Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 22 11:43:26 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jan 03 09:58:50
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle



Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Jan 1

Background : “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent, a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects. It is via negativa not via positiva. It is meant to select exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”. The test is poorly thought out mathematically (a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails), and seemed to be promoted by
•racists/eugenists, people bent on showing that some populations have inferior mental abilities based on IQ test=intelligence; those have been upset with me for suddenly robbing them of a “scientific” tool (as evidenced by the bitter reactions to the initial post on twitter/smear campaigns by such mountebanks as Charles Murray). (Note: there were close to 3.1 million views of the tweetstorms).
•psychometrics peddlers looking for suckers (military, large corporations) buying the “this is the best measure in psychology” argument when it is not even technically a measure — it explains at best between 13% and 50% of the performance in some tasks, minus the data massaging and statistical cherrypicking by psychologists; it doesn’t satisfy the monotonicity and transitivity required to have a measure. No measure that fails 60–95% of the time should be part of “science” (nor should psychology — owing to its sinister track record — be part of science (rather scientism), but that’s another discussion).

http://med...cientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 03 10:53:55
Lol. Some third world terrorist using words it doesnt understand. Next.
The Children
Member
Thu Jan 03 10:56:49
u mean it is a farce and scam?

like duuuuuhhhhh. fuck iq tests. fuck society bullshit. i never trusted any of that bullshit. they r designed and sold by failed shrinks. it is another snakeoilsales product.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:00:14
Lol at tc. Iq... 98?
The Children
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:01:58
u dumb piece of shit, u got a triple digit iq, u fool.

im chinese by definition i already up urs by 20 from just being born.

The Children
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:02:04
owned
The Children
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:02:37
*I* got a triple digit iq, u fool.

corrected
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:05:25
While I don't think the TC Multi has as low of an IQ as Retard Rod had, 98 is probably being generous.
hood
Member
Thu Jan 03 11:57:14
TBH I wouldn't be surprised if he did indeed have triple digits. It's not like average (100) is very smart. Average people are stupid.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 03 12:11:48
Ya, 98 is bad. Low triple digits is also bad. I wonder what trumps is? 98 again?
Pillz
Member
Thu Jan 03 12:52:27
He is an idiot. @the author of the OP.

Has never and will never say anything of value
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 03 14:30:32
Skimmed it.

The critiques made are in principle logically sound (e.g. forced distribution) but no idea if they *actually* apply and can't be arsed to find out.

This is why peer review is useful: forces presentation of data and argument in a way that one can check.

It is typical of Sam that the only piece of fluffy science he likes is the one he thinks he can use to discriminate against races.



Daemon
Member
Thu Jan 03 14:57:57
Waiting for expert GaryD to comment on the topic.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 03 14:59:31
Ahhhh here comes seb to say that science that is offensive is invalid.

Lol have you figured out the difference between median and mean yet?
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 03 20:03:42
Sam:

Ah yes, Sam's belief you can have a median gross national income.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 04 03:17:31
Richard Haier tweeted him and has an open invitation for a conversation over the topic. So if he has something to say on the matter Haier would be the perfect one to talk about it with. Would pay to see.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 04 11:22:50
"Iq must be fake because it is offensive to minorities"

-seb

"I dont know the difference between mean and median"

-also seb

Yikes
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:07:47
Sam:

I know the difference between median and mean. You agree the one that thinks gross national income per capita can be a median figure, when by definition it's a mean.

Gross national income = total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents

Gross national income per capita = GNI/pop

This is not, as you claimed, a Median. It is a mean.

It cannot be because so much data is collected in aggregate and by entities that aren't individuals, you cannot define a distribution in whichb to pluck out a median, unlike e.g. household disposable income.

But household disposable income doesn't reflect e.g. self employed individuals that may choose to pay themselves a small wage or dividends but treat many expenses as corporate expenses. Not does it reflect the balance of taxes, benefits and relative distribution of national product to capital and labor, so is crap as a proxy for national intelligence.

And of course an odd thing to do given your entire premise on intelligence is IQ can be compared between populations.

Samstistics strikes again.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:09:56

"I know the difference between median and mean. "

The fact that you on multiple occasions tried to compare the mean british income to the median alabama income shows this statement to be a lie.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:18:34
Sam:

You made those comparisons, not me. I pointed out precisely why they were wrong. You were the one that claimed the figure you provided for uk GNI/capita was "a median". Lol.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:19:20
And then you used GDP per capita instead of GNI.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:25:27
"You were the one that claimed the figure you provided for uk GNI/capita was "a median". "

False. At this point, I'm not even sure you can read.

No wonder you think median and mean are the same thing.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 04 12:27:01
I think we have figured out the reason why the uk is as poor as alabama. Retardation and lack of education.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jan 04 12:28:54
Link to historic thread please, let me arbitrate this disagreement.
Williamthebastard
Member
Sat Jan 05 06:10:12
"Retard rod had"? Has he died?
Williamthebastard
Member
Sat Jan 05 06:13:19
Apparently
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 05 11:05:23
http://uto...hread=83827&time=1546115081853

Lol seb tried to say that alabama and the uk were not nearly the same. Because he chose mean for one and median for the other.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 05 12:25:28
Sam:

The first time you raised the issue (Fri Dec 21 20:32:16) you referred to "per capita income". Per Capita means mean. It's a gross figure divided by population. If you meant "median income" you would have said so. "Median income per capita" would mean the median in a distribution of per capita incomes (say across several states).

