Reminder that IQ is to intelligence what alchemy was to chemistry. IQ has some marginal usefulness...

List time I made psychological tests, I almost cried.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, HE DOES A BREAK DOWN FOR YOU, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND NOT JUST THE INTRO YOU DISHONEST PILE OF SHIT.

>IQ brainlet getting butt mad for being a brainlet
I quoted directly from the link, you utter brainlet.

Yeah, from the fucking intro. :'D
READ. THE. WHOLE. ARTICLE.

social status has correlations with some quiz test results, and? the more intellectual work the more smart the average worker is. i don't need any quizzes to tell you that

IQ is the big question of our time. You can't stop people from being drawn to the subject.

You really are a piece of utter shit, aren't you?

>le everyone is the same, you can teach yourself to be a genius too, no one born with any ability :DDDD
Kill yourself.

>IQ is the big question of our time.
IQ is going to be replaced by real science soon, kiddo.

>inb4 IQ2

Nobody is claiming that you complete clown.
Dismissing IQ as meme nonsense does not mean you believe everyone can be equal or that there is no difference in intelligence between people. Brainlet.

>proves relationship between academic ability (INTELLIGENCE) and iq
>retard dismisses it, because le based maymay
>gets btfo out so just spacs out without even reading the article
IQ is the measure of that inherent ability, my dear boy. Just like the kilometre and the distance it measures.

>>proves relationship between academic ability (INTELLIGENCE) and iq
All you've 'proved' is a correlation value of 0.55 and the fact you've never studied basic statistics. And you've identified yourself as a /pol/tard brainlet, now it's time to go back to your brainlet board.

Are you sure that you responded to the right person, user?

How? How is accepting IQ anything to do with /pol/? If you're the one inferring race, then YOU'RE THE RACIST, not me. And if you'd read the article, he proceeds to go through it and calculate the mean IQ for the various tiers of academia using the 0.55 value and you can see that the difference in IQ is still CONSIDERABLE.
>High school dropouts: IQ 85 (U.S. white norms)
>University grads: IQ 108 (U.S. white norms)
That's calculated with the 0.55 value, dumbfuck.
For "Le Stats Maestar" you sure as a disingenuous piece of shit.

Ehm... no.

you lack the knowledge of the actual sources of differences between human's personalities (protip: it's not genetics). that's why you think IQ is a big thing, because it's the only thing you can think of.
i suggest you read some entry level philosophers to expand your knowledge on that topic. personally i recommend you "existentialism is a humanism" by Sartre. it's short.

*looks user in the eyes*
He's actually serious!
*pinches nose and giggles to himself*
Painful, truly painful.
Ah yes, those ineffable ideas of the intangible without any data to back them up. Whereas, we have data here that shows the difference between mean IQ and level of academic attainment and you'd rather I turn to the inexact and some could argue subjective world of philosophical literature.
How about you fuck off?

>genetics aren't real / the brain is not influenced by genetics
>philosophy changes reality
Are you for real right now?

>correlation of 0.55
>therefore IQ is capable of completely describing all of innate cognitive ability with a single number

READ. THE. ARTICLE.

I did. Does it prove that IQ is capable of assigning a single number that captures all of a person's innate cognitive ability? Did I just miss that part or what?

No, but it shows that IQ increases with academic complexity and therefore is a predictor of academic intelligence. So will you at least admit that?

>
>>correlation of 0.55
>>therefore IQ is capable of completely describing all of innate cognitive ability with a single number

just for the record, its .55 globally. 1st world is ~ .85 as negative environmental factors are removed

>These plebs getting assmad about IQ and claiming it doesn't measure intelligence

IQ tests are what is referred to as "g-loaded," meaning they correlate strongly with raw intelligence, "g." Of course no measurement tool is exact. Stating that IQ is useless because it cannot measure g in exact terms is like saying a yard-stick is useless because it cannot provide length in terms of picometers.

Yup. After many environmental factors have been removed, the importance of IQ becomes much clearer.

G itself is just meme approximation.
Until you have something better than an approximation of an approximation, shut the fuck up and sit down. Until then, don't claim you have a scientific understanding of 'intelligence'.
>.85 as negative environmental factors are removed
Stop lying.

It shows the increase is marginal.
Whereas you're claiming it's substantial.

t. IQlet

T. brainlet with no achievements that needs a high score on a bullshit test to make him not feel like a loser.

PHILOSOPHY MASTER RACE REPORTING IN

>projecting this hard
lol

A real IQ test is whether you can get a degree or not in your relevant field.

Wrong, a rote memorizing brainlet could get a degree in almost everything too

Nigger, the claim is still wrong.

intelligence is relying on the actual knowledge. you can't solve a problem without having the complete information required to solve that problem.
this means that intelligence doesn't matter at all. all what is actually matter is the knowledge that you have.

checkmate, IQ fagets

t. retard who can only rote memorize
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapper_orientation

>This trait is one of a pair, referred to in a post on a software programmer's blog.

Here you go, brainlet.
datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r0/Day1.html

This is you

You're still a rote memorizing brainlet who behaves exactly like predicted on that website. Congratulations!

You're so smart dude XD

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As I said, enjoy being on top of the bell curve

Found you again.

Nigga, iq is not science. Stop forcing that bullshit.

...

Top of the bell curve. Enjoy living in denial.
You should go back to r/iamverysmart now and continue masturbating about how YOU are the actual intelligent one, unlike all those brainlets. Because that's a sure sign of intelligence, making fun of dumb people.

I'M A SUPER GENIUS GUYS XDDD
MY IQ SAID SO

>denial
Except iq is still not science, bud. Why are you still forcing that bullshit?

>still not science

>Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][56][57] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[58]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

Inb4 "lol but psychology is not a science". Enjoy living in denial.

