Read pic related, came out in October, good review in nature, author has some interviews on youtube.
This is the latest, most up to date in cognitive science.
Read this fucking book because I cannot browse this board with threads telling people IQ doesn't measure intelligence, this must be a bad meme or you people are so weak you can't even tell the truth to yourselves.
Other urls found in this thread:
peelified.com
futurka.mypage.cz
tumblr.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
isecoeco.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
...
IQ measures the capacity of intelligence.
It doesn't actually describe what people do.
Doing is superior to sitting.
Universal model, check it:
>It doesn't actually describe what people do.
To a point.
A
Holy fuck, it just dawned on me that the same people who shit on efforts like linguistics, historical analysis, or even people who major in other studies like english or sociology that study macrostructure and try to understand systems on a level that's larger than the constituent mechanics are the people who also praise IQ testing for its ability to determine intellectual capacity.
It's the same damn thing- you're taking some symptomatic approach of looking at some corollary rather than trying to understand mechanistically- it's like how in the humanities we look at how society is structured and try to figure out how it works using much more broad terms.
Read the book.
You said nothing worth of substance btw, what's your point.
Read the bloody book.
Getting a PhD in anything doesn't produce anything. Except someone prints out a piece of paper.
Anyone who legitimately believes they can get a PhD can and will get one.
Furthermore, the only way to get a PhD is to do the things to get one.
IQ and knowing what your IQ score is doesn't enter into it.
Anyways. Do you need a high IQ to understand this:
Someone upload a pdf and ill read it
gen lib ru its there
god bless you user
>we in the humanities
Please GTFO academia so the people actually accomplishing something don't have to listen to your horseshit anymore.
>Anyone who legitimately believes they can get a PhD can and will get one.
Are you seriously this naive? Fucking hell, last paragraph is for you
Have fun, you will learn a lot, always follow the truth no matter where it leads it will set you free.
Truth is everything.
>we in the humanities = in the humanities we
Are you ESL, or just genuinely retarded? The connotation being used is to describe a field of study from a standpoint, not to denote my affiliation.
>You know around 10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military?
Ah, the Jordan Peterson viewers showed up soon.
that bender guy sounds like me when I'm high and someone asks me how our eyes work.
Not an argument, truth is truth, disprove it or die.
>10% of the population in the united states is not intelligent enough for the military
don't even want a source for this. only brainlets resort to military
schizoid
buzzword infested brain
you should cure yourself and learn how to think with clarity.
People who don't believe they can get a PhD will not do anything to get a PhD. They fail before they start, as they never start.
Getting a PhD isn't really that important. Notice that not everyone wants one.
Bender's pretty fun guy, wish he here today.
I made a flash game a long time ago where Bender flies a biplane. Someone stole the file and posted it here:
futurka.mypage.cz
Arrow keys and space bar were the controls. I thought it was pretty fun high or sober.
Thanks
>A
From 1973 until 2012, a total of 66 black American women earned physics doctorates—mostly PhD's—in US colleges. During that same amount of time, 22,172 white men earned their doctorates.
>statistics
>millions
you are a fucking retard, kindly stop posting and just lurk on Veeky Forums
user never mentioned the US nor what year they received them. The extrapolation of your data seems to confirm user's claim that millions possess PhD.
>US is the entire world
top kek m8
so EU has 30x the American physics PHD? etc?
do we have to say exceptions to everything?
I gave a dog a "PHD" sticker with physics on it. Does that count towards the argument because we have to be so specific and literal?
i'm afraid you're retarded user
There is absolutely zero evidence for
>millions of people with a PhD in Physics
from I would love to see statistic that supports millions when in the USA we are looking at tens of thousands and it is an education magnet.
Well, my original point wasn't to give an estimate as correct as possible but to prove a point that there is someone with IQ of 90 or less with a PhD in physics with extremely high probability.
So there's 23k people in the US with a physics PhD. Let's cut that in half and round to 10k. That gives 10k / 320 million population, so roughly 30k per 1 billion people. Include Europe and Asia, that gives 5 billion people. So 5.3 billion in total = 530k physics PhDs. My original point still holds, even if there were only 50k people with PhD physics in the world. Not only that, there is probably a dozen poeple with 70 IQ with a PhD in physics.
