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.
Lmao. Yeah bro, you are a terrible judge of character and aptitude. Dude's a grifter.
When we are talking about relatively fine parsing of presidents by IQs, which is what DS was suggesting, that really was my point.
If Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Joe Biden, Gerald Ford and Harry Truman all had taken IQ tests at age 50, do I have confidence that I could successfully rank them by score? I do not.
I think I would, all in the 110-120 bracket most probably, except Truman in the 13x.
Best bet is Truman-Ford-Reagan-Biden-Bush but with few points in between the latter 4
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't expressing shock that someone wasn't able to apply heuristics for calculating percentages, I was expressing shock that they weren't able to divide a 3-digit multiple of 10 by 10.
But that's not the only thing they have to do.
If they hear 50 declared to be the 10% of 150, it only triggers them if it is COMPLETELY EFFORTLESS FOR THEM TO THINK ABOUT NUMBERS and they do it all the times (like smart people do), otherwise they won't register it as a mistake
can iq have decimals? i feel we need more precision for these discussions
OTOH I think DEI is a little bit better because it only asks that the person gets a shot without being discriminated against, not that they get the job if they’re not qualified. At least from the implementation I’ve seen in a very large org structure.
yeah my main issue with DEI isn't qualifications - they are still people who by all objective measures are capable of doing the job (just probably not as ideally as someone else better suited)
my issue with it is that it doesn't solve the problem
a white house administration which is going to go full DEI isn't magically lifting up downtrodden blacks and hispanics out of poverty - it's instead elevating the top 1% blacks and hispanics who are already mostly segregated from their racial peers and we're thus not uplifting any communities but instead elevating individuals who were by and large going to be just fine anyway
I think I would, all in the 110-120 bracket most probably, except Truman in the 13x.
Best bet is Truman-Ford-Reagan-Biden-Bush but with few points in between the latter 4
omfg... bruh... am i reading that right that you put reagan as the 3rd smartest president and biden 4th?
You do know we've had presidents who casually learned 3 different languages just so they could read books not published in english right? a lot of our founding fathers were definitely incredibly smart people
not washington, but the rest were - both adam's, jefferson, & madison were all genius level intellects of their time
don't know enough about truman nor ford but reagan is no genius at all
he was smart and very quick witted, but he was nowhere close to being anywhere in the top half - perhaps i'm too biased by a lot of my exposure to him were during his senile years at the end but guy was never a very smart person imo
biden was the very definition of average - easily bottom quartile of us presidential intelligence power rankings
watch this doc and keep in mind it's from a very liberal organization which would subconsciously spin things positively and not even they can do that enough to not make him look like a clown because frontline is still legit journalism at the end of the day
he also lied constantly about his credentials and even plagiarized speeches saying things word for word (and hilariously it was stuff like personal details too that were easily fact checked) he also said he went to school on a full scholarship and graduated top of his class but he had a need based scholarship not an academic one, it was partial, and he finished near the very bottom of his class
biden was never anything beyond mid-level intelligence - as much as i think trump is a dollard, i'd actually rank him above biden in intelligence, that's how stupid i think biden is
bush hw was incredibly smart, very underrated in terms of intelligence, i know people who are family friends with the bushs and while they all agree w is of below average intelligence, hw is incredibly smart
clinton and obama were both incredibly smart people as well - clinton's rise from extreme southern poverty raised by his grandparents to become president is just insane
explain this then
No Rick I ranked those 5 among them not vs all presidents.
Rococo mentioned those 5 and that he wouldn't be able to rank their IQ at 50.
I wrote ford Reagan Biden and bush are all around there from 110 to 120.
Perhaps bush even a tad lower could be as low as 100
WAIT sorry I ranked bush the son not the father who was far smarter ok that I misread from rococo
yeah my main issue with DEI isn't qualifications - they are still people who by all objective measures are capable of doing the job (just probably not as ideally as someone else better suited)
my issue with it is that it doesn't solve the problem
a white house administration which is going to go full DEI isn't magically lifting up downtrodden blacks and hispanics out of poverty - it's instead elevating the top 1% blacks and hispanics who are already mostly segregated from their racial peers and we
the way a lot of people who are proponents of DEI imagine DEI is like trading places
you find a black man on the street who's homeless and begging for money and give him resources and watch him thrive and then we get to see jamie lee curti's tits
that's not how it works at all though, we don't choose eddie murphy, the hilarious whipper snapper who just needs to be given a chance
at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, this reminds me how none of the scientists went to bat for einstein to be part of the manhattan project despite that it was his letter to the president urging them to start the program which is why it began because by that time at 60 he was considered an over the hill loon largely because he never got onboard with quantum theory but then later his name grew to become synonymous with genius despite that his peers a generation below him refused to work with him
That is wildly incorrect retelling of history.