On Sun Dec 23 10:48:03 you asserted the value (unsourced) of "per capita income" as 26k dollars and the uk 21k pounds.

Alas, we will never know what Sam meant. Gross median wage is about £28k, GNI per capita is as previously stated over £40k.

http://www...ovisionaland2016revisedresults

And the statement was wrong even in its own terms. In nominal exchange rates, £21k even at nominal exchange rate is > 26 usd
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Sat Jan 05 15:39:15
Unfortunately Taleb just didn't know what he was talking about
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 05 23:38:53
Lol, found Sam's source: Median personal income of 21k in FY 2011/12.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

The same stat is £23k for 2015/6 or $32k nominal or $33k PPP. US median personal income in 15/16 was $31k.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States.

I can find no data on median personal income (as opposed to per capita) by US state.

But I note the figure cited for Alabama (26k USD) seems closest to Per capita personal income.

Meaning that Sam's original comparison was a mean (Alabama - usd 23k) to a median (UK) for two different years, and still incorrectly claimed his doubly incorrect Alabama figure (mean when he wanted median, wrong year) was higher than the UK value he gave, when the reverse was true.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you Samstistics - number salad.

Seb
Member
Sat Jan 05 23:40:38
I believe Sam choosing this hill to die on is what is called a self own?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 07 10:23:54
you found a link that shows the uk has a median income in the low 20s, pounds.

Which is what i told you 30 posts ago.

Lol retard!

The uk = alabama in intelligence too it seems
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 07 10:27:03
"But I note the figure cited for Alabama (26k USD) seems closest to Per capita personal income. "

No retard, that is median income. Lol how do you make such basic mistakes. Literally the tiniest fraction of data checking would have prevented you from making that mistake if you were even slightly unretarded.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 07 10:35:38
I know you are confused by median per capita verse mean per capita. Both are used and alabama has 26 to 27k median and 40 to 43k mean, depending on source and year.

Quite similar to the uk.

Gg seb.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 07 10:36:33
Dollars obviously for AL
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 07 11:42:23
Sam:

"you found a link that shows the uk has a median income in the low 20s"

Lol. but from half a decade ago, and which you originally specifically cited as a mean (per capita).

"retard, that is median income."
You originally claimed it was income per capita (mean income), and nowhere can I find a source substantiating this figure.

I think you probably just misread the mean figure from Wikipedia, given you evidently don't understand the difference between "median individual income" "per capita income".

"Quite similar to the uk."
Or, to put it another way, lower, not higher as you originally claimed.

Sam: trying to prove his intelligence who has managed to get literally everything wrong so far.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 10:45:44
"You originally claimed it was income per capita (mean income), and nowhere can I find a source substantiating this figure. "

I clearly stated median. Your source clearly stated median. You keep calling it mean. Oh and the source is your own, which you yourself just linked too. Why are you this retarded?
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 14:16:00
Sam, it's there in black and white. You repeatedly used the term per capita which means "mean".

You first said "per capita" on the 21st didn't say median until the 23rd, and then in response to me I suggested the figure you had previously described as "per capita" was in fact median disposable income.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 14:54:52
No dumbseb, per capita does not mean mean. All these sources use per capita with both mean and median.

You are never correct about anything these days. This is getting bad.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 15:03:36
Sam, they don't.

Per Capita means a gross sum divided by population.

You fail at statistics.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 15:05:18
If "all these sources" use "per capita" with both mean and median, show me some examples specifically, pulling out a quote and providing a link to the primary source.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 15:50:41
Per capita merely is per person or individual income and can refer to either a mean or median.

For example here is gallup using median per capita:

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xnsmmuvwz0ww5ductyp7rq.png

You fail seb.

Furthermore i would like to point out that the uk is so poor it didnt even make that list. Lulz. Seb=alabama.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 15:54:46
So "alabama man" is usually a redneck with a nascar shirt drinking cheap water-beer and hitting his wife.

What is UK-man?

Some skinny soyboy wearing a diversity now tshirt while getting stabbed by a migrant?
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:15:55
Sam:

No Sam. Per capita means a gross figure divided by population (per head). Per indicates a division (Cf percent).

If you want to know what the 50th percentile of those with an income receive, that's called "median personal income".

Can you please link to the report so we can be clear on what they are defining that as. The oecd official statistic is "personal income", it's possible Gallup has fucked up, but I suspect by your funny use of an image you are simply hiding the context as it undermines your case.

"Some skinny soyboy wearing a diversity now tshirt while getting stabbed by a migrant?"
Gosh, Sam, you and your identity politics!
Sad.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:19:59
For example, median per capita income might be:

We phone up 2000 individuals, ask "what's the total income in your house? And how many working age people live in your house?".

