Daily remember that IQ is not an accurate measure to intelligence or how """smart""" you are, but is a measure on how good you are at solving IQ tests, nothing else.
>inb4 Someone scored less than 140.
Yes, I actually scored 131, and? Having more than 140 doesn't mean anything either.
Haha brainlet
Nnnnnnnope.
IQ tests have shown to correlate .9 to .95 with g.
They are a VERY good measure of intelligence.
t. Brainlet
t. EQ/multiple intelligencefag
>131
King of the brainlets.
131 = 9 points lower than the average brainlet
>my face when people talk about "g" but:
>they don't know factor analysis
>they don't realize that the positive manifold directly implies that you WILL extract a factor with positive loadings on all subtests
>they don't realize that exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are necessary but not sufficient conditions to establish the existence of "g"
>they don't realize that it's precisely because intelligence is so important that we need to be rigorous about the methodology used
>they don't realize that almost none of the research done on "g" actually has the statistical capability to distinguish whether or not some causal latent variable driving variation in intelligence subtest exists
>they don't realize that just because gardner's multiple intelligence theory is bullshit, it's not automatically true that intelligence is highly multidimensional
>they don't realize that the highly multidimensional nature of almost everything human (e.g. personality) provides very strong a priori reasons to think that intelligence is similarly multidimensional
>they don't realize that focusing only on the predictive validity of "g" and ignoring the true causal pathway means that it no longer makes sense to ascribe a purely cognitive interpretation to "g" (if it's just a measure of mutational load, for instance, then in what sense can it be really called a general factor of intelligence?)
>they don't even know causal inference, Bayesian hierarchical modeling, or model misspecification testing, nor do the people doing research in psychology, because (ha!) they aren't intelligent enough to learn the math, and therefore think that running correlation after correlation and regression after regression is the end, rather than the beginning, of the analysis of data
>undergrads in general
Most of your post is just wordy nonsense. No one denies that intelligence is multidimensional, you autist. If you want to prove g wrong, go right ahead. There's a Nobel Prize in it. But don't be surprised if the first MIT cognitive scientist you vomit your ideas on bitch slaps you something fierce. G is widely accepted at the top rungs and across all of the rigorous cognitive disciplines.
I know you're probably a troll but your comment about exploratory factor analysis smacks of a cocky undergrad who just learned the term.
>No one denies that intelligence is multidimensional, you autist.
saying "g" LITERALLY IMPLIES that you believe in a model of intelligence where there is ONE DOMINANT (general) FACTOR making up most of the variance, which is obviously not the same as claiming that intelligence is completely unidimensional (which nobody believes), but is vastly different from many other multidimensional models of intelligence
>If you want to prove g wrong, go right ahead.
it's not even clear you know what is actually meant by "g"
>G is widely accepted at the top rungs and across all of the rigorous cognitive disciplines
lol
most of what i said is what cosma shalizi has written about years ago. maybe he's just a "cocky undergrad" too???
Dude, it doesn't matter if there's a "causal latent variable" or not. You could do factor analysis on athleticism, for example, and get a meaning proxy of "betterness" with which to rank order the population. The fact that some people are better than others at mental tasks, and that this betterness is a durable predictor of hundreds of other variables and is mostly inflexible, makes it extremely valuable. Cry on the shoulders of your 125ish IQ if you dont like it.
ITT: Daily I'm smarter than everyone else here. Just wanted to let you guys know. Trust me, I really am.
>Dude, it doesn't matter if there's a "causal latent variable" or not.
you're literally telling me that it doesn't matter which way causality flows? think about that for a bit please
>You could do factor analysis on athleticism, for example, and get a meaning proxy of "betterness" with which to rank order the population.
ok, yes, you literally can
>this betterness is a durable predictor of hundreds of other variables and is mostly inflexible
do you LITERALLY NOT REALIZE that being unaware of the causal pathway will probably mean your models will mis-estimate the malleability or inflexibility of cognitive ability?