He brought up a statistic that said over 22,200 people obtained a PhD in US in 2012. It also only accounted for white males and black women.
It's about five years since 2012, so it would be a hugely conservative guess to say that 100,000 in the US possess a PhD. This says nothing about the world, nor does it say anything about people receiving a PhD before 2012.
The data presented suggests over a million possess PhD.
You don't have to apologize. user that called you out was wrong and proved it.
Considering that the route to PhD is academia and academia is simply regurgitating memorized facts, this pretty much suggests getting a PhD is trivial and no high IQ required.
Memorization is one of the lowest brain functions.
PhD isn't a sign of intelligence or success. Unless you define any of those things by spending 8+ years in secondary education. Most people get enough school from grade K-12.
1. first of all how did you obtain 30k/billion times 5.3 billion = 530k. fucking hell
2. and clearly the IQs of people with physics PhDs are NOT randomly distributed over the whole IQ spectrum. so your statistical argument is retarded
3. and yes, you are probably right that in some shit tier 3rd world country they give even retards PhDs so I'll grant that there exist a handful of sub-100 IQ physics PhDs (but
>he can't stand people on an taiwanese anime forum saying that the results of a ""intelligence"" test isn't worth of anything
>he literally wastes his only life on such forum debating with people he's never going to see in real life
>he literally spends HOURS of his day doing this
Congratulations, you have no fucking life. You're here everyday of the week at every hour.
My god, dude, seriously, get a life. Go outside, breathe some fresh air. Go meet some chicks, go meet some friends. Quit this shit life before it's too late.
> Not only that, there is probably a dozen poeple with 70 IQ with a PhD in physics.
Most of us here will be fucking dead in about 50-60 years, which is fucking nothing. And yet, here we are, doing jack shit.
Say what you want about the normies, but they're gonna leave this cunthole happy as can be.
Fuck y'all.
Too many 80 IQ retards in this thread. Holy hell.
t. 79 IQ retard
Wrong. In many countries only intellectual and physical elites are allowed in.
1973-2012 doesn't account for all physics PhDs earned by still-living people.
4.4% of the world's population doesn't account for the other 95.6%.
post a shred of evidence for millions of people with physics phds
Yeah great forum post full of pseud ramblings
avg phd IQ is only 125 going by a sane distribution there should be a few far below that and we have the population for it. There are people claiming to have a below avg IQ and a phd.
thanks for the reading advice OP, I'll get back to you
Enjoy it, it's a great read!
It's my second post in this website in all my life.
You're all idiots, you should follow advice.
Guess what, there are extremelly stupid and smart people, IQ matters and we should find ways to raise everyones IQ, because true equality is IQ equality.
You are, not me.
will you walk yourself to reddit or shall I help you?
You will help, friend.
Not an argument.
Embrace truth or perish, coward.
Haven't read the book yet but I already take issue with the him even through FAQ answers he provided.
In one question he answered by saying that IQ doesn't work as a direct measurement like distance or weight but functions only as a medium for correlative effect with income due to different percentiles. Then he answers a later question by bringing up that poverty and economic disadvantages come to exist because of having IQ scores lower than 85.
At first all of this sounds fine. A correlative view of success by percentile not by numbers. But when you start delving deeper into the relevance of these statements in current and past economic ecosystems it doesn't correctly mesh well.
For example those who score high on IQ tests tend to major or have majored in subjects like physics, math and engineering. They and any major that has strong interconnection with said fields typically enjoy high amounts of success. But this happens because they exist in an ecosystem that can properly allow itself to be exploited in a progressive feedback loop. In a different ecosystem where these interests cannot properly be exploited, they lose their correlative effect to success. So intelligence (correlative to IQ percentile/ income) as it's being viewed is in actuality about context sensitivity. Not necessary due to the environment but the nuances that help govern/ express it.
Even without taking different ecosystems into account we can see the context sensitive issue in the current space. Inadequate behavior in terms of communication abilities (lack of properly divulging information, emotionally connection or obtaining human contacts) can inhibit success. Another context sensitive issue is economically popular/ unpopular subjects which influence success regardless of percentile.
