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.
I find it fascinating that Trolly is the most reasonable poster in this thread.
What do you mean when you call someone "smart" or "dumb"? Whatever that is, find a way to measure it and put a number on it. If there's a better way than the current tests, I'm all for it.
If we're being honest, no one really has a great handle on what being "smart" really is, or whether you can put a single number on it. It seems pretty clear that someone who learns five languages or someone who's mastered the King's Indian Defense are both smart in ways that aren't easy to capture via standardized testing.
Here is the problem. Over the years, like many people, I have known a decent number of people who are classical or jazz musicians, novelists, visual artists, screenwriters or directors, etc. Many are quite successful.
I suspect that I would outperform some of them, and perhaps many of them, on an SAT or IQ test. But I would be very hesitant to call myself more intelligent than any of them because I can't do what they can do. I very likely would have been less successful than those people in t
That's the specific type of intelligence we're talking about measuring though. I'm happy to call it "analytic intelligence" rather than "general intelligence" for the purposes of disambiguation, and if it helps assuage a lot of the objections to IQ testing that seem to be rooted largely in semantics.
As I pointed out upthread, defining "intelligence" as "what IQ tests measure plus other traits needed for success" then arguing that IQ tests don't measure intelligence seems circular and unhelpful.
Here is the problem. Over the years, like many people, I have known a decent number of people who are classical or jazz musicians, novelists, visual artists, screenwriters or directors, etc. Many are quite successful.
I suspect that I would outperform some of them, and perhaps many of them, on an SAT or IQ test. But I would be very hesitant to call myself more intelligent than any of them because I can't do what they can do. I very likely would have been less successful than those people in t
Dunno, poker requires less intelligence to excel at than most other "mind games" tbh. I mean bridge already is far more technical. Then i guess playing zoom nl500 or more pseudo-GTO in every choice with no exploitation of the opponent requires more IQ, perhaps.
Not sure why you think being a succesful musician or visual artist requires a really high IQ. But making proper financial decisions wrt renting vs buying, savings, investments and so on does which is why their income & wealth will anyway correlate to IQ a lot
If we're being honest, no one really has a great handle on what being "smart" really is, or whether you can put a single number on it. It seems pretty clear that someone who learns five languages or someone who's mastered the King's Indian Defense are both smart in ways that aren't easy to capture via standardized testing.
Well, seems a bunch of people have tried to get a handle on it and put a number on it, and you're not overly impressed with what they've come up with. I mean, that's fine and all, but in the absence of a better suggestion, it's what we have. I suspect that if it weren't the case that certain groups tend to score lower using this measure than other groups, you wouldn't have an issue with attempts to quantify how "smart" a person is at all. For example, if it turned out that all Trump voters score lower on IQ tests than non Trump voters, you'd be touting that as evidence that Trump voters are dumb, not as evidence that IQ tests don't work.
Well, seems a bunch of people have tried to get a handle on it and put a number on it, and you're not overly impressed with what they've come up with. I mean, that's fine and all, but in the absence of a better suggestion, it's what we have.
Exact same bizarre thought process you've applied in the 9/11 thread.
In other words, I think that people on legacy poker forums skew toward a relatively specific type of analytic intelligence. And unsurprisingly, those people tend to overweight that type of intelligence.
Frankly, I don't think it does. Like I was helping my dad fully upgrade his ranch house to fully solar so I was posting a decent amount on an electricians forum for help. That place definitely skewed to the analytic intelligence or whatever side and it was pretty obvious....not so sure 2+2 does or ever did any more strongly than college educated does.
If you have one complete theory that's shitty you aren't forced to accept it because it's the only one you've got.
As it relates to IQ testing, I said I'm open to better suggestions. As it relates to your mind-numbing 9/11 conspiracies, you have failed to explain what is wrong with the current explanation or why it is shitty. I mean, you think you've explained it, but you haven't. You've just hand waved a lot about magic and molten metal and failed to answer basic follow up questions.
That is because his blank slatism confirms your own biases. it isn't because he is right. There is a lot of scholarship on this subject, and it is extremely robust by social science standards.
The irony is progressive high IQ elites live their lives as if IQ matters, even as they profess it doesn't. 21st century US progressive elites basically function as an aristocratic caste, with extremely high amounts of socializing and assertive mating within the caste. And very little social interactions with the Hoi Polloi.
Nono i am not checking for your IQ, i'm just asking if you have read the rebuttal on the atlantic of Matt Yglesias thesis in favor of one billion americans
Well, seems a bunch of people have tried to get a handle on it and put a number on it, and you're not overly impressed with what they've come up with. I mean, that's fine and all, but in the absence of a better suggestion, it's what we have.
Sure, it's best we have. If you absolutely had to predict which American teens would do well in college and you couldn't rely on parental income, SAT scores are probably the best proxy measurement we've got. But you'd be cautious about reading too much into this measurement. If some guy who couldn't pass a calc 101 test tells you that his high school aptitude tests prove that he's a math whiz, you'd think that was a bit silly.
The irony is progressive high IQ elites live their lives as if IQ matters, even as they profess it doesn't.
Demonstrably untrue: none of the lefty guys I hang with seem to know or care about their IQ score. The only people who are super interested in the field are exclusively gross online crypto-Nazis and people without real-life accomplishments.
But you'd be cautious about reading too much into this measurement. If some guy who couldn't pass a calc 101 test tells you that his high school aptitude tests prove that he's a math whiz, you'd think that was a bit silly.
Yeah, high school aptitude tests don't prove anyone is a whiz at anything. Nobody was claiming they do, except the grifter in question.
Frankly, I don't think it does. Like I was helping my dad fully upgrade his ranch house to fully solar so I was posting a decent amount on an electricians forum for help. That place definitely skewed to the analytic intelligence or whatever side and it was pretty obvious....not so sure 2+2 does or ever did any more strongly than college educated does.
It is accepted and unquestioned forum wisdom that being good at poker means you are also good at math and analytical thinking in general.
What do you mean when you call someone "smart" or "dumb"? Whatever that is, find a way to measure it and put a number on it. If there's a better way than the current tests, I'm all for it.
Yeah, that's a good point. Intelligent, smart dumb etc were not words invented by psychologists or researchers in the 50s/60s. So it's a cop out to nitpick about problems with IQ tests which are universally acknowledged, then turn around and keep using those words/concepts without seemingly any objective criteria at all.
That is because his blank slatism confirms your own biases. it isn't because he is right. There is a lot of scholarship on this subject, and it is extremely robust by social science standards.
The irony is progressive high IQ elites live their lives as if IQ matters, even as they profess it doesn't. 21st century US progressive elites basically function as an aristocratic caste, with extremely high amounts of socializing and assertive mating within the caste. And very little social interaction
Someone's level of intelligence is very important in life. IQ is at best a crude measure determined by imperfect tests. If you want to say it's close enough, then fine. But the tests don't come close to measuring everything that goes into being "smart".
You?
I didn't argue that the tests were perfect, and I didn't debate semantics about what goes into being "smart".
As with several others, you appear to be doing this:
...defining "intelligence" as "what IQ tests measure plus other traits needed for success" then arguing that IQ tests don't measure intelligence seems circular and unhelpful.
And in the same post I noted:
