Is this just a meme or is it worth the read?

as someone who is very right wing, /pol/ is fucking stupid
I doubt they're much above 115

Everything you said shows that you don't understand the book. You're flipping out over stuff the book and most everyone who thinks IQ is useful agrees with you on. Nothing you said challenges the premise that there is some noticeable but obviously limited connection between IQ and capacity to succeed.

>/pol/
>140 iq

racism is linked to low iq, you know?

There's some truth to it undoubtedly. IQ is a good predictor of success in life. That's not to say there aren't smart failures and dumb successes, but it's definitely less likely.

I bet /r9k/ will tell you the same. You're probably genuinely retarded, does your mama change your diaper for you or are you a big boy who can do it himself?

Is there any trustable IQ test on the internet?

That's my point. IQ is dubious and most tests seem to be pure bull. IQ is less relevant then character traits at getting ahead in life.

harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/the-science-of-scarcity
Poverty literally makes anyone end up behaving stupidly and ends up being circular. Being poor makes you stupid and being stupid makes you poor. Being poor for a while ends up modifying people biologically and physiologically and their theoretical cognitive capacity.

Intellectuals are largely not necessary under capitalism. People are breed to intensify the division of labour which makes people specialize and lowers IQ across the board. As long as capitalism regulates birth IQ will lower because you only need a few people to be smart.

The books promotes the bland conservative answer that more liberalism and to abolish the welfare state and that will solve all issues. What ends up happening is the poor breed in poverty at even faster rates then with welfare. The reality is smart people serve little purpose and what is really needed by society is stupid people who can obey rules in large numbers.

>below 100: detritus, should be quarantined from the rest of the human race
>100-110: should be seen and not heard, fit for menial tasks
>110-120: thinks they're geniuses because they're doing a shit tier degree at a shit tier school, the most vocal group in society, at age 23 they realised "America are the bad guys duuuuuude" your average Chomsky fan
>120-130: contributing member of society, is vocal about their centrist political views, generally swallowed the establishment pill
>130-140: smart but doesn't think of themselves as geniuses, generally specialised knowledge in a certain field, may hold more extreme political views but hides them
>140+: those with the ability to change society and actually formulate new ideas, could be cultivated into the Philosopher-King if surrounded by others like them (which they aren't), immersed in realpolitik if they are involved in politics at all
we can all agree on this right?

>What ends up happening is the poor breed in poverty at even faster rates then with welfare.
you got statistics for that?

I saw a book called The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould at a bookstore once, and it's supposed to be about how The Bell Curve is wrong. Is that book right, or is it wrong and the other book is right?

Mismeasure of Man is largely seen as total shit that ultimately hurt the cause because of how bad it was

The layer of western society that faces the kind of poverty discussed in that article is fairly thin, and the evidence for heritable intelligence can still be found far from such dire circumstances. This certainly doesn't explain how bottom-income white kids on average outperform rich black kids on the SAT.

Compare birth rates in detroit to the congo

It's a meme book that was curbstomped before the popular breaktrough of internet. Therefore you it's hard to find any proper debunkings of it in the internet. Therefore it's still a cult book for stormfags. Compare with the pre-internernet memes that Yoko Ono destroyed The Beatles or that KISS is dangerous.

This guy is correct. Mismeasure is total sophistry and misdirection.

>there are super secret debunkings that you can't find but I know of
does your dad work for Routledge?

>The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould at a bookstore once, and it's supposed to be about how The Bell Curve is wrong.
The 2nd edition, yes.

>cluck heil, ckluk hiel!

Hardly.

>The revised and expanded, second edition of the Mismeasure of Man (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which re-presented the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as "the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status."

Charles Murray is an ex-CIA muh free market think-thank shill who has spent decades producing dubious, ideologically motivated research. Inspired, among other things things, the Clinton welfare cuts. That, together with this particular book's connection to the pioneer fund (pro eugenics organization) is enough to at least cast doubts on its credibility.

Coming Apart is really good, too.