yeah my main issue with DEI isn't qualifications - they are still people who by all objective measures are capable of doing the job (just probably not as ideally as someone else better suited)
my issue with it is that it doesn't solve the problem
a white house administration which is going to go full DEI isn't magically lifting up downtrodden blacks and hispanics out of poverty - it's instead elevating the top 1% blacks and hispanics who are already mostly segregated from their racial peers and we
If a DEI initiative means choosing someone less qualified, I would agree that this is a poor solution. The only exception would be if unjust discrimination had led to a specific group being barred from gaining qualifications in the first place, in which case you should at least seek special means to make such qualifications available.
However, there are many diversity initiatives which are far less intrusive. For example, one of the best initiatives if you have an underrepresented group (as in their ratio of your employees / students are below that of the general population) is to simply inform qualified people from underrepresented groups that they can apply. This also expands your recruitment pool, which is usually a good thing.
this is precisely what it is
it also has a bad cobra effect because there's plenty of black/hispanic/females out there who would gain those same positions and promotions without DEI assistance (outside of some activist organizations, most would have gotten the job anyway) and yet because of the ghost of affirmative hovering over them like an albatross around their neck where a lot of their peers do not take them as seriously as they should
like the biggest thing hurting kamala is before picking a vp, biden declared that he would pick a woman of color so now someone who would have been approved of normally has to carry around the DEI VP for the rest of eternity
i feel like in college admissions, it's actually re-kindled racism because if you're a white person you know very well how much harder it's going to be for you to gain acceptance into various schools - i'm not going to lie, it was very difficult for me seeing my black classmates at a 70k a year boarding school (perhaps some were on full scholarships like me, but in general black kids from very privileged backgrounds) get accepted to ivy leagues with gpas and sats all lower than mine and I didn't even bother applying to an ivy because i figured there was no point
and it's something you'd see a lot where people who i never in a million years heard ever say anything remotely racist openly talk about how frustrating it is that their kid would have gotten into yale or williams if they were black etc etc
and i don't think those people were racist, they were just very frustrated about it, i even know a couple who genuinely considered giving their child a traditional african american name and then coaching their kid to not disclose race on applications just to try to game the system - i often thought about lying and claiming i was black on my applications and just seeing if they'd have the balls to try to call me out on it and then i could just say "23andme said i'd 7%" or something but i really thought they'd never challenge me on it - in hindsight, i really wish i did
very happy about that lawsuit (which only worked because it also punished asians) that finally removed that from admissions but it's still done, just unofficially now
I think IQ measures a degree of intelligence that is quantifiable while another degree of intelligence (street smarts in parlance) is more difficult to quantify. I think *overall* intelligence can be defined as the ease with which an individual is able to navigate the world (or their given environment).
For example, there may be someone who is demonstrably a “genius” at mathematics, but they also are woefully handicapped at relating to other humans and understanding the core of the human condition. They don’t understand how other people process feelings, and they lack empathy. How “smart” are they in terms of how they relate to the world? How far will they go in society?
Like I said, he can do geometric series, and he managed to find the sum of n/2^n using a trick he gave some cute name but which essentially came down to rewriting it as a double sum, both of which are geometric series. He's not calculating zeta(2) any time soon.
Not sure if you've taken it, but the difference between the easiest and hardest problem is massive. The best chance for most people is to hope question 1 or 2 is something they've seen before because 5 and 6, especially in the 2nd session are pretty rough. Just looking at 2023, of the top 500 scorers, 490 got a 10, 8 or 9 on the easiest question. On the hardest question, 1 person got a 10, 1 person got a 1 and the rest 0. To get top 500 you usually need around 20-30 top 100 maybe 40-50.
I mean the fact that you can boost your SAT/IQ score via training and test prep immediately shuts down the idea that IQ testing is measuring some kind of inherent "intelligence." I'm sure it's loosely correlated with other cognitive skills in the sense that if you were kicked in the head by a horse at a young age you'll also be less likely to get a PhD, have a high IQ, play top-level chess, etc. It's not remotely interesting to anyone outside college admissions, and most non-crank researchers stopped taking IQ testing seriously ages ago.
