IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
Depends. If you divorce the question from whether the student would personally do it (there might be any number of reasons why they personally might not want to gamble, or bet above a certain amount, or take on a certain amount of variance), and just ask them if this is a good bet in a vacuum, and they still say no, then yes, I'd probably say this is an indicator of poor analytical skills.
Examples of reasons that don't indicate low(er) intelligence:
- I don't have $10
- I don't want to risk $10
- I
fair take.
i was beside myself hearing 80% of students failed the test and were dumb as rocks.
then i heard explanations which boiled down to
(1) its a tarp
(2) $3EV not worth engaging in gambling because gambling = heroin, once you start can't stop won't stop
both rationales seem valid to me. it was a humbling experience as i realized the simple "maximize for X" problems i love to engage in were actually level 1 thinking while others are more capable of questioning assumptions underlying the toy question
+1
from luciom's paper
can you think of a more convoluted, inaccurate way of saying "rich kids get good gigs because their parents are rich with rich networks"?
this is an amazing book
https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-Ame...
while much of it is stuff that's very obvious to the reader as you read it - it brings up a lot that stuff into the active conscious and you'll never be able to walk through a country club, walmart, or football stadium the same way again because you'll just be inundated with examples of the book
fwiw i wouldn't say it's a system designed to intentionally lock out the poor and keep things within their own caste - it goes both ways - i'm regularly given grief because I've never developed much of the lower class traits from the areas which i grew up and currently reside - things like not having a local accent is a big thing that gets me regularly ridiculed up in maine when i'm amongst certain circles (especially at the poker or blackjack tables), they're not even fully aware of why it bothers them despite that they directly use it to imply i'm a snooty yuppie who is soft but they're basically pointing out that as mentioned in that paragraph you quoted, I haven't:
mastering the right tastes, behaviours, and customs. Such subtle and elaborate displays of sophistication are naturally taught during upbringing in some families
they can sniff me out as an interloper and call me out for it - last time i played poker when i was talking about fishing for example, i got a bunch of guff because of the kind of fish i was catching were not properly aligned with their working class values
but as someone from a middle class background who attended all the right schools etc and was mostly surrounded by upper crust growing up, there's definitely a certain something to the way people act - so much that i can very reliably tell when someone i'm meeting for the first time comes from money just by the way they talk and interact (things most people look for like designer clothes and stuff have little correlation - in fact the more designer clothes one wears, the greater likelihood they didn't grow up with money and/or those clothes represent a big chunk of their discretionary income)
succession does an incredible job capturing all of that from the fact you'll never see anyone but greg wear anything with a logo (and he soon learns to stop that and never has any logos in later seasons) to just how casually confident everyone is without good reason to be
i think other than succession, i've almost never seen it portrayed very well other than one single character in the west wing
sadly can't find a youtube clip of the chararacter, but it's this guy, the old money intern on the west wing ryan pierce - he's this bumbling guy but surpremely confident, iirc they even made a point that the guy he worked for was annoyed because he had much better candidates he could have chosen but was stuck with this guy because his uncle called in a favor or soemthing, dude never intimidated by the role nor whom he is in the room with and of course when he jumps in to save the day it's not through his hard work nor intelligence but via his rolodex and charm and where he's able to use his network to call up the right people and then charm them into compliance with whatever it was that his boss wanted them to go along with but they wouldn't do otherwise - something none of the supremely candidates he would have rather had fill in the intern role could have done
a study of swedish military men taking something other than an IQ test. bravo
also from the paper:
#monotonicity
i forget the study, perhaps someone kind find it, but there's a scatterplot out there somewhere that's fairly infamous of a study where people took some sort of cognitive test of sorts as well as had their income varified and on that list was someone who was very potripperesqe in the sense that they were one of the highest earners in the the entire study (and by a massive margin) and he had an iq of like 67
not familiar with west wing but agree succession captured it well
i also catch **** (maybe subconscious? i'm a poor judge of what's explicit) from locals for having invested effort to override my accent at a young age. i think that was in an effort to become rich class, but when i tried to assimilate with the proper richies they sniffed me out a mile away. if i had a few more IQ points i coulda fooled em
yeah i was obviously speaking rhetorically but there's been a lot of studies things like where they track income of graduates of Ohio State who were accepted into an Ivy and instead chose Ohio State for weird reasons etc, height, race, gender, etc
all that stuff has been studied, and the one thing that trumps everything is the income of the parents
yes there's a lot of stuff where you can argue that it's not simply a caste society - that wealthier families are more likely to stress education, be a
Just take Chinese billionaires, who could hardly have millionaire parents in almost all cases as everyone was dirty poor a while ago there.