The conversation ignores the role economic ecosystems have when it comes to how it actively chooses winners and losers due to traits/ quirks they have in prolonging said ecosystem existence.
>environmental argument
>didn't read
Be advised, if you already believe that intelligence is due all or mostly to the
environment, new neuroscience facts might be difficult to accept. Denial is a common response when new information conflicts with prior beliefs. The older you are, the more
impervious your beliefs may be. Santiago Ramon Cajal (1852–1934), the father of
neuroscience, once wrote, “Nothing inspires more reverence and awe in me than an old
man who knows how to change his mind” (Cajal, 1924). Students have no excuse.
Historically, most researchers have assumed that intelligence, no matter how it was
defined, develops in childhood and is strongly influenced by environmental factors,
especially home life and social culture. In this view, whatever role genes might play is
minimized, and some even argue for a zero contribution of genes. Although this view about
the importance of early environment seems reasonable, and even flattering to proud
parents, the evidence for strong environmental effects on intelligence, especially in early
childhood, is surprisingly weak, as we will see. Epigenetics provides a concept for the
continued consideration of theories about the importance of environmental factors for
intelligence, but epigenetic research on intelligence is just beginning (Haggarty et al.,
2010). Nonetheless, like climate change, the data that support a major genetic component to
intelligence are compelling and the number of genetic deniers and minimizers is
diminishing rapidly.
Based on cross-sectional data, in young twins 4–6 years old, the heritability of
intelligence estimate is about 40%, and the heritability rises to a high of about 85% when
the twins are older adults. In other words, the genetic influences on intelligence variance
actually increase with age and environmental influences decrease.
Who gives a fuck what IQ "measures" it's a fantastic predictor of socio-economic outcomes and that alone makes it valuable.
Don't bother.Veeky Forums is living proof the Dunning-Kruger effect is real.
...
>He thinks my post is about the ""environment"" argument
>He completely ignores the topic of context sensitivity's role in intelligence that was brought up
>He thinks he can hand wave it off with a pre-baked statement retreading nurture vs. nature debate
Fuck off you robo call brainlet, I read all of his shit that didn't require me to drop a dime on his pay wall.
I'm not talking about nurture, culture or even debating the importance of nature/ genetics here. I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play. A economic ecosystem that depends highly on automation to perpetuate it's own existence will always favor the mathematically minded regardless of what IQ percentile they occupy. Which is why CS majors for example who have strong interconnection to math are finding so much success today despite being among the least knowledgeable and "g" balanced communities (on average) within the mathematics or applied sciences realm.
Just like how a economic ecosystem that depends on hunting/ gathering will favor the physically able/ nimble minded or a ecosystem that depends on agriculture/ animal husbandry will favor the time and categorically oriented. It's all about context sensitivity here, not the IQ percentile you fall under. Is the traits/ quirks an individual, community or major in question here relevant and exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem? If yes, then it achieves success and wins. If not, then it achieves little to nothing and loses.
In the ecosystem that depends on automation people who occupy the highest percentiles of IQ but majored or focused on the arts such as literature and performance will on average become the losers in an economic ecosystem because their particular traits/ quirks aren't exploitable to the continue existence of the ecosystem.
This models nothing and is worthless, you are also worthless.
You're so fucking stupid holy hell.
I want to fucking strangle you for using all those retarded buzzwords to hide the fact you are SAYING NOTHING.
You basically make up arbitrary facts constantly
>I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play.
unproven statement. Higher IQ results in higher income on average and better life outcome. Since IQ is determined heavily by genetics it means genetics highly determines success.
You state: regardless of the genetics in play
Unfounded, stupid, retarded statement.
you fucking moronic piece of trash.
Because your little shit 95 IQ brain uses the word ecosystem and asserts nonsense with zero evidence to justify shitty models of the world you fail to realize how fucking RETARDED your entire post was.
FUCK OFF
The existence of a free market and interest driven career choices in modern society doesn't magically means genetics do not matter.
>categorically oriented.
