Utopia Talk / Politics / IQ tests say nothing

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 02 10:20:07 The article links to studies for all the association mentioned. http://aeo...ver-is-it-to-dismiss-iq-tests? ‘IQ tests just measure how good you are at doing IQ tests.’ This is the argument that is almost always made when intelligence-testing is mentioned. It’s often promoted by people who are, otherwise, highly scientifically literate. You wouldn’t catch them arguing that climate change is a myth or that vaccines might cause autism. But saying that IQ tests are useless is just as wrong as these notions: in fact, decades of well-replicated research point to IQ tests as some of the most reliable and valid instruments in all of psychological science. So what does an IQ test – which might consist of, for example, shape-based puzzles, timings of how quickly you can check through lists of meaningless symbols, memory tests, and vocabulary measures – actually tell you? The strongest correlation is perhaps unsurprising: an IQ score is highly predictive of how people will do in school. One large study found that IQ scores at age 11 correlated 0.8 (on a scale of -1 to 1) with school grades at age 16. Surely this gives us some basis for calling these measures ‘intelligence tests’. But that’s just the beginning: higher IQ scores are predictive of more occupational success, higher income, and better physical and mental health. Perhaps the most arresting finding is that IQ scores taken in childhood are predictive of mortality. Smarter people live longer, and this association is still there after controlling for social class. Neuroscientists and geneticists have also made good progress in understanding human intelligence. Meta-analyses of hundreds of studies confirm that people with larger brains tend to get higher scores on IQ tests, and research on more specific brain regions and features continues apace. We know from studies of twins, and from studies done directly on DNA, that intelligence test scores are heritable: a substantial portion of the intelligence differences between people are due to genetics. We’ve already begun to find some of the specific genes that might be responsible for these differences, and further findings are on the way. People make the mistake of assuming that intelligence is immutable because it has been linked to genetic and neural features, and because it seems highly stable across the lifespan. One’s IQ score, they think, is set in stone, condemning you to a poorer life if it’s below-average. This is a mistake. There’s nothing in principle to suggest that we can’t raise people’s IQ scores, at least to a degree (though many recent attempts to do so have been non-starters). Indeed, IQ scores have been rising inexorably across the years, in a process called the Flynn Effect, for (non-genetic) reasons that aren’t yet clear. Another mistake is to think that anyone has ever claimed that an IQ score ‘sums up’ a person. This is another falsehood, since all IQ researchers would readily accept that personality, motivation, and a host of other factors – including luck – are all crucial for success in life. It would be foolish to deny that there are any skeletons in IQ-testing’s closet. Many, though by no means all, of the originators of the tests were involved with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, and it’s reasonable to be appalled at some of the uses to which IQ tests were originally put. But these concerns are irrelevant to the main question of whether an IQ score, taken today, can tell you anything about a person. Facts are facts, and the validity of intelligence test scores is amply backed by voluminous evidence. As all the studies linked above show, IQ tests are useful in a wide variety of situations, from education to medicine to the world of work. We need IQ tests to help us understand how the brain ages, and how we can help it age more healthily. We need IQ tests to help us work out how to boost people’s intelligence, and thus to boost their productivity. Perhaps, above all, IQ tests are one of the tools with which psychologists can dissect and examine human intelligence: we’d be extremely unwise to continue to ignore their insights.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 02 10:57:41 I found a series of IQ tests a relative had done. He had anotated the sides with commentary (this makes me smarter than xx% of the population). He scored in the top 10% easily and the tests were done by medical professionals. The commentaries were perhaps the saddest things I have ever read. ‘IQ tests just measure how good you are at doing IQ tests.’ Its not an argument. Often it is just a demonstration of false modesty (something someone doing well at IQ tests might say).
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 02 11:14:24 Nah, its usually a coping mechanism used by retards and post-modern fuzzy "feelings are more important than facts" seb types.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Fri Nov 02 13:11:39 Yeah it's those who score 110-130 so it doesn't much impact their life.