Btw saying that if your parents are well off and you make 1000x them that's not self made is truly silly, given many millions of people had similar parents and only a few manage to pull that off.
But anyway, every trait is inheritable.
Everything that matters for human success is inheritable, from anger management to emotional stability to cognitive ability to charisma to beauty to political attitudes and so on. And ofc what you select your partner for.
Wealth comes out of that statistically and it becomes an accelerator of that, but sons and daughters of people who won the lottery don't do particularly well which should put the nail in the coffin on the idea that the causal mechanism starts from wealth and not the other way around
+1
from luciom's paper
can you think of a more convoluted, inaccurate way of saying "rich kids get good gigs because their parents are rich with rich networks"?
That is the literature they give you a background of and they use to stipulate their hypothesis then they go check it and are surprised at the results
That is the literature they give you a background of and they use to stipulate their hypothesis then they go check it and are surprised at the results
inventing facts is fun
it's the discussion section, immediately following the results section, which if you read papers is not used to recap the background literature
they also preface that excerpt with "The empirical results lend support to our argument that cognitive ability plateaus at high levels of occupational success. "
#monotonicity
Just take Chinese billionaires, who could hardly have millionaire parents in almost all cases as everyone was dirty poor a while ago there.
this is actually 100% wrong
parents weren't millionaires
but their dad was in charge of dispensing coal mining rights and just gave the largest and most lucrative rights to his son
how did his dad get that extremely coveted role in government? why his brother in law appointed him to that job as governor of the province?
how did his dad's brother in law become governor? because that guys father was on the long march (one of the original 8k commies who were early members and survived the war) during the war and was in charge of foreign policy after the war
if you were to look at a list of every chinese billionaire, probably 90% of them have a grandparent who survived the long march, of those 10% who don't, they either married into a family which had or are best friends with someone from one of those families
when i was living in beijing something like this would be a normal conversation:
"Is Jane a trust fund kid, she never seems to work and is always traveling"
"Oh Jane's parents own like 20 factories and 3 of her grandparents survived the long march" - the long march is the important info there, not the factories, because knowing she's a descendent of the long march survivors means the factories are just the tip of the iceberg of her family's wealth
so yeah, they did basically wipe the slate and start fresh in 1950
nearly all party members who were on the long march were from peasant backgrounds
people with money had to learn to hide that background, join the party, flee to taiwan or SEA, or eventually get killed in yet another round of purges
but those people who were power brokers in 1950 when the slate was rewritten have not been replaced
those billionaires may have indeed grew up with no money, but their family always had immense political capital which is more valuable than rolexes - they just needed to wait until they were no longer in constant poverty and famine to be able to exploit it billions
this article was so scandalous that it was literally the reason why china cracked down on the internet
up until then twitter, nyt, facebook, google, etc were all freely accessible
nyt publishes this, they absolutely freak out, kick all their journalists out of the country and then start looking for other potential future problematic things as well and strike pre-emptively
also, a remarkable number of old money in china from the qing dynasty still exists and they by and large are doing very well for themselves because while they had all their assets forfeited, they maintained their education, network, & skills that allowed them to rebound once it were again possible - but of course they did so by allying with the party - which is the biggest requisite for success in china
i forget the study, perhaps someone kind find it, but there's a scatterplot out there somewhere that's fairly infamous of a study where people took some sort of cognitive test of sorts as well as had their income varified and on that list was someone who was very potripperesqe in the sense that they were one of the highest earners in the the entire study (and by a massive margin) and he had an iq of like 67
trump?
So Rick you claim it's wealth yet you admit you can have *all your assets forfeited* and children rebuild quickly with massive success.
You claim that's because of education, even if you are sent into farms when young and educators are assassinated by the red guards, and network, even if your fellow network members got imprisoned, tortured, sent to reeducation camps far away, and lost all status and power.