Not sure if you've taken it, but the difference between the easiest and hardest problem is massive. The best chance for most people is to hope question 1 or 2 is something they've seen before because 5 and 6, especially in the 2nd session are pretty rough. Just looking at 2023, of the top 500 scorers, 490 got a 10, 8 or 9 on the easiest question. On the hardest question, 1 person got a 10, 1 person got a 1 and the rest 0. To get top 500 you usually need around 20-30 top 100 maybe 40-50.
Nope, not taken it or anything like it, the only questions I've seen from it are when this guy features them on his channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@MichaelPennMath
Given the distribution is as you say above, I fully expect I would score zero.
I mean the fact that you can boost your SAT/IQ score via training and test prep immediately shuts down the idea that IQ testing is measuring some kind of inherent "intelligence." I'm sure it's loosely correlated with other cognitive skills in the sense that if you were kicked in the head by a horse at a young age you'll also be less likely to get a PhD, have a high IQ, play top-level chess, etc. It's not remotely interesting to anyone outside college admissions, and most non-crank researchers st
What if you weren't kicked in the head by a horse by a young age, is there a correlation between having a high IQ and being more likely to play top-level chess or get a PhD? If so, sounds like the test is doing its job.
I think IQ measures a degree of intelligence that is quantifiable while another degree of intelligence (street smarts in parlance) is more difficult to quantify. I think *overall* intelligence can be defined as the ease with which an individual is able to navigate the world (or their given environment).
For example, there may be someone who is demonstrably a “genius” at mathematics, but they also are woefully handicapped at relating to other humans and understanding the core of the human conditio
very well said
i once worked with an international math olympiad champion
she was insanely talented at solving certain kinds of puzzles - something that i'd need to think about, write on notepad, and eventually come up with still incorrect answer after about 20 minutes of stenuous thinking was something that she could do in her head in seconds - was insanely impressive
but asking her to do anything other than that - ie the real world, such as manage a team of fresh hires and it would have worked out better if we randomly selected an intern to manage instead because she didn't have the first clue about anything
not autistic, not a savant or anything
just her entire life up until joining an actual work force was solving math problems, she was so specialized in doing those that anything else was foreign, unknown and thus she usually handled it terribly - she ended up doing something incredibly stupid and self sabotaging right before all her shares vested, i repeatedly implored her not to do that and she didn't understand remotely what the problem was and went ahead and did it and is immediately fired and forfeited stock options valued at approximately 3 million at the time (startup ended up sputtering so wouldn't have been that much in the end but at the time that's what they were worth on paper)
Again, some people seem to be hung up on the idea that someone here is arguing that IQ is the only predictor of success. Nobody is arguing that, much the same that nobody is saying that every tall person can get into the NBA, or that you have to be tall into the get into the NBA. A lot of tall people suck at basketball. The occasional short (in NBA terms) person will be good enough at basketball to to get in. However, it's pretty indisputable that there is a strong correlation between height and NBA success.
What is being argued here is that there is a correlation between IQ and success in one's career and life endavours. The strength of the correlation undoubtedly depends on the the specific endeavor in question.
I think IQ measures a degree of intelligence that is quantifiable while another degree of intelligence (street smarts in parlance) is more difficult to quantify. I think *overall* intelligence can be defined as the ease with which an individual is able to navigate the world (or their given environment).
For example, there may be someone who is demonstrably a “genius” at mathematics, but they also are woefully handicapped at relating to other humans and understanding the core of the human conditio
Yes, and to your first paragraph, how far can they go in a diverse set of societies?
Which is where power is a factor. And, therefore, inequity.
Again, some people seem to be hung up on the idea that someone here is arguing that IQ is the only predictor of success. Nobody is arguing that, much the same that nobody is saying that every tall person can get into the NBA, or that you have to be tall into the get into the NBA. A lot of tall people suck at basketball. The occasional short (in NBA terms) person will be good enough at basketball to to get in. However, it's pretty indisputable that there is a strong correlation between height and
There's an unquantifiable intelligence in self-awareness of one's strengths, weakness, utility, and how to utilize strengths to mitigate weaknesses.
There are dissertations on leadership, but among common denominators seem to be the ability to empathize and delegate along with a baseline of expertise.