Seb Member	Fri Nov 02 13:24:54 Deeply unconvincing. It sets out to rebut a straw man. Few day iq measures nothing. The most frequent criticism is that it's a poor measure: biased, narrow and influenced by other factors. Further the articles logic is flawed in places. "The strongest correlation is perhaps unsurprising: an IQ score is highly predictive of how people will do in school. One large study found that IQ scores at age 11 correlated 0.8 (on a scale of -1 to 1) with school grades at age 16. Surely this gives us some basis for calling these measures ‘intelligence tests’. But that’s just the beginning: higher IQ scores are predictive of more occupational success, higher income, and better physical and mental health. Perhaps the most arresting finding is that IQ scores taken in childhood are predictive of mortality. Smarter people live longer, and this association is still there after controlling for social class." This would be true if it also measures characteristics that correlate will successful performance in the education system. Education correlates with all those other outcomes (partly casually as income is strongly driven by credentials, and health with income). If IQ is an unbiased measure of intelligence, why does it vary by language and culture so much? "There’s nothing in principle to suggest that we can’t raise people’s IQ scores" But does this truly raise their intelligence, or just prove you can learn to be better at the class of problems that constitute IQ tests? This to some extent results in a circular definition of intelligence: intelligence is doing well on iq tests. The Flynn test can probably be explained by rising educational standards rather than increasing underlying ability. The other mistake with iq is that it represents percentiles not an absolute. So someone with an iq of say, 145-155 occurs at 1 in 400. But you probably won't notice the difference between them and someone with an iq 140-145 outside the confines of an iq test which is highly artificial. So iq is a useful measure of a slippery subject, but it's far from clear it is a good basis for making broad decisions on social policy.
hood Member	Fri Nov 02 14:31:28 "but it's far from clear it is a good basis for making broad decisions on social policy." Aside from establishing a baseline for determining if someone is not self aware enough to understand the consequences of their actions in criminal law, what social policy is decided by IQ? Talk about a fucking straw man.
McKobb Member	Fri Nov 02 14:59:11 IQ tests are like palm readings, both are used to stroke your ego and come out self-satisfied!
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 02 15:47:19 "If IQ is an unbiased measure of intelligence, why does it vary by language and culture so much? " Rofl. You know why this is seb. Pwnt.
Daemon Member	Fri Nov 02 16:20:46 GaryD was living proof that a high IQ could make you win all and every discussion in this forum!!
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Nov 02 16:31:44 I took a Wonderlic test once and the guy that gave it to me said his son was a junior in college and an honor student and he only answered two more right than I did. I got the job. While in the army I took the test for Officers Candidate School and missed qualifying by 1/2 a point. For what it's worth.
Pillz Member	Fri Nov 02 17:51:10 Lol @ seb
Forwyn Member	Fri Nov 02 17:56:23 Lol @ seb
Dukhat Member	Fri Nov 02 18:29:12 LoL @ cuckservatives Trapped by their own ignorance.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Nov 02 18:50:33 You can spot the idiots by seeing who says you cant measure idiocy. What a surprise, its seb and cuckhat.
Dukhat Member	Fri Nov 02 19:43:52 IQ has a large component of static knowledge and it can measure alacrity (which is the speed at which you learn) but the brain can learn infinite things as long as you apply yourself consistently. So if you're a cuckservative reinforcing your own prejudices on Breitbart, you'll still fall behind a person with a lower IQ that applies his or herself. That's why IQ has generally risen over time in the western world despite the gene pool being almost exactly the same. But a deep and well-cited discussion is beyond the level of cuckservatives. Forwyn, Pillz, and Sam can continue jerking each other off as they entire middle-age full of hate and ignorance.
hood Member	Fri Nov 02 23:39:52 "the brain can learn infinite things as long as you apply yourself consistently" Yeah... no. Brains do not defy the laws of physics. Perhaps you meant anything, not everything.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Sat Nov 03 00:11:09 Seb you made a bunch of logical flaws. "This would be true if it also measures characteristics that correlate will successful performance in the education system. Education correlates with all those other outcomes (partly casually as income is strongly driven by credentials, and health with income). " IQ is statistically valid, when you control for everything else it is still left over. Some study of psychology would give you that knowledge. "If IQ is an unbiased measure of intelligence, why does it vary by language and culture so much? " Because... Do we really have to say? Intelligence is genetic so different genetics means intelligence is different between races. "So someone with an iq of say, 145-155 occurs at 1 in 400. But you probably won't notice the difference between them and someone with an iq 140-145 outside the confines of an iq test which is highly artificial. " The difference of 5 iq points at that level is huge, mostly because of how the scales are normalized. If I were dealing with those people I would be able to easily tell.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 02:37:04 Why does IQ scores vary by culture? Because genes vary, so does culture, IQ is mostly genetic. Was that a serious question?