What instead stays as long as you are alive even in the face of complete destruction of the whole structure of society?
Genes.
/
Other claim is "parents weren't wealthy but they had power" yes sure, and what makes you win a competition for power when society is hard reset and everyone wants power and you compete among one billion people for that?
Genes.
Can't claim anything other than pure skills is what allowed the people who reached the top of the party (ie of society) in the 60s, 70s and 80s to accrue more power than everyone else.
Skills IE talents, which are all inheritable.
China had an accelerated natural selection process from a hard reset of the ladder, the top of the crop got (on a fitness sense, the most capable to play that game) ... At the top, and all the skills that got them there are inheritable and the cause for their children to be much more successful on average than everyone else, accelerated again by the Lamarckian mechanisms of wealth/connections and so on.
But it's always genes
fair take.
i was beside myself hearing 80% of students failed the test and were dumb as rocks.
then i heard explanations which boiled down to
(1) its a tarp
(2) $3EV not worth engaging in gambling because gambling = heroin, once you start can't stop won't stop
both rationales seem valid to me. it was a humbling experience as i realized the simple "maximize for X" problems i love to engage in were actually level 1 thinking while others are more capable of questioning assumptions underlying the toy q
Sounds like you acknowledge the validity of asking maths or puzzle-like questions to ascertain if someone is "dumb as rocks", so what's your issue with IQ tests?
Btw, it's "it's a tarp" is probably some variation of "the house always wins" so I don't know how valid that is. Depends what they thought the tarp was, I guess.
The house always wins is modifiable to something correct- "This game is not sustainable without either fraud or a catch so I should avoid". Most of us would know to ignore accounts offering 12% interest.
The house always wins is modifiable to something correct- "This game is not sustainable without either fraud or a catch so I should avoid". Most of us would know to ignore accounts offering 12% interest.
Sure. Gambler's fallacy might also end up being not a fallacy if it's a biased coin. Being right accidentally/for the wrong reasons doesn't make you smarter though. I'm literally talking about the people who heard once that the house always wins so they assume every bet is a losing proposition, without understanding why. People who are not particularly smart have a knack for unquestioningly believing pithy aphorisms as gospel.
gru8nching. Youc an't do better in a well designed height test by preparing well
anyone (and the 'experts' do like to say this) who says you can't be better/worse prepared for an IQ test is being stupid or dishonest whatever their iq measure may be.
gru8nching. Youc an't do better in a well designed height test by preparing well
anyone (and the experts do like to say this) who says you can't be better/worse prepared for an IQ test is being stupid or dishonest whatever their iq measure may be.
You are grunching, yet decided that it was of the utmost importance to weigh in with an abomination of a typo-riddled post, arguing against a position that nobody has taken. I see, thanks for your input.
ok so we agree that iq tests are in significant part a measure of preparedness/etc rather than intelligence?
No. We do not agree on that, because everyone has an idiosyncratic definition of intelligence.
IQ tests are a measure of analytical reasoning ability. You can argue till the cows come home how much of that ability is innate and how much is learned, I really don't care.
Or maybe you can read the ****ing thread where this has been discussed to death before weighing in with your indispensable contributions.
if you're better prepared for those types of question then you need less analytical reasoning ability to answer them
That is not the logical conclusion
People can be good at iq tests and many other things. Intelligence can help greatly. So can practice. And other things
Oh OK, so doing well on IQ tests, whether through preparation or otherwise, requires intelligence. Interesting. So can we conclude that doing better requires more intelligence? If so, sounds like they're testing what they're designed to test.
The logic:
If you train at tennis you become a better tennis player which is why we can demonstrate no innate characteristics affect how good of a tennis player you can be
The logic:
If you train at tennis you become a better tennis player which is why we can demonstrate no innate characteristics affect how good of a tennis player you can be
Nobody has answered my question as to whether this score inflation is actually a real world problem. Are there a significant number of people out there preparing for IQ tests to artificially boost their score, and/or taking them multiple times? I would have to ask why, what's the benefit?
Nobody has answered my question as to whether this score inflation is actually a real world problem. Are there a significant number of people out there preparing for IQ tests to artificially boost their score, and/or taking them multiple times? I would have to ask why, what's the benefit?
Why people would do this seems less important than the fact that it can happen.