>implying IQ is a true measure of innate intellectual ability

automatically garbage

this is easily the worst 'criticism' of the book
every intellectual undertaking has an ideology behind it

I think you replied to the wrong post.

It's just so apparent that Gould is upset about the possible implications of work on psychometrics rather than their potential usefulness. Discussing the policy implications or lack thereof for new research would be a much better use of the type of rhetoric Gould used than attacking the research itself.

>implying it implies that
read a book and then kys

Not all ideologies are equal. Some are rotten to the core.

Then that rottenness should be apparent enough on the surface that making claims about the core isn't the most effective way to keep someone from eating that particular apple.

sort of like people then huh?

IQ correlates with so many metrics of success - academic, financial, healthwise. It's not exhaustive, but it's a really, really strong predictive factor for success. Look into it. It's not pseudoscience.

My problem with the book is that it presumes that your position in society is determined by intelligence which is simply wrong unless you actually buy into the feel good liberal notion that meritocracy ever did or can exist

Intelligence (unless you are a total moron) is largely irrelevant in most high paying/respectable positions like CEO, politician, etc, etc... it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 100 or 140 as long as you have the right character traits or are a psychopath and can project yourself properly

Average IQ, if it is biological, will naturally decline because we don't need people with high IQs since we have a developed division of labour which destroys the demand for individual geniuses

Trying to explain societies by abstract average IQs is stupid

Are there any forms of the IQ test with some legitimacy? I've heard so much about how bad they are at measuring intellect that I can't base anything off of them.

That's because niggers are more racist.

you're a fucking idiot if you think most CEO's aren't in the 130+ range

But that doesn't make the stormkukls right.

Consider this: In deepest Nigger Africa, the most dangerous animal isn't lions nor hippos. It's army ants. Of course the niggers, who can't read for shit, knows this. Otherwise they would be eaten.

So enter Richard Jewstein and Charles Muggay - The Great White Hopes. They r the best, bcuz they no ngiars. So they pitch their tent in the savanna, set up the lion scarers and prepares to go to sleep. Suddenly, Ooga Booga, from the nearby village with noo books, with a flashlight cries out that they can't sleep there, because the army ants will eat them.

So, who's the retard now?

I guess that's why black people are more likely to be racist than whites.

Not him but evidence please?

You can take a data set and make it say whatever you want, I personally know this is especially true in economics. Be sceptical of any social "science". Two "experts" can take the same data set and come to contradictory interpretations.

Am I success because I have a high IQ or do I have a high IQ because I am successful? Take it as you will.

The people who construct their lodgings from literal shit.

If your daddy has the right connections and you know a bit of rhetoric you'll do fine as long as you can project yourself properly

Tl;dr

Niggers are dumb

Trump's IQ is above 150. Try again.

Proof?

psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/56143/wai-americas-elite-2013.pdf
smart parents produce smart offspring

>smart parents produce smart offspring
Is there any proof that it's necessary?

>it presumes that your position in society is determined by intelligence which is simply wrong unless you actually buy into the feel good liberal notion that meritocracy ever did or can exist
False and false. It just says that a higher than average IQ is a useful trait and a lower than average one a hindrance. This doesn't mean that a meritocracy is in place, but rather that there will be gradual and imperfect drift in the direction of IQs over a certain point holding more power and wealth, but there will always be people outperforming those with higher IQs than themselves at one thing or another. It's a trend, not a system.

>Intelligence (unless you are a total moron) is largely irrelevant in most high paying/respectable positions like CEO, politician, etc, etc... it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 100 or 140 as long as you have the right character traits or are a psychopath and can project yourself properly
Remember that only 15% of people have an IQ over 115, but physicians, attorneys, professors, and physical scientists have a mean average IQ of greater than that. We don't give them IQ tests as a barrier to entry. Just lots of difficult work and tests based on what they study in school. Even an investment banking CEO has to do a shitload of mathematical analysis and reading as a junior employee that many people would find stupefying. Remember this is the whole population we're comparing, not just smart guys versus geniuses. These professionals and scientists are not some sort of Nazi ubermenschen, but rather somewhat above average in one measure of what their brain does well. Doubtless there are other traits at play, but this one is in the mix too.