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 02:41:37 Hood: Have you ever spoken to Sam Adams? Turtle crawler: You seem to have confused pointing out flaws in the article with making an argument. You are introducing new facts the article didn't present. "Because... Do we really have to say? Intelligence is genetic so different genetics means intelligence is different between races." Language and culture aren't genetic. It may absolutely blow your mind but there are actually people of the same genetic background who grow up speaking different languages in different cultures. Amazing. "The difference of 5 iq points at that level is huge" But it isn't. The relative frequency is, because the iq score is measured in terms of a bell curve, but if you don't know their scores, you wouldn't necessarily even order them correctly in an ordinary context. "If I were dealing with those people I would be able to easily tell." I doubt it - three of us with properly assessed IQ scores from an educational psychologist tried this (so low n admittedly). Ok, so if you have the same person take an IQ test on three different days a month apart, what is the standard deviation of the iq they are assessed to have? Pretty sure I recall there's as much as 3-5 points error. Because the relative frequency isn't linear, in the tails it becomes quite innacurate. And in any gaussian distribution, very small absolute differences change your percentile a large amount.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 02:45:21 >>between races.<< I wouldn’t use the word ”race”, it has historical baggage, and really it is a sociological phenomena and very hard to define rigorously and impossible to reconcile with biology. The correct biological word would be ”population”.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 02:57:17 Great questions seb, go find a psychometrician and go nuts. I have found out over the years that most scientists love to answer questions about their work, if one acts in good faith. Just bring this with you, IQ is one of the crowning achievments of the field of psychology, the overwhelming majority of the people in the field are ”liberals”. I know you like to dismiss entire fields when they misalign with your ideology.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 03:08:12 >>IQ has a large component of static knowledge and it can measure alacrity (which is the speed at which you learn) but the brain can learn infinite things as long as you apply yourself consistently.<< IQ is broken down into several threads. Reasoning - spatial ability - memory - processing speed - vocabulary ^Deary et al 2010 The brain can’t learn infinite things, not metaphorically, nominally or really.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 04:40:01 Nim: "go find a psychometrician" Hint: I already have. That's the great thing about studying at a really good science university. Yes, IQ isn't meaningless. It just doesn't mean what many people think it means, and incorrect inferences are easily drawn.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 05:16:53 Perfect, IQ means exactly what the article says it means. It correlates precisely with the things the studies say it does. Non of these claims are controvetial within the fields, the methods have been improved and validated for decades. IQ is one of the crowning achievment of psychology, there is not a high paying position, certianly not a lot of management position filled without having to take one. Most of us here have taken several. In case, just to pre-empt it. I do not have exceptionally high IQ, it is above average. I know some people like to personalize topics, I am not personalizing IQ, I do not have much to gain. I am as stupid as the rest of you. I would much rather IQ was infinitely malleable, that would facilitate much easier solutions to many problems.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 05:30:12 I wasn’t dismissing you seb, but I don’t feel like putting in a lot of effort explaining things to someone who has no issues dismissing entire fields of study (EP) based on falsehoods (unfalsifiable hypothesis) he refuses to correct when they are explained. Non of the things in the article were new to me, I have been looking for a short article to includes many issue you have raised. Jergul certainly has said exactly that IQ tests are a meassure of how good you are at taking the test. I believe you have as well. You certainly have raised the ”cultural” issue, that IQ tests do not work cross culturally. Also false. You can go to the University of Lagos and give the test to Nigerian student, they get the principle of a Raven matrice, just fine. It isn’t all ”western” and alien to people in Iran either, long history of math and calculus. And the Chinese, they really get, they get it the best, even though the entire concept was discovered in the West.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 08:17:06 Nim: It's not a falsehood to say that EP tests on unfalsifiable hypotheses. You yourself posted as your best refutation an article that exactly listed the unfalsifiable hypotheses which have to be assumed true in any EP work. These have not been and cannot be tested. And I am far from alone in this. Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists make the same criticisms. This article, as I've pointed out, addresses none of the criticisms I've made, which pertain to the limits on what you can use IQ for. Naturally IQ measures how good you are at taking the test. That's a tautology and irrefutable. The question is what skills and characteristics are required in order to succeed on the test, and having an IQ of a population, what that really tells you about that population. Non verbal tests are far from universal. Dyslexia, for example, often involves an insensitivity to rotations that underpin that test - and I've personally found several that are completely ambiguous (depending on how sophisticatedly you want to think about spatial translations, symmetry or the semiotics of what information might be encoded in the patterns). Raven matricies are known to be culturally specific as the concept of organising into rows and columns is common in some cultures and a key part of very early year education/play, and absent in others. If you don't have that concept as a prerequisite, you are likely to score much worse than someone who does. It's also known that performance on these tests correlates to the skills in spatial manipulation which are learned. The kinds of toys, play and prior education develop those skills and that's culturally specific. Even literacy can play a role there. The fact that non verbal tests uncouple from verbal tests at best suggests that what we think of intelligence isn't one thing.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 08:18:43 I find it highly doubtful that you can create a test that is independent of the medium it is constructed in, and without that baselines will vary. Cultures where visual media dominate Vs others where written media dominate at early years are bound to differ.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 03 09:10:58 lol, what will you do with all falsified hypothesis from EP then? There is reason I am not wasting time, you have decided that this is how it is, I could give you a week ends worth of reading consisting of falsified EP hypothesis, it wont matter.
