Is there a scientific way to determine what IQ is needed to understand various TV shows? What about other media?

>what IQ is needed to understand various TV shows
2-digit

>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Not science, user. I think this has been already discussed.

OMG! That's adorable!

>it's been researched therefore it can't be completely erroneous

you dont need to know what intelligence is to see that whatever we call iq (or the general intelligence factor) follows certain properties.

>>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
You dont need to explain intelligence mechanistically to prove that it exists you fucking asshat. We were studying how genes worked before we knew how they worked. Fuck off with your shit ad hoc arguments, theyre all pub tier trash thats been settled in the 80s

>iq tries to measure intelligence
>"you don't need to know what intelligence is
?
>you don't need to explain intelligence mechanistically
To describe and measure intelligence of course you need to observe intelligence fenomena. Such fenomena needs to be explained to understand its influences.

You rejecting such deductive conclusions is just comical. lol

>Such fenomena needs to be explained to understand its influences.
no i just showed that not the case with the genetics example. its a black box, but it still has properties we can observe

Knowing that it exists isn't the same as being able to accurately quantify it, which is the objection that many people have against giving IQ any meaningful weight.

>i showed you with genetics example
You only showed how things can be studied until we know their nature, you complete brainlet.

You have proven nothing. Iq is still pseudoscience.

>daily IQ thread no #9340685894

>You have proven nothing.
I have proven that we can study it without knowing how the general intelligence factor works as a function of the brain.

You are wrong, no one here can say anything that will demote the study of iq to pseudoscience.

stop calling people brainlet until you say something of value yourself

>i have proven that we can study
>no one here can say anything demote
Both claims are irrelevant to the topic. Nobody wants to prove you can study or demote psychology stuff. Iq is still not science.

stop making baseless claims you brainlet nigger, its obvious you dont like the idea of iq so fucking justify yourself rather than saying research done by people smarter than you doesnt matter.

Para ser honesto, você precisa ter um QI muito alto para poder entender Rick e Morty. O humor é extremamente sutil, e sem um entendimento forte de física teórica boa parte das piadas passarão despercebidas pelos espectadores normais. Tem também o comportamento niilista do Rick, que é cunhado de maneira sagaz em sua caracterização- sua filosofia pessoal possui forte influência da literatura de Narodnaya Volya, por exemplo. Os fans entendem essas coisas; eles têm a capacidade intelectual para apreciar verdadeiramente a profundidade de tais piadas, e percebem que não são somente engraçadas - elas dizem algo mais profundo sobre a VIDA. Como consequência pessoas que não gostam de Rick e Morty SÃO verdadeiras idiotas - claro que elas não iriam apreciar, por exemplo, o humor no bordão existencial do Rick "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," que é uma referência escondida ao épico russo Pais e Filhos de Turgenev. Estou sorrindo no momento só de imaginar um desses simplórios coçando a cabeça confuso conforme a geniosidade de Dan Harmon se desdobra em sua televisão. Que tolo.. como tenho dó dele.

E sim, eu tenho uma tatuagem do Rick e Morty, inclusive. E não, você não pode vê-la. É somente para os olhos de uma dama e até mesmo ela teria que demonstrar antes que está no máximo a 5 pontos de QI
de diferença do meu (de preferência, menor). Nada pessoal, criança. ;)

You keep throwing strawmen without reason.

Why don't you try with another kind of wordplay, brainlet?

iq is not science.

>iq is not science.
Justify yourself. You arent making a point, youre just putting your fingers in your ears and throwing a tantrum because you dont have any arguments.

Iq supporters have to prove that iq science, though. See: >doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Not science, user. I think this has been already discussed.

ive already shown that we dont need to explain intelligence through its mechanism to study it. Argue honestly

>Iq supporters have to prove that iq science
already fucking done, its called psychology. testable and repeatable, so its science

And I've mentioned that I'm not asking if "iq" can be studied.
>psychology
The definition you are spouting is applied in social sciences where fenomena isn't even described but implied elements based on the psychology theory of the decade, are used for statistics and thrown in the archive without any kind of physical or direct fenomena explanation.

Iq is included in the social "" science "" topics and research.

This is from the other thread.

Why can't I brag for begin in mensa?

>The definition you are spouting is applied in social sciences where fenomena isn't even described
>are used for statistics and thrown in the archive without any kind of physical or direct fenomena explanation.

they dont need a physical explanation.

again ill mention genetics. We DO NOT need to know how the genes connect and mingle to describe how they behave. We see that dominant genes overpower recessive genes and we dont need to know why that happens to be able to call it a science. On top of that all we are interested in is how they behave.