>context sensitivity
>exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem
>depends on automation people
top kek you fucking shit animal pig
>relevant and exploitable to the continue existence of an economic ecosystem
economic ecosystem
vs
economic system
Tell me why you used the term ecosystem. What definition are you mapping to?
a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.
a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
Why did you choose ecosystem in particular? Did it add or change the meaning of the sentence in a meaningful way?
Why do you constantly complicate your word choice while at the same time making horrible grammatical errors? Is it perhaps to hide how fucking stupid you are by obfuscating the meaning behind arbitrary mappings and vague meanings?
>unfucked version
The free market system chooses outcomes and genetics don't matter. An economic system that relies on automation to exist will favor mathematically gifted people regardless of their IQ. CS Majors good at math are in high demand despite having low knowledge and low IQ compared to other STEM people.
Hunter Gatherer economies favor physically able and nimble minded people. Agriculture and animal husbandry economies favor time and categorically oriented people. It's all about the context not the IQ of the people. If the traits and quirks are valued in the economy they will achieve success and if not they will not.
In an automated world people of the highest IQ but who choose arts will on average be loser sin the economy because there is not much demand for them.
How about you actually explain why I'm wrong instead of throwing insults and notating my statements as buzzwords.
>unproven statement. Higher IQ results in higher income on average and better life outcome.
But that's if the IQ is tied to a major, job or role indicative of being highly utilized. High IQ alone with no predetermine destination to be positioned to cannot result in better income or life outcome.
>Since IQ is determined heavily by genetics it means genetics highly determines success.
Again that success requires a destination. IQ can be determined by genetics but without the proper destination in a economic ecosystem it cannot translate into success. People born with high IQ do not automatically become successful in the acquisition high income. They need to have a proper destination for the IQ to be applied to so it can be exploited and successful.
Now in reply to your unbuzzworded post.
You are simply restating what a free market system is where people choose their interests. The capacity for a human to be good at math or other subjects is linked with intelligence and genetics. No where in your post do you offer any evidence genetics don't matter. All you state is that a free market system values certain careers over others. Everyone already knows this. The author in question doesn't try and explain how actors with high IQ should make the same income as software developers with high IQ. The point is that higher IQ makes you more likely to succeed and achieve a higher on average life outcome. So for instance from a selection of software developers we can estimate the success of each one based on their IQ. Hence, genetics is an important component for estimating success.
You basically are so mindfucked by buzzwords that you can't think clearly at all and basically reframed the entire argument into something about how high IQ people will vary in economic outcome based on career choice, which is something anyone would agree with you on. You are not arguing the original point and your post lacks any substance. The only thing you said related to the OP book is: I'm talking about how manmade structures such as economic ecosystems adhere to it's own rule set in selecting who and what gets to be exploited and achieve success regardless of the genetics in play.
Which is disproved by a host of literature on IQ testing's predictive power for life outcomes.
see
You are reframing the question into career choices. No one would argue with the following statement and it does not disprove Genetic prediction powers:
High IQ is one variable for economic outcome but career choice is also important for an individual.
Basically if you understood language design you would realize some things
- best languages are simple and elegant
- complex words are used rarely and only for very specific domain work when no other option exists
Your language skills are the opposite. You over complicate your points to hide the fact you are a fraud intellectually. There are entire university subjects that practice such fraud since they have no competition and can freely practice lysenkoism.
Your sentences and points are only acceptable to use among those circles you little piss brained shithead. Stop using them in public among human beings.
>Tell me why you used the term ecosystem. What definition are you mapping to?
I'm using ecosystem to highlight the fact that it's interacting with life mostly humans as it pertains to our state of affairs in the greater environment. The definition can be map to the fact there's an entire field of study concerning this.
en.wikipedia.org
>Why did you choose ecosystem in particular? Did it add or change the meaning of the sentence in a meaningful way?
Again an entire field of study exist. It is it's own thing and not the same as a economic system which involves logistics and allocation.
I'm using ecosystem to hide the fact I'm a fraud and we have to constantly make up new words so no one can analyze what we are saying.
An entire field of study exists on this new word of ecosystem because of massive fraud. Instead of answering the question I'll just link some fraud studies.