>Average IQ, if it is biological, will naturally decline because we don't need people with high IQs since we have a developed division of labour which destroys the demand for individual geniuses
But nobody's talking about geniuses except you. "Genius" IQ (if IQ can even indicate such a unique trait as genius) occurs far, far from the numbers used when discussing actual professions people have. No profession except maybe NSA autistic cryptologist is chock full of people with 150 IQs.

>Trying to explain societies by abstract average IQs is stupid
If you ignore everything else, yes, but you are the only one who think people outside of /pol/ do that.

>I have yet to hear a good argument on why the results and conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' were wrong.
>realistically speaking it never has been proven wrong

that's because you haven't actually bothered to look for, much less read, any of the criticism of the book by experts in the field.

when the book was published a group of 50 academics published an open letter pointing out the flaws in the book. you could look up any one of those people and find a good argument why the book is wrong. look up the work of Robert Plomin for example. His work points out that race does not explain much variance in intelligence and there are many causes of average differences between groups.

hst the book is worth reading because it is influential, but not because it is right

There is truth to IQ. Anyone that is not 125 and up is probably going to have the upper echelon of society barred from them. Hate to say it, some people are just better than others.

But, if you look into how IQ is measured, your verbal reasoning may be very high while your quantitative reasoning is average. Unlikely but possible. Play to your strengths.

No, cow dung mixed with soil. It works.

So, how's life in your plastic bungalow? Mold yet?

TRIGGERED

It's almost like the job of the social sciences is to 'prove' through shitty "well y'know, unverifiable woo-woo context and influence"-arguments that whites aren't, on average, more intelligent and that the rise of the West was "lol, just a contingency".

Veeky Forums - /pol/tards and memes

nice meme

that's an estimate based on the average sat for wharton students. trump was a transfer student from fordham who got in because his dad knew an admissions officer.

You're literally this meme.

>intelligence = knowledge
Jesus Christ dude.

Successful people are generally successful because they have a useful set of traits for what they do. If pattern recognition and the ability to manipulate things mentally is useful in your profession, then a high IQ probably has probably made a lot of stuff easier.

>any proof that it is necessary
"Evidence that it is likely helpful" would be the useful phrasing of what you're trying to ask. The answer would seem to be yes, there is quite a bit that suggests you will have an easier time succeeding at demanding professions with a higher than average IQ.

I didn't even think this meant anything. I had to get neuropsychological testing as part of a study that I am part of for sleep apnea. Lolol I got 123. Will I be success guy?

What is cause and effect? Having successful, loving parents that are encouraging in the right way will not only make the children successful, but knock up their IQ scores quite a few notches as well.

Another botching of cause and effect is a dank swedish meme about horseback riding makes teen girls more successful later in life, teaches leadership and shit.

Ok, it may be true that equestrianism in itself is good for you. But the parents must first of all be able to afford it. So only that fact makes things more complicated.

William J. Matthews and Stephen Jay Gould (1994) argued that the authors of The Bell Curve made four basic assumptions about intelligence:

Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
According to Gould, if any of these premises are false, then the entire argument disintegrates (Gould, 1994).[10]

Similarly, anthropologist C. Loring Brace suggests that The Bell Curve made six basic assumptions at the start and argued that there are faults in every one of these assumptions:[11]

Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
IQ tests can measure this accurately.
IQ tests are not biased with regard to race, ethnic group or socioeconomic status.

You sound like the voice I imagine Pynchon uses when he posts here.

Are you there, Tommy?

Wrong reply?

except i DO think iq matters and recognize that blacks on average have lower iqs.

strawman arguments are expected when you're dealing with double-digit iqs, though.

>IQ doesn't even matter, I bet you aren't a genius, in fact I think ur dumb, checkmate /pol/ ;)

>smart parents produce smart offspring
The thing is even if you accept this that doesn't say anything about your social position. People don't reach the top because they're abnormally intelligent but because of other psychological and social factors. If your not aggressive no matter how smart you are you will never be at the top. Most "smart" people occupy boring desk jobs or something at best or sit around on NEETbuxs masturbating to Anime.