patom Member	Sat Nov 03 09:16:15 Out of curiosity, is there a test that we can all take to see how we score? Or would this lead to a whole new debate on whose tests were more suited or accurate?
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 09:58:29 Nim: You have a logical statement that says If A and if B, then C. Falsifying C can be achieved by falsifying B. But if an entire field is built on assumption of A, and A cannot be falsified, can it truly call itself science?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 03 10:39:36 "Yes, IQ isn't meaningless." Under the irresistible mass of vast evidence, seb is forced to admit the truth, but only a little. He will continue to try to squirm his way out of saying anything politically incorrect, and provide much lulz in doing so.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 11:38:51 Sam: The problem with your exaggeration is you have long since lost track of actual reality. IQ having meaning isn't the same thing as it not having the meaning you ascribe to it.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 03 18:08:45 Lol. Wiggle wiggle squirm. Genes are fake!!!!!!
Seb Member	Sat Nov 03 18:12:00 See, classic Sam. Gene's are real, you just have a very poor grasp on genetics.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 03 18:17:00 "Genes stop working once groups of people are considered" Seb, the master geneticist. Seb actually thinks this.
Nekran Member	Sun Nov 04 01:53:57 What do you enjoy about arguing against warped and non-existent versions of people's arguments, Sammy? Is it simply the trolling? Is it enjoying a pretend world?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 04 02:02:56 Nekran Seb has said false things in this thread about Evolutionary Psychology, he has in the passed said IQ test have a cultural bias, false. That what they do is meassure how good you are at taking the test, false. He has posted statistical nonsense as evidence for gender inequality. It would be charitable to call this a warped world view, he is well passed the point of batshit dishonesty, objectively. When people go down the rabbit hole of their religion (secular or otherwise) they start acting as such. Faith must be defended against the heretics and thus if it requires, trample all reason, sense and understanding.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 04 02:23:21 They found that 73.3% of the “experts” believed that Cognitive Ability Tests (IQ tests) did not have any racial bias, as did 51% of the “non-experts”, compared to 6.7% of “experts” and 29.2% of “non-experts” who believed the tests were racially biased. As far back as 1982, a panel from The National Research Council and The National Academy of Sciences conducted an investigation of bias in mental testing, and concluded that cultural bias explained virtually none of the racial variance in IQ scores. . . . One natural experiment on the “cultural bias” of IQ tests involves East Asians. East Asians actually score higher than Europeans and European Americans in all sorts of environments. This is seen in 14 studies around the world where East Asians live in European-majority countries, including adoption studies, a whole host of IQ test data and IQ test proxies in the United States, international IQ tests and international test scores, and the idea that this is down to genetics is supported by the frequency of specific genes associated with intelligence, and in rates of nearsightedness which is associated with nonverbal IQ and has a heritability of 0.42. FYI A straightforward way to analyze test bias is to assemble a bunch of “experts” in various fields, show them questions, have them rate which ones they think are more or less biased, and then compare these ratings to the actual results. A paper in 1987 by Frank McGurk and Arthur Jensen documented just that, and described their method thusly: “A panel of 78 judges, including professors of psychology and sociology, educators, professional workers in counseling and guidance, and graduate students in these fields, were asked to classify each of the 226 test items into one of three categories: I, least cultural; II, neutral; III, most cultural.” PAY ATTENTION In the results, they found that the black and white test score difference was significantly larger for questions which were judged to be the least cultural and the lowest for questions judged to be the most cultural. ^Indeed what people like seb think are cultural generated the least difference. The question about cultural bias has been asked every decade atleast once and investigated independantly every decade. IQ is a solid concept with predictive powers and virtually no cultural bias. These are well known useful facts and models for predicting outcomes. http://the.../15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/ ^http://www.utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=81055&time=1504365654176