Feminist economics is the critical study of economics including its methodology, epistemology, history and empirical research, attempting to overcome androcentric (male and patriarchal) biases. It focuses on topics of particular relevance to women, such as care work or occupational segregation (exclusion of women and minorities from certain fields); deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining; new forms of data collection and measurement such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and more gender-aware theories such as the capabilities approach.[1] Feminist economics ultimately seeks to produce a more gender inclusive economics.
what are you smoking? That would be officials, cannon fodder just needs to be able to walk 10 meters without pissing themselves.
>You are reframing the question into career choices. No one would argue with the following statement and it does not disprove Genetic prediction powers:
There has not been any attempt to refraim the question as the original post specifically highlights career choices.
>Which is why CS majors for example who have strong interconnection to math are finding so much success today despite being among the least knowledgeable and "g" balanced communities (on average) within the mathematics or applied sciences realm.
The reason why I didn't mention any evidence in genetics not mattering is because I never contested the fact it has a definitive role in IQ determination. My contesting involves the the income/ success because it needs some kind placement to be exploited.
>You are not arguing the original point and your post lacks any substance.
If you believe this then you have not been paying attention the my posts at all.
What is your point you fucking retard. Genetics determine IQ to a large degree. You agree with this. You disagree that IQ has any impact on success then?
So the IQ distribution within computer scientists doesn't matter? What about IQ relation with career choices?
>notes I'm a fraud despite providing an entire field that has been academically accepted.
>notes I'm making up new words despite said words are utilized in both the field and economics in general.
>only reason feminist economics is brought up in debate is because the source I provided mentions it thus you latch on to it as a last ditch effort to save face by an attempt to discredit all my previous posts and the field of ecological economics itself.
"claiming to"
insane facts right there mang. You can't just come up with numbers then say "my point is proven because statistics". Mainly because if PhD is an IQ filter then your whole statistical argument is defeated.
You can't just assume things like "normal distribution is applicable to the physics PhD population" maybe its log-normal (which I would bet for).
lysenko was academically accepted
you fail to justify the use of the word ecosystem vs system, not to mention using a domain specific word outside of that domain in public
A good degree of academics on the arts and humanities side is junk
Again your argument, boiled down, is that an economic system is important for outcome. This is not something people are arguing against. People are arguing that within such a system IQ is a very important factor for outcome and overall success of an individual and of the system itself.
It's not a surprise to say a communistic system would likely result in worse outcomes even with similar IQ or that a high IQ person on an island alone would not achieve middle class American income.
You are taking it absurdly out of context and then using it to prove nonsensical points.
>You disagree that IQ has any impact on success then?
I disagree with idea that IQ innately determines success from the start.
>So the IQ distribution within computer scientists doesn't matter? What about IQ relation with career choices?
IQ distribution for the computer scientists matters when you are only comparing them in a vacuum independent of outside affairs. IQ in relation to career choice is matter of choice and opportunities.
>you fail to justify the use of the word ecosystem vs system,
I've been only stating economic ecosystem and ecosystem in my posts. No where am I trying to justify "system" as it's own element to the debate.
>A good degree of academics on the arts and humanities side is junk
Are trying to say ecological economics counts as arts and humanities? Or are you trying to use the questionable nature of academics in arts and humanities as an argument for why ecological economics is "junk"?
reading your posts is like watching a baby putting pegs into the wrong holes. Except instead of a baby it's a retard using buzzwords too.
Also yes, it is junk. Equivalent to the weird adware on a grandparents windows 98 computer. They are the fault of not formatting the system and getting rid of the trash. Poor systems design.
holy shit, someone should invent an award for filibusting, because you just won something.
That's not answer to the questions I asked nor is it an informative statement about why the posts are bad. Just because you keep using the term "buzzword" to describe the posts does not mean it is a sufficient explanation to highlight why they are bad.
Well if believe the field is junk you best inform said organization about it so they do not have to waste any more of their time on such matters.
en.wikipedia.org
The IQ debate is really pointless to be honest. No one on this board even cares about IQ, what they really care about is how IQ effects them personally, "me,me, and me" attitude so to say. Why are you on such a crusade about IQ anyway, OP?