Mechanism =/= science
study = science

you dont have a proper view on what counts as science, you take a far too engineering-based approach to explanations to the point where you reject ideas if they dont have a mechanism explaining them.

ffs it's spelled with ph

>Something has to be completely understood to be science
You're fucking retarded, it can be proven wrong and still be science if it follows the scientific method.

Also IQ tests are shit but they have good correlation to other areas of life such as success. And before you spout your autismo bullshit, correlation does heavily imply causation when enough tests are done with the same results.

>they don't need a physical explanation
Then they fall into the social "sciences" category.

>how genes connect
Except that we know how's the process from genes to protein chains. And such process is known by observation. The interaction and interpretation of recessive genes and dominant genes is still being researched, yet the mechanism is known physically.

>mechanism=science
Both those three questions put the basis of any scientific element to be science.
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism

>you x
Not an argument.
Thanks.
See

>Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Point out exactly how experiments dealing with IQ don't qualify. If you say that it's not a science because the experiments don't say IQ measures intelligence then you have no idea what science actually means even after I told you.

>>they don't need a physical explanation
>Then they fall into the social "sciences" category.
fucking listen for a second you disingenuous piece of shit, as ive said numerous times. Genes dont need a mechanical explanation to be studied, and they are still a hard science

>Except that we know how's the process from genes to protein chains.
Yes we know it, but we dont NEED to know it for it to be studied, how many times do I need to repeat myself.

>>mechanism=science
No, the study of gravity was still a science even though we didn't know the mechanism. We studied it by observing what effects it had rather than how it worked. Dont just ignore what im saying so that I dont need to say it again.

>See
stop linking to your ass post, it doesnt explain anything, its just fucking deflection enough to last until the next time you cant argue a point.

That's why iq is included by social science. See

being a social science is not proof of being false. Just because it deals with humans rather than particles doesnt make it illegitimate you narrow minded cunt

>studied
This have been addresed already read this post>the study of gravity
We only can claim that it's a science now because we have defined it in a fundamental apparent level. According to our perception knowledge. iq doesn't doesn't fulfill such requirements.

>We only can claim that it's a science now because we have defined it in a fundamental apparent level.

holy shit youre fucking stupid. "explaining something isnt science anymore, because i unnecessarily want more"

>studying x = explaining x
You sure had a stroke or something, shaking my head

>studying x = explaining x
who are you quoting

studying black holes is not sufficient enough to explain what happens at the singularity. And its unnecessary to explain the singularity to study black holes

The study of black holes is part of the science of astronomy. Claims about black holes which contradict science or aren't based in science on a fundamental level aren't science, but pseudoscience. That's where the ayylium stuff comes from. Iq basis isn't even defined, let alone in a fundamental level. Thus it falls into the category of social "science".

>The study of black holes is part of the science of astronomy
but it doesnt have a mechanical explanation, we dont know how the singularity works, but does that all of a sudden not matter?

>Claims about black holes which contradict science or aren't based in science on a fundamental level aren't science, but pseudoscience.
Where the fuck did you pull that, obviously contradictory statements need to be settled. but if the implication is that iq research is contradictory then you need to supply evidence that that happens and is accepted

>Iq basis isn't even defined, let alone in a fundamental level. Thus it falls into the category of social "science".
iq's basis is the study of how the brain works

once fucking more, just because it is a social science doesnt legitimize it.

it has been studied, its been consistent for more than 30 fucking years of relentless attacks on it, you are not more enlightened than the entire field of psychology you immature twat. accept that it is consistent in the same ways that supply and demand is consistent despite being a social science

No. This is your ego speaking, not rationality or open mindedness. Intelligence isn't smarts.

>it doesn't have a mechanical explanation
Yes it has. Every conceivable approach has been measured and models have been made thanks to the data.
>iq basis
Brain mechanisms haven't been defined in a fundamental level.
iq claims to measure intelligence. That's where those three questions come from .

>Yes it has.
now youre just either fucking lying or too stupid to realize that there isnt an explanation for what happens at the singularity yet.

>Every conceivable approach has been measured and models have been made thanks to the data.
So you accept that we dont need to explain the mechanics so long as we have the data. Ive been saying that this entire fucking time

>Brain mechanisms haven't been defined in a fundamental level.
neurons