Hence obtaining 2000 household income, and
an income per capita for each house. Median would then be the median of per capita incomes for each house, but not the median personal income.

These things matter in stats.

Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:21:03
Conversely, official Median personal income statistics won't use a survey. They are obtained from tax records.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:39:59
That's a lot of rambling to try and come up with an excuse for why you confused median and mean so many times.

Here is a link that was posted some time ago, the puts the same variables on ghe same chart.


You were not able to understand it then but perhaps you have had some sense stabbed into you by the local migrant since then?

http://en....es_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Using 2017 figures the UK trails Alabama by 3000 dollars. Rofl

And even worse that is nominal. If you use PPP its probably even worse since the land in AL is likely cheaper.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:46:25
Dude the uk is fucking poor. Lol. What a shithole. You only beat a single us state: Mississippi, and are worse than west virginia!
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 16:47:14
No wonder your gun crime is so low. You poor schmucks probably cant even afford them.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 18:18:39
Sam:

I think it's pretty clear you confused them. You described them as per Capita in your first four posts, which as we have discussed means "mean". You only ever claimed them to be median three days later.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 18:28:01
Aaand now Sam's back to using a mean.

GDP isnt the right comparison. You should use GNI. A country like the UK has lots of entities with high external earnings excluded by GDP. If your goal here is not to measure economic activity in the country but economic activity of its residents (which is your assertion here, as you are using it as a gauge of intelligence) then you should look at GNI.

Another statistical fail.

Also your table is again using nominal rather than PPP exchange rates which is an odd choice (particularly with currency markets moving dramatically due to brexit).

"If you use PPP" Do tell me what US dollars are worth in dollars. Cheap Alabaman land is just not worth very much.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 18:40:10
I am comparing apples to apples. You can use mean or median, so long as you use the same for both entities.

As for your gdp excuse, it is a weak one. Not only are the two very similar, you are, as always, exactly wrong.

"GDP limits its interpretation of economy to the geographical borders of the country"

Investopedia.

Lol sebfail again.

Also, cheap alabama bumps up its PPP relative to an overcrowded shithole, like the uk.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 11 18:47:03
Seriously seb, could you at least be right once? This month? Is that too much to ask?
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 11 19:22:04
Sam:

For the purpose you are trying to make the comparison clearly it matters which stat

You are trying to use income as a proxy for intelligence.

Per capita divides by total population so all other things being equal, demographics plays a huge role in that statistic.

GDP Vs GNI we have covered already.

Given that's precisely the kind of "high intelligence" economic activity uou are trying to capture...

"cheap alabama bumps up its PPP"

The US is a very integrated market. It's not that Alabaman land is under valued in nominal dollars. It's just not worth very much. But let's dig deeper into that.

The UK has higher land prices because it has many cities where lots off people want to live. E.g. London is the second biggest French city by population of French citizens.

So let's say this phenomenon depresses the PPP stars and makes Alabama look richer. Doesn't that fundamentally undermine your argument? All the smart people with high six figure salaries working in the city are pushing down the metric you are trying to use to compare intelligence. Perhaps you've just picked a stupid metric?

You still haven't linked to any of your sources methodologies, and you are still confusing per capita to mean individual.

Face it Sam, once again you are out of your depth and flailing.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 11 19:56:30
Seb
I think it fairer to say using disposible income after serving debt as a proxy for intelligence.

Who would have known that college educated with jobs in rural or small town USA are the smartest people on the planet?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 14 10:11:15
"still confusing per capita to mean individual."

per cap·i·ta
/pər ˈkapədə/Submit
adverb & adjective
for each person; in relation to people taken individually.


Lol seb you absolute retard. You have devolved to be less intellectually capable than a dictionary.

Im done with you until you go back to 5th grade math and re learn mean verse median and what "per capita means".



Jergul, ya, rural high paying jobs is the way to go. Cities suck. Telecommuting helps but isnt completely mature yet.

If you are stuck in a city, there are definetly better cities than others. Imagine how much london would suck. Overcrowded, relatively poor, dark, damp, no fun outside activities, people so whipped they are scared of imaginary drones...

Sounds a bit like a dungeon...
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 14 10:56:07
Aww. Look at Sam quoting a dictionary definition rather than a statistics manual. While remaining ambiguous. Because "for each person, in relation to people taken individually" does not distinguish whether the figures is sourced on an individual basis or attributed on a ... oh, what would it be called in statistical methodology? ... Per Capita basis. It could therefore (using this laymans Def) apply to a mean, median, mode or distribution - and you made no such specification when you quoted the figures.

I don't think *anyones* buying your bullshit Sam.

Seb
Member
Mon Jan 14 10:58:41
"Overcrowded, relatively poor, dark, damp, no fun outside activities"

Gosh. London's per capita wealth is amongst the richest place in the world. It's got more green spaces and excellent transport to pretty much anywhere, some of the world's best restaurants and bars.

As for dark as damp, I think you've been watching far too many old Sherlock Holmes movies.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share