Let me talk about the relation of IQ and Mathematics. Having a high IQ in Mathematics allows one to see low level patterns quicker and thus apply their internalized definitions to get the answer. This is why a high IQ individual should be able to ace exams with very little revision, since questions on math exams are rarely ever deep and penetrating. A high IQ individual who seems to effortlessly pass his math exams with very little studying is just performing a kind of symbol pushing within a system; hence, such a person would flounder when asked to apply his knowledge outside of such a constrained system. From personal experience, it seems like there is another element one needs in order to come up with a key insight involving a non trivial research problem in Mathematics. If anyone wants intuition regarding what I'm talking about here, I would suggest reading about Alexander Grothendeick.
Because you obviously have a disease-infected mind incapable of rational thought anymore. It was more of an interest of mine to interact with such a diseased drone. More than anything I just feel pity for the fact you are low IQ and also infected with cloudy thought.
Not the guy you are replying to but you need to neck yourself. You sound like an insecure kid who keeps using the word "buzz word" in order to shout down the opponents points. I hate people like you.
Well I'm glade you graced me with your replies and presence user as they were so enlightening to me. I'm sorry my disease infected mind with a low IQ inconvenienced you.
More of a side effect of not understanding intelligence much. Humanity relies on it like a "magical force" instead of really doing intimate and detailed study. There are some approaches that can be taught for how to deal with unknown problems though. With ML, Neural networks, and everything related to AI/Neuroscience we will start to understand it better instead of viewing it as a sort of magic.
One of the best ways I've personally used is conversion of something to a very geometric form. See stuff like en.wikipedia.org
The most exciting thing is to imagine something not constrained by the human mind's infrastructure. Meaning our language capacity or visual capacity which is what we seem to use a lot for examining data. It will be amazing to imagine the creation of something that has a "brain" wired for intuitively understanding quantum mechanics or very complex mathematics.
Intelligence is the most important subject of interest right now.
Why is IQ such a highly debated topic when people here don't care about discipline/willpower/resillience which is more important for success?
People want to be told they had the "potential" to be the next Gauss because of some sequence of digits. Very unlikely if you have a bellow average IQ, but it's also impossible if you don't have the drive to try to take the shot.
Because the science behind it is denied.
High Conscientiousness + High IQ = sucess in pretty much any field
That's way you see so many High IQ people that fail in life, that have low Conscientiousness or other problems or variation , IQ is just one puzzle (a big one) in the overall quest for sucess or be high successful.
But, guest what, Conscientiousness is 0.49 to 0.58 heritable, so, yeah, you can deny IQ, but you can't deny that sucess somewhat is heritable or runs in the family. "but I know a rich kid that is dumb as fuck!" Regression to the means, son.
>deficiencies of economic models, such as disregarding intra-household bargaining
I trust this to have more worth than whatever that other guy is going on about.
Does this mean that IQ acts as a ceiling for determining intelligence?
I'll read the book, but can you tell me how much it says genes contribute to intelligence?
No...those are weak arguments. There are certainly areas in which outside influences help to develop some facets of our intelligence. But there is also the intelligence we are born with, and those who were born with a lot of it can only chuckle at your attempt to minimize its innateness. A properly administered IQ test (forget the online ones - even the university-sponsored ones are absolute rubbish) is focused on innate intelligence, and does its best to filter out the noise from what you refer to as the "ecosystem".
It wasn't this way in the past. There has been an invasion of shills & shitposters (flat-earthers, christians, etc.) and popsci-kiddies. It has chased the truly brilliant people off the site and rendered it a waste of time. I appreciate the fact that stupid threads slide fairly quickly, but it would be far better to make a containment board for the obviously shitty topics that dominate (and ruin) this board, and get serious about deleting unwanted threads.
>I cannot browse this board with threads telling people IQ doesn't measure intelligence
This never happened
The Bell Curve 2.0?
>IQ doesn't measure intelligence despite all the scientific evidence in the world, because it conflicts with my egalitarian worldviews!
>it don't do
>>but it do
>why tho
>>reasons you won't like
>you're right I hate them
/mensa