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 04 02:33:56 Nekran Here is thread from many years ago, where you say IQ doesn’t matter. So these troll bait, they don’t arise in a vacuum. Now I don’t necessarily think (if you have) your change of opinion on this is a big deal, but as an FYI why the issue is brought up. I myself used to have some fantasy laces poetic beliefs about the human mind. Science, it works bitches!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 04 02:34:38 The thread. http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=18387
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 02:57:19 The problem nekran, seb, and I see is that IQ tests (which are legitimate educational or medical tools) can easily be conflated to rather rabid support of some form of pseudo social darwinism used to justify quite outragous policies. The resistance is due to the potential application. I personally think IQ is a good predictor of a reasonably decent old age. Cognitive reserves can give quite a number of extra functional years. Even if that leads me to conclude that HR probably was quite smert.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 04:51:44 Nim, You keep saying I said false things about evolutionary psychology. Your own sources intended to refute those things confirmed everything I said explicitly. Are you sure you're not the one behaving religiously?
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 05:03:59 IQ tests do have cultural biases. This is well documented in the literature. And of course they measure how good you are at taking the test. That's tautological. If IQ scores did not correlate with your performance on the test, they would be pretty poor tests. Yet you claim it is false. I.e. you are claiming IQ scores are uncorrelated with performance in IQ tests? How are you measuring iq then? Perhaps you haven't thought about the statement. The point about making that tautological statement which is somewhat humorous is to draw attention to the importance of framing. You say I posted statistical nonsense about gender equality. Is this the statistical nonsense where you repeatedly posted the wrong r in relation to a finding, thenb when challenged admitted you did so knowingly because you couldn't find the right one in the text, then when shown how to calculate the correct value from data provided trivially, refused to acknowledge your error? If so think that your behaviour is a pretty good definition of statistical nonsense Nim. As for that link, what relevance do researchers beliefs have? I'm interested in what they can show. All non fraudulent papers ever retracted or eventually discredited were believed by researchers at the time of publication. Jergul: I'd go further. Nim will read your post as being endorsement that we are putting our preferences over what can be shown. I am fine with IQ as a concept. What I'm not fine with is the consistent misrepresentation of what it is, what it means, and lazy, and the shallow and improper use of it to try and prove points by the likes of Nim, Sam and the others.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 04 06:48:06 Jergul No, the person concearnd about those things would not parot myth and falsehoods to delegitimize the knowledge he fears in the wrong hands. This type of argument can be made for a range of things, the solution is never dishonesty.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 07:49:58 Nimi Seb and Nekran are simply demonstrating how application can fail. As is entirely correct. IQ tests have limitations. The scores by definition show how good a person is at taking IQ tests. Relevance beyond that is a lot more tricky. I limit myself to thinking it is relevant mostly do indicating cognitive reserve. If most everything we do maxes out at 80 IQ points, then everything beyond that is simply cognitive reserve. Or a measure of the buffer we have for cognitive deterioration before age or illess seriously impacts on quality of life.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 04 10:12:34 Now that was some blabbering bullshit. 80 iq might be all you need to catch fish in norway...
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 04 10:20:20 "What do you enjoy about arguing against warped and non-existent versions of people's arguments, Sammy? " But seb actually thinks that genetics cannot be applied to groups of more than 1 human. On occasion he admits genes do work on groups but only if they control something insignificant and politically correct. As if there is some magical function that turns science on or off when some special marginalized group is involved.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 04 11:13:23 Sammy By blabbering BS you mean that you respectfully disagree with the threshold I suggested? Mkay. Put the threshold wherever you like. We could for the sake of argument say it was 90, but that would leave 25% (guesstimation) of the population too stupid to do most everything. 80 gives 10% of the population to stupid to do most everything. Look at another way. Say you have 110 IQ. How often do you push yourself to the outer limit of your cognitive ability? Also, your practical IQ would be lower as you often function in less than optimal test conditions (for myself, I would easily deduct 15 points if I had not yet had my morning coffee).
