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.
What if one company was full of software coders and the other was an agricultural company that mainly employed first-generation Americans that had no cultural background that helped with the first test? Or maybe they were people that new everything there was about building a house in South Dakota but had dropped out of school after 6th grade to go work for their father?
even if the reasons for the IQ gap were entirely environmental (between the 2 groups), it would be be a very good predictor of outcomes.
the innate vs environment comes later and it's about what you can hope to do to try to reduce the gap. then environment can mean nutrition of the mother during pregnancy (or not), and many other things, including dictionary size of parents and so on
There is nothing unusual about the phenomenon that is playing out in this thread.
At a very general level, people who do well on things like IQ tests, the SAT, the LSAT, etc., tend to place more value on the sort of intelligence that facilitates strong performance on those sorts of tests. (My son does very well on standardized tests but is an indifferent student. As between test scores and grades, guess which metric he thinks is more predictive of future success?) Creative types tend to plac
Is that what's going on? It seems like the most mundane claims are being challenged...."If you are scoring 80 on an IQ test, being a lawyer might be extremely difficult..... someone scoring 150+ has a much better chance of being a good physicist than a random person". Nothing really about future success or hard work at all.
btw didace remember that IQ (as basically every other measurable trait) is significantly inheritable (from parents), so it's not that probable, if you have far over avg parents, that your upbringing is poor. yes occasionally big disruptions occur in society and very high IQ people have parents in jail or dead in the revolution and so on (see Mao China).
but for some reasons... the heirs of the most successful families come back ahead quickly in 1-2 generations. even when the state sequesters everything and jails or kill many of your relatives.
which is why you surname in Florence in 2010 predicts you income by more than 10% *depending on the income of your surname in the 15th century*.
Language barriers aside, people who do manual labour generally have lower analytical reasoning skills than people who write software, not least because it is a skill that is required for writing software but not for doing manual labour. Is this controversial?
Seems somewhat parochial of you.
I don't see how it's in the slightest bit arguable, to be honest. Is saying that physicists are probably better than capenters at maths (or logic puzzles, if you prefer) some sort of hot take?
man it's like this all the times about everything with them.
what if one of the 330 physicists had a passion for carpentry since young? that's their thinking process
The basic statistical methods used in scoring and analyzing IQ (normalizing the distribution, re-curving it every x number of years, curving it based on age, etc) are subject to any number of assumptions and irregularities that psychometricians would argue make sense for their purposes but would be the entirely wrong way to analyze the data in any other number of contexts.
To use an example that might resonate with this crowd, if you were to fit the EV distribution of different hole cards across different flops to a bell curve, you might wrongfully conclude that middle suited-2-gappers are better hands to call than small pocket pairs in a lot of situations where that's obviously not true.
To use an example that might resonate with this crowd, if you were to fit the EV distribution of different hole cards across different flops to a bell curve, you might wrongfully conclude that middle suited-2-gappers are better hands to call than small pocket pairs in a lot of situations where that's obviously not true.
I'm not sure I get what you are driving at here. Are you saying this because flops skew low, and if you don't understand why they skew low you would draw incorrect inferences about deck composition?
To use an example that might resonate with this crowd, if you were to fit the EV distribution of different hole cards across different flops to a bell curve, you might wrongfully conclude that middle suited-2-gappers are better hands to call than small pocket pairs in a lot of situations where that's obviously not true.
Set mining is very oldschool
To use an example that might resonate with this crowd, if you were to fit the EV distribution of different hole cards across different flops to a bell curve, you might wrongfully conclude that middle suited-2-gappers are better hands to call than small pocket pairs in a lot of situations where that's obviously not true.
On what do you base the superiority of small pocket pairs to suited 2-gappers? I assume there are some kind of real world data you use to make sure that whatever you’re measuring that it tracks to the outcome you want (+EV).
People who deny the importance of IQ are basically saying that whatever analysis that is leading to people with higher IQ having more success, and also people with lower IQ having less success, is a faulty analysis. Because as you said IQ is normalized, re-normalized, and