>predictive ability meme
it ... literally doesn't matter. if the goal is to predict life outcomes, we can throw more things into the factor to make it a "general good things factor", which would be predictive and useful but clearly not distinctly related to cognition---or simply use a predictive model that uses multiple predictors.
causality is the elephant in the room, because you're interested in "g"'s predictive ability CONTINGENT on it being inflexible, but you don't even know how inflexible it is (among other things) without getting at causal pathways (and no, "highly heritable" does not mean "not malleable").
also, as someone with an actual interest in the structure of human intelligence, i find it sort of hilarious that you take this bizarre "nobody cares about causation" view, because the interesting part is LITERALLY what the fundamental causal quantities are
also, i should note that figuring out whether "g" or some other dimensions of intelligence are "sources of causality" has very substantial implications for genetic research (i.e., for identifying which genetic variants contribute to cognitive ability) and the effects of embryo selection for (what people believe to be) cognitive ability
So would a rank ordering of athleticism, let's call it "a," be more or less odious to you than a rank ordering of intelligence? My hunch is that it wouldn't, because you're plausibly less emotionally tied to the idea that some people are just inherently better athletes than others. But I can well imagine an alien species having an obscenely, ridiculously high burden of proof for innate athletic differences and not caring about intelligence differences because of the way they're designed and so forth. I really do think most of the insane mouth-frothing delirium around IQ is due to insecurity among "intellectuals," not a passion for rigor per se. Perhaps you're an exception, buy I haven't gotten that impression so far.
i am fully in support of the idea that people differ, intrinsically, in terms of their cognitive abilities, that these differences are vaster than most people believe, and that these differences translate into outcome differences even at the very high end of cognitive ability
my critique is fundamentally *methodological* in nature. i would like to understand intelligence better. however, prattling on about the "g" factor ad nauseam as if finding that a single factor explains most of the variance is some sort of conclusive argument is NOT HELPFUL.
(kind of how it's much more interesting and useful to discuss the different components of athleticism---how far you can run, how much you can bench press, how much you can squat, how agile or flexible you are, etc.---than it would be to talk about the "general athleticism factor" which, as you've constructed it, is clearly not some sort of latent variable driving all of the different dimensions of athleticism)
A more relevant and pertinent fact would be that having high IQ doesn't mean you earn more money. You will probably never be as successful as Donald Trump.
>a subjective definition of intelligence based on a subjective combination of metrics reinforced by subjectively designed tests focusing on subjective traits, tested on subjective amounts of the population selected in subjective ways with a subjective amount of room for error
>objective metric of intelligence
boi i am laffin
>this subjective method of measuring intelligence correlates in a subjectively acceptable way with this other subjective method of measuring intelligence
>therefore IQ is an objective metric
booooi I laffin hard
HOW ABOUT SOME ACTUAL SCIENCE?
IQ is flawed because it can change depending on what education you get.
Especially things like "verbal" iq.
The brain isn't a piece of rubber, it cares what inputs it gets.
til i learned that fitness doesn't exist because fitness changes based on what exercise you get
not him but your analogy would only work had he claimed that "intelligence" doesn't exist.
maybe if you paid attention in english class you would know what hyperbole is
I'm currently at 133, and since I'm smarter than you, I can tell that you are both incorrect and a faggot.
t.
>hurr durr I got 4/100 you get 1/100 in this test I am better than you
Still a brainlet. Back to you go
>g-guys IQ don't mean anything.
>and it's got nothing to do with my small IQ
always fun to watch brainlet tears :^)
I got a 142 on the WAIS-IV, and I agree with you.
>yet another thread where everyone has a 140+ IQ
Really gets the old brain matter jiggling
How did you guys end up getting your IQ measured anyway? I got it tested officially due to issues I was having in elementary school; I thought it was a pretty rare thing. I hope you guys aren't talking about online "tests".
I got a 130. I'm actually not proud of it.
there's a difference between exaggeration and being straight up wrong.
Never taken an IQ test, but I took the RAVEN in 3rd grade and got a 99.something percentile.
Is my IQ likely above 105, at least? I feel absolutely retarded, these days.
99+ percentile is extremely high. Are you sure you don't mean 90-something? For most IQ tests 99 is usually well over 140.
Nah, but it might have just been a 99th percentile. Then again, the RAVEN isn't an official IQ test, and there's no way my IQ is close to a 140.
I imagine taking it at such a young age isn't a very good predictor of adult ability, anyway.