Seb Member	Sun Nov 04 12:35:13 Sam: Either you are an idiot incapable of basic comprehension or you have lost touch with reality. At some point though, the distinction losses meaning.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 12:41:07 "How often do you push yourself to the outer limit of your cognitive ability?" Pretty much every day at my job. A lesser mind would take longer to get less accurate results, or fail completely. I'd say about 130 iq is the bare minimum to survive here, and 150 preferable. Don't worry though, if you fail to have a good iq, you can always get a low level bureaucrat job in the uk where you can then scream that iq is fake. Lol@seb. In a choice between facts and political correctness, you choose wimpering PCness every single time.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 05 12:48:26 Sam, I think you probably push yourself to the outer limit of your cognative annuity every time you tie your shoe laces.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 13:06:39 Sammy lol, Albert Einstein could perhaps consistently employ 130 IQ and would only need to do that while womanizing. Indicating that you feel you are operating at the edge of your cognitive capacity suggests cognitive limitations more than it does the difficulties of any task at hand. So you may want to be careful with that for self-pwnage reasons.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 13:07:31 Cognitive Annuity. Your phone is getting so bad, its almost good seb.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 13:14:40 "Indicating that you feel you are operating at the edge of your cognitive capacity suggests cognitive limitations more than it does the difficulties of any task at hand" This is what i would expect a fisherman would say. Lol. Thinking for a living must seem scary to such a human.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 13:19:23 "Sam, I think you probably push yourself to the outer limit of your cognative annuity every time you tie your shoe laces" Seb, you thought the ideal gas law was highly nonlinear. Lol.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 13:29:24 Sammy Is that really what you would expect a fisherman to say? Would that be before or after he put down his pipe and took of his south-wester?
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 13:29:55 off*
Seb Member	Mon Nov 05 13:45:58 Sam thought barometric pressure was linear.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 13:52:16 No dumbseb. Lol seb.iq=bureaucrat.iq
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 13:52:31 No wonder you failed out of science.
Seb Member	Mon Nov 05 14:13:26 Sam hasn't ever published a paper and he thinkd he's a scientist.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 14:17:03 You guys should be scared when I am the mature one.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Mon Nov 05 15:02:03 One doesn't operate "at the edge of their cognitive ability", one simply has ability and that is what they do, because it is who they are. Like being short or tall. One isn't tall only when they are changing light bulbs but is tall all the time. It's really about to be too tall, it's even more annoying to be too smart. Iq tests are real, reliable and stable. You use non cultural ones so there isn't any language barrier. The idea that iq is a 'cognitive reserve', as if someone could be dumb unless they decided they needed to be smart for a little bit, doesn't make any sense to me. What is your iq jergul? Mine is ~138.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 15:44:37 TC Perhaps you should have spent more effort trying to understand the point I was making. I will recap: Most things we do require an IQ in the 80-90 range at most. The utility of an IQ above that is marginal. Yet all of us will see our cognitive abilities decrease to age or illness. An IQ above 80-90 gives a buffer allowing us to do most things even as our facilities degrade. The larger the buffer, the longer we can do most things. The buffer is the only real value I see in having a high IQ. Mine? Without age adjustment (ach the joys of consciption's medical screening)? Significantly higher than yours (ok, it was useful leapfrogging from fishing to engineering and grabbing the prerequisite physics, maths and chemistry in a 3 week summer course). Yes, I do know what fraction of the top percentile that puts me in.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 17:36:52 "The utility of an IQ above that is marginal" Lol. That is definetly what a fisherman says.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 17:42:37 Lulz seb. Publishing papers and talking is what one does when one is not good enough to get paid. What i do is real. In the field, with lives and lots of money on the line, and a business class ticket and nice hotel, food and alcohol included of course.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Mon Nov 05 17:55:57 The point is this, that your understand of intelligence is from the perspective of your intelligence. It is much different at the 140 level and the 120 level. All three are valid. The 120 says "I do things faster and more efficiently than others, slower than a few, that's what intelligence is, it doesn't really matter, I just have some spare intelligence so I don't have to work as hard. The 140 says "I can see" The 160 apparently says that iq helps with women. Or something. But that doesn't track with anything I've s seen before from people with verifiable high IQs
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 18:23:20 Seb is the manager that goes to a meeting and asks why your nuclear plant's floodwall can't be made of wood.