A sure sign of intelligence, making fun of dumb people.

>Inb4 "lol but psychology is not a science"
Psychology is a social science.
Social science =/ science. Sorry brainlet.

psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate
>The reason many are rightfully skeptical about its status is found in the body of scientific knowledge—psychology has failed to produce a cumulative body of knowledge that has a clear conceptual core that is consensually agreed upon by mainstream psychological experts. The great scholar of the field, Paul Meehl, captured this perfectly when he proclaimed that the sad fact that in psychology:

>theories rise and decline, come and go, more as a function of baffled boredom than anything else; and the enterprise shows a disturbing absence of that cumulative character that is so impressive in disciplines like astronomy, molecular biology and genetics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>what science means
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 phenomena explanation.

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

So much denial just because you got a low score.
Yeah, maybe you should read that instead of posting retarded shit.
>implying actual science has phenomena explanations on the microscopic scale

>science has phenomena explanations
Iq lacks fundamental explanation of phenomena. Scientific facts and laws are direct correlations that are explained in the most coneivable and fundamental way. Iq cannot even solve these three basic questions.
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is not science. Iq is pseudoscience.

As I said numerous times, believe in whatever makes you feel good and enjoy living in denial. Most people do that.

>believe
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the kind of people who keep forcing iq as "science"

My IQ makes me super smart and enlightened!

P.s. if you actually spent time taking an IQ test, you're a brainlet.

That's great, but it doesn't change that you're a brainlet if you rote memorize.
For the list time: enjoy your denial. I bet you seriously believe that everyone has the same brain capabilities

>estimated from GRE scores
I hope that's not the same "IQ score" used to show correlation between IQ and academic success.

>you x
Except iq is not science. You keep throwing around irrelevant "sentences", yet you still can't demonstrate why iq is science.
Therefore iq is not science. Thus iq is pseudoscience.

>net worth is 6 figures at the age of 31
Holy kek, this has gotta be a joke.

I was tested to have an IQ of 132 on 3 hours of sleep and dealing with a lot of anxiety. I'm a middle school dropout

You're proof that IQ doesn't raise with education and that it doesn't guarantee that one wouldn't do retarded shit

why the knowledge how to solve IQ quizzes should raise after studying completely unrelated things?
does learning math in any way increases you knowledge of history, for example?

I don't know, it's just that's what someone else said in this thread

So you backpedaled from "academic success" to "school grades" now?

ACADEMICS PLS RESPOND

Read the fucking article, not just the picture attached the post you fucking prick.

>bruh I'm basically an expert in my field -- statistics
>No, you can't use statistics to analyze human populations or approximate human intelligence because that hurts my fee fees
>I mean, I'm practically Von Neumann here, why can't you see this?
>I practically OWN statistics

>We overestimate once and underestimate once, but if we average, we get exactly what we wanted
Wow

The most likely IQ for a PhD is 119, that's pretty significantly rare.
And the most likely IQ of Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate is 125, that's also even more significantly rare.
In other words, if you want to be in academia, as most on Veeky Forums do, having a high IQ is important.
I'd call that pretty significant.

READ. THE. ACTUAL. ARTICLE.

>The most likely IQ for a PhD is 119
I've read 130

According to: But that includes PhDs from shitty universities, and also includes non-STEM PhDs.

daily reminder psychology today is pure pseudoscience and iq is as scientific a metric as are horoscopes

0.55 is massive. I think you're the brainlet here. Using the BESD, r = 0.55 is equivalent to an increase in success rate from 22.5% to 77.5%

Massive.

This.

Things like "critical sociology" and the like probably bring the average down. Never met one of those that wasn't a authority-worshiping brainlet.

>An r value of 0.55 is utter irrelevant garbage.

>The central finding of our meta-analysis for the full sample is a substantial mean correlation of ρ = .54 between intelligence and school grades which can be regarded as significant since the respective confidence interval does not include zero.
Going from "school grades" to "academic success" is quite the stretch, isn't it? And not only that, the website you posted didn't even get it's numbers right. Yes, there is a difference between the claimed 0.55 and and the 0.54 in the article, and the fact that the numbers differ is a hint that the author of the website is either dishonest or didn't even read the article carefully

What they also said in the article, which you and the website forgot to mention
>Nevertheless, it would be an oversimplification to generalize this finding because of substantial residual variance, which cannot be explained by the methodological artifacts for which we corrected (i.e., sample size, predictor reliability, range restriction).

also, the meta-data is global and education systems vary. in the us for example, where education is private, merit alone doesn't warrant a university education

Ah yes, I forgot being an Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate isn't some measure of academic success, that requires a considerable IQ.

Unless you're from a country that matters, where you'll need a gifted IQ to be successful in academia, you don't matter, cultural Marxism doesn't apply here.

>Unless you're from a country that matters, where you'll need a gifted IQ to be successful in academia, you don't matter, cultural Marxism doesn't apply here.

what an incoherent bunch of diarrhea you managed to type there. kudos

Sure thing, remind me that time when the Congo last was awarded a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal.
I am sick of this postmodernist bullshit.
Unless you're Occidental, or East Oriental, you aren't an academic powerhouse, fact.

>Ah yes, I forgot being an Ivy League or Oxbridge graduate isn't some measure of academic success, that requires a considerable IQ.
see Neither Ivy league nor Oxbridge are mentioned anywhere in the article directly

>postmodernism

stop using words you don't understand. wanna know how i know you're an undergrad or at best have a bsc? go in any research lab and you'll see at least 50% of the people are from abroad. I'm not saying congo produces research, but it does produce researchers that move abroad. that study in any case measured high school grades, not university grades, so i fail to see what your rumbling has to do with the validity of the "study"

>He didn't work at Bell labs where everyone is either white or Asian

Brainlet pls