>a higher than average IQ is a useful trait and a lower than average one a hindrance
That's just a truism.

The whole take away the book tries to get across is average IQ is going down because of welfare and other social programs, if we were more economically liberal average IQ would go up because the stupid would for some reason have less children because they would have less access to resources or something like that which I don't see following since poverty just seems to increase birth rates.

Without some form of eugenics average IQ, if biological, will keep going down... but I don't see why that even matters that much when you have an intellectual division of labour. Even if you agree with the premise of the book you have to take a nihilist position.

So he restated things that weren't stated in absolutes in Bell Curve as absolutes and then argued against his new absolute statements from there. Mediocre.

>dat pic
It took three people to write this

>If pattern recognition and the ability to manipulate things mentally is useful in your profession, then a high IQ probably has probably made a lot of stuff easier.
My parents have horrible pattern recognition skills but I am very good at it (probably from playing so many video games as a kid).
You don't get into positions of power because you are the most intelligent, there's way more factors at play and intelligence is just one. Assburgers will never rule the world anytime soon because they suck at communications for example

your maymay doesn't negate the fact that most trump supporters are stupid just like the blacks you protest.

>De'Nesha
>Nichelle
Until today I cannot even in the slightest comprehend why African Americans name their children such dumb names. I mean De'Nesha is obviously some We Wuz Kangz goobledegook but what right has Nichelle to exist?

>stormkuk in denial of how IQ test works
Sorry to break it to yo, but IQ tests are all about knowledge. There's no such thing as running EEGs or real time tests such as various video games.

Consider this early foray into dawkinism. If you've never seen a pig or a violin or a tennis court or a record player because you never grow up in an environment with pigs or violins or tennis courts or record players, you just got four nigger points.

The tests have been more sofisticated by "predicting" how dots on a 90-degree matrix will move and shit. But we as westerns are experts at judging 90-degree patterns. Our whole design is based upon that. So people that grew up in more natural environments will get more nigger points just because they doesn't shitpost on 4gag for boredom and detriment.

Jesus Christ, these threads. If you have 115 and up you can probably become a millionaire and write something interesting if you work at it. This thread reeks of scatter-brained, nerve wracking intellectual insecurity.

>what right has Nichelle to exist?

>mfw

sorry, loser. my iq is one of the highest.
im a confident alpha male who's transcended your beta mentality.

whites be catching up tho

Still a dumb name

Work on that reading comprehension. I never said the stuff tested in IQ tests was likely to be the only or even the dominant thing needed in one's line of work.

Whoa whoa whoa there big guy. How high we talkin top gun?

Thanks, jews.

...

>Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
And that can be disproved just like that. There's people that are colorblind and general oblivious of strange patterns, so they won't discover dog shit on the pavement unless you point at it. Then there's people with terrific pattern recognition skills. They can see if a few pebbles are off.

Now, in a hunter-gatherer society, who would be the retard?

It's like you've never slept at a friend's house and seen that they do stuff differently there. Have you even visited another country? Stuff isn't the same everywhere. In burgerland there are many cultures and one of them uses these names.

>stormkuk
>having successful kids, because you didn't name them Thunderhammerfist Jewkiller
Pick one.

Good thing I never said it made sense to test the whole world with one set of tests or that doing so would even be useful. If you come up with something that works for "westerners" and only administer it to westerners, then you're on the right track.

>The whole take away the book tries to get across is average IQ is going down because of welfare and other social programs, if we were more economically liberal average IQ would go up because the stupid would for some reason have less children because they would have less access to resources or something like that which I don't see following since poverty just seems to increase birth rates.
Just like there's more to success than just IQ, there's more to birth rates than just money.