Pillz Member	Mon Nov 05 19:47:24 Reclaimed wood*
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 20:48:14 TC Of course (Das ding an sich, das ding fur mich). I tried to convey that my views were based on where I was looking from (I personally believe/the only real value I see). “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” It tracks. You just have to look for the right smert people.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 20:51:59 "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Now that is some major communist fuzzy studies bullshit right there.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 20:53:10 "Reclaimed wood*" Painted rainbow for an extra 500k. Because buzzwords. Lulz.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 20:54:45 Or a more applicable quote: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." versus Most things we do require an IQ in the 80-90 range at most. The utility of an IQ above that is marginal. I am basically saying that everyone is an idiot. Genius. Idiot. Same difference.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 20:55:19 Sammy The quotes are Einstein.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 05 22:01:49 Doesnt change the lameness of the quote. Sounds like something some emo puts on facebook.
McKobb Member	Mon Nov 05 22:14:04 “If the facts don‘t fit the theory, change the facts.”
Nekran Member	Mon Nov 05 22:22:42 You don't think Einstein needed a lot of imagination to completely change our view of how the universe works? "Lulz seb. Publishing papers and talking is what one does when one is not good enough to get paid." The history of science vehemently disagrees with you. Same old, same old for Sammy though, I guess.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 05 22:29:10 Sammy Hmmm, how can I put this in terms you can understand? Sammy: Glass Saudi Arabia Jergul: Hmmm, interesting. Is that even possible? I then look at the melting temperature for sand, guesstimate a typical blast radius giving that temperature. I then divide the total of Saudi Arabia by the blast area to get the number of warheads needed. I present my findings. Sammy: Glass Mecca. The point being is that I imagined an actual glassing nuclear attack taking place, then did a reality check. You mostly stop at just saying the words without imagining the unimaginable (a massive nuclear attack on Saudi Arabia). In this case, Imagination generated knowledge. There are not enough nukes in the world to glass Saudi Arabia. We know that now. Was that more understandable? Besides, its a good womanizing phrase.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 01:06:13 >>Most things we do require an IQ in the 80-90 range at most. The utility of an IQ above that is marginal.<< This is the new lie and narrative now that ”cultural bias” and ”IQ test only show you are good at taking IQ tests” wont work. Very 70’s line of argument similar to, ”you only use 10% of your brain”. It is of course also false, Jergul is just making shit up as he goes.
Seb Member	Tue Nov 06 01:29:21 Sam: Lol. So not science - furthering the field of knowledge - simply performing a set of calculations in a specific case. Seb is actually the consultant that comes in an points out your data centre and transformers are in the basement.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 02:11:12 Nimi To put it this way, if you think your IQ is above the 80-90 range, yet find most things you do cognitively challenging, then you are overestimating your IQ. Now you should make up your mind. Either you think my position is "the new lie and narrative", or I am "just making shit up as [I go]".
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 02:18:43 Shall we walk you through a morning routine? You can tell me when you feel a task is exceptionally challenging. Wake up (That would be a 30 IQ challenge), turn off alarm clock (buttons, the complexity). Stand up and put on pants (one leg at a time is easiest). Yah, you get the picture.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 04:59:58 Jergel No one is interested in ”how much IQ it takes” to brush your teeth, but what it takes to solve novel problems, learn new things, get an education, preform well with a job, that requires solving novel problems and learning new things. The fact that you do not understand this, disqualifies you from having this discussion even in amateur circles, not even amateur bro.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 05:07:00 IQ is broken down into several threads. Reasoning - spatial ability - memory - processing speed - vocabulary ^Deary et al 2010 According to you, being good at these activities beyond average IQ level has no real world use, besides ”cognitive reserve”.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 05:16:51 Jergel >>Seb and Nekran are simply demonstrating how application can fail. As is entirely correct.<< Nope, posted a link where Nekran says it is meaningless. Plenty of thread of you and seb as well. When we talk about limitations, we don’t say entire concepts are bunk, we speak of scope and limitations. If you want to be understood correctly, use the correct language. >>Relevance beyond that is a lot more tricky. I limit myself to thinking it is relevant mostly do indicating cognitive reserve.<< This is just nonsense, the article I posted references numerous studies (there are plenty more), that show exactly what IQ is a good predictor of and how well it correlates. You can files this under IQ/Lies and stupid shit leftwingers believe.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 05:23:54 Nekran!!! I took the entire paragraph, I believe it speaks in your favor ultimately. I just want to answer you as to why these threads come up and why Sam Adams (even if hypoerbolic) says what he says, because people actually have warped views that do not align with the data. We all do, but not all of us defend those views, religiously. ”I agree with you on IQ not really mattering... don't know about the genetic thing when it comes to race. I hate that so many people are so allergic to the idea of there being differences between races while this is so obviously undeniable though.” http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=18387
