mean the statistical average.

Separated twins in the same culture/culture group or twins transported across the globe or...?

There is also the parent, as the parent would give off their culture and way of life to their children.

Also, do source your material whenever possible.

They found the unshared environment accounted for more variation. egalitarian have to play defense here.

>its not possible that a dumbass accidentally scores high on a puzzle by guessing

Yes because it doesn't take into account personality.

I scored 129, with comprehension peaking my score at 142. Although I'm a piece of shot that drinks too much and works for pennies.

I also drink a lot

Thats reverse applicable to a childs iq. Its still humiliating to take iq tests as an adult and meaningless.

>there are people who think negroes are equal to huwhytes
Boggles the mind.

Whites and Asians adapted to harsh cold environments where intelligence was required in order to survive. If blacks traveled to Eurasia before the other races, they would also have a high average IQ.

Christmas this map is a joke.

/pol/ pictures crack me up

beattyville is a small community of a little over thousand residents, view park-windsor hills is 10 times as large and a 5 minute drive from los angeles.

it baffles me how little /pol/tards think for themselves

Yes it is. I have a 142 iq, and I'm a two time college drop-out, and a shut in with almost zero social skills.

>Is IQ a spook?

No. As a predictive measure, it generalizes to numerous things, mostly to things we would expect it to, with a common statistical factor that can be gleaned from interrelating psychometric data (test scores, executive functioning measures, etc). It also has a high heritability (grounded in population statistics)

Beyond that, the construct is very vague and obtuse. The nitty gritty of what precisely that heritability means and perhaps doesn't mean can become dramatically complex, likewise with discerning exactly what 'g' is. As it stands, it is just useful data, something more about advantage and utility than any semblance the truth. The etiology behind intellect, g, or whatever seems to be very poorly understood

IQ is literally the best predictor of everything from quality of life to paychecks and high social ladder employment.

People who say IQ doesn't matter are deluding themselves.

Only up to a point. At higher levels, the correlation thins out.

Why not try learning about Bush rather than taking your facts from Buzzfeed?
He graduated from Yale and Harvard business school. He averaged about two books a week even while president.
Are you aware the folksy image is something all US politicians do to a certain extent? Only a true idiot thinks it actually real.

Lets not jump from that to saying that the latent factor of intelligence tests predicts life outcomes better than all other things possibly considered.

Psychometrics sucks in general. The fact that IQ tests amount to anything more than a faint signal in the noise is actually something spectacular. The measure is peerless, so contrasting it with mostly failed metrics in a way to compare and contrast characteristic virtues or essences is to commit serious folly

Sure, but it's still the best *predictor*.

Other variables matter of course, but if someone has a 140 IQ score, they are not going to be serving burgers for 40 years that's for sure.

IQ btfo

>than all other things possibly considered.

Such as?

where you are born, who your mom and dad is, who your peers are, when you were born, were you rich, in what environment were you born, which school you went to, did you have enough food, did you read as a kid, did your parents read books so on so forth

this post is right iq is crap

All of these things matter as a general rule.

But a person with 70 IQ score is not going to be nuclear scientist.

no

a nuclear scientist is not going to have an iq of 70

Wow more denialism. Why are egalitarian wackos so anti science? Over a 100 year in research on IQ and congitive ability and those mongoloids think they can lie like that.

>Human intelligence is highly heritable.
nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html
>IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

>where you are born

Doesn't matter

>who your mom and dad is,

What matters is their genes

>when you were born

Irrelevant

>were you rich

Irrelevant intelligence is an innate ability determined by genes

>in what environment were you born

Doesn't have any effect

>which school you went to

IQ has nothing to do with education

>did you have enough food

Only relevant in cases of extreme malnutrition in early childhood not applicable to Western countries

>did you read as a kid

No effect whatsoever

>did your parents read books

This retard is messing correlation and causation. High IQ people read more books because they are intelligent not the other way around