>Without some form of eugenics average IQ, if biological, will keep going down... but I don't see why that even matters that much when you have an intellectual division of labour. Even if you agree with the premise of the book you have to take a nihilist position
If you average IQ goes down, then you will have fewer high-IQ people born, basically a smaller talent pool. Given the ol' 80-20 rule or some other such approximation, you realize that this is actually important because those high achieving folks were causing most of the innovation. A nation and world with more of such people is, hopefully, a nation and world with more innovation, more efficiencies and less suffering.

>Good thing I never said it made sense to test the whole world with one set of tests or that doing so would even be useful. If you come up with something that works for "westerners" and only administer it to westerners, then you're on the right track.
So there's not one single test that fits all humans. Good, now we know that.

So is there a test that is applicable for a whole single country, say France?

You could get close enough for useful results.

Murray's work isn't really separable from his ultra-liberal ideology. In the end he's just arguing muh deregulation muh cuts less welfare. There's been a worldwide collapse in birthrates, specially in countries with strong welfare states. And it's not just 'the west' either, Iran's birth rate has declined dramatically since the revolution and is now comparable to France or Sweden's. You see the same pattern everywhere except in a few areas of subsaharan Africa.

Birth rates are about education and culture. If people think kids will interfere with their ability to maintain a standard of living they covet, then they will have fewer. People who don't covet such a lifestyle will have more kids on the same income. Education on family planning is also huge.

What we see in Sweden and France is that people are educated on family planning and want to be in the middle class, but realize that they will not be middle class if they have many kids. Now, do we change the culture somehow? Do we tax them more or less? Do we just replace them with uneducated Africans on welfare? There are a lot of hard questions here.

Désolé mon gars mais en France il y a des différences culturelles (pas autant qu'aux US évidemment) dans la population. Il y a les immigrés du maghreb venus pendant les années 70, les réfugiés asiat dans les années 80, d'autres réfugiés plus neufs venus de Syrie, il y a ceux qui ont grandi dans les bidonvilles puis les cités, il y a les petits blancs des cités, de banlieue, les riches, les pauvres. Les français de souche et les autres etc, comme partout ailleurs.

(Sorry dude but in France there are cultural differences, not as much as in the US of course but still) in the population. We got some algerians come to work in the 70's, asian refugess from the 80's, newer refugees from Syria, those who grew up in shanty towns and then estates, poor whites from the estates, the suburbans, rich and poor. All the kids those immigrants had, who are list between their parent's culture and french culture, and who turn to some kind of religious fervor. Home grown french people and others, like everywhere else.

*education, wealth and culture
Obviously wealth is part of the equation there in one way or another but education and values are huge.

Sweden's birthrate has actually been on the rise for many decades now.

Here's a (You)

>If you average IQ goes down, then you will have fewer high-IQ people born, basically a smaller talent pool. Given the ol' 80-20 rule or some other such approximation, you realize that this is actually important because those high achieving folks were causing most of the innovation. A nation and world with more of such people is, hopefully, a nation and world with more innovation, more efficiencies and less suffering.

Capitalism destroyed the necessity of well-rounded individuals by introducing more rationalized organizational forms which can allow one manager to get more done with less. The real innovation that occurs today is the result of research teams not any one intelligent individual. People just need to obey, which doesn't require intelligence but character and can be induced with the right drugs, and play the part of functionaries to the new emerging machine order.

Also intelligence doesn't make less suffering since the higher your IQ the more likely you are to kill yourself.

And all of these groups are equally prepared to enter the same niches in society but would also be subject to unfair cultural biases on any test ever? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nobody is denying that upbringing has an effect on IQ or that what we test for in IQ tests isn't related to how things are done in western countries.

Again, not talking about geniuses, but rather people in the top 15% or so who are likely to be useful on something like a "research team" of the type that our predominantly high-IQ doctors and professors frequently participate in.

>Also intelligence doesn't make less suffering since the higher your IQ the more likely you are to kill yourself.
You're talking about outliers again. I'm talking about people who make good doctors, researchers and the like. Being a pointy edge in a round world isn't fun but it would be very hard to reach a point where that's a big percentage of the population. In any event, I was talking about the innovations done by the top 15-20% or so and how they have made the world more liveable for the rest.