Seb Member	Tue Nov 06 07:51:52 Nim: Saying it is meaningless in context of the argument being made isn't the same thing as saying it is devoid of any meaning. I just checked your posts threads here. I'm not in any of them, so we can't actually assess the degree of your failure to sensibly parse English. I shall simply assume it to be very large because you haven't presented it, which I understand from an authority I presume you respect that such an approach is entirely sound and unimpeachable.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 06 09:18:53 Hehe, digging up them old threads. Funny how Sammy downplays IQ in that one as well. When another race does better on average than his, suddenly creativity is important :) And yeah on IQ... I tend to do well on those tests, so I don't mind them being valued highly. And I would value them myself when it comes to finding people for certain types of jobs and such. I do think they measure some types of intelligence quite well. I've known people I considered to be very intelligent who sucked at these sorts of tests and vice versa though. So I still don't put too much stock in them. So I generally pretty much stand by my statements made in that old thread. I didn't yet know how unscientific a concept "race" was back then I don't think, but even then my general sentiment stands. It's stupid to fear there being demonstrable differences between groups of people. I think you underestimate Sammy's penchant for trolling though. He's not here to actually earnestly debate things.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 09:29:46 Wow, nimi is triggered. According to me, IQ has marginal utility above 80-90 points as almost everything we do does not require an IQ above that level. I have mentioned this several times now. Did you not say that reading comprehension formed part of the IQ basis? I find predictions to be of marginal utility. How exactly does it help you to know that someone with an IQ of this will have an outcome of that at statistically meaningful greater frequencies than someone with a different IQ?
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 09:32:36 Wow, nimi is triggered. According to me, IQ has marginal utility above 80-90 points as almost everything we do does not require an IQ above that level. I have mentioned this several times now. Did you not say that reading comprehension formed part of the IQ basis? I find predictions to be of marginal utility. How exactly does it help me to know that my IQ of this will have an outcome of that at statistically meaningful greater frequencies than someone with a different IQ?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 09:51:46 Nekran It’s fine, you asked why, old threads have a purpose when people deny ever having held any such views and that [insert poster] is arguing against a warped view/strawman. This isn’t personal so your IQ scores or anyone elses are outside the scope. The tests are valid or not, irrespective of how well you preform. As for sam trolling, this is why I told seb in the past, sam’s worldview is not dependent on his opinions about IQ or race, but for those who hold values that have empirical answers, it will be rough. The estimation is made in full.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 09:56:17 Jergel I answered you. I will add that ”according to me” in general has little value, when it comes from you it is borderline useless.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 10:00:06 Nimi I reject your rejection of qualifiers. That was fun!
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 06 10:37:43 I actually quite enjoyed rereading that. If I have a lazy day with nothing to do in it one of these weeks, I might spend a few hours fishing for old arguments I had on here. See how I've changed and ponder on why.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 06 10:55:20 "According to me, IQ has marginal utility above 80-90 points" Jergul actually said this. Rofl.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 06 11:00:39 "He's not here to actually earnestly debate things." I would be if you would put up a halfway interesting response.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 11:03:05 Sammy Like I said, you are in trouble if you cannot do most things without draining your cognitive capacity. It indicates an IQ in the 80-90 range.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 06 11:15:06 The point is easy to understand. Do a time use analysis (what do you spend time on). Estimate the minimum IQ you need to do it. Then look at how much better you did it than you would have if you had an IQ in the 80-90 range. That enhanced result would be the utility value of a higher IQ. Lets start with what we do most. Sleeping. Did having an IQ above 80-90 improve sleeping?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 06 11:45:09 Proper humans do not define themselves by how well they do on trivial tasks. Lol pleb.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 06 11:55:31 Nekran "See how I've changed and ponder on why." Brilliant! :)
TJ Member	Tue Nov 06 12:02:57 Nekran: "See how I've changed and ponder on why." The answer is predictive - influential experiences. An evolving process - all of us gradually evolve over a period of time into something different - hopefully more advanced. IQ tests and interviews together have predictive values that are culturally designed.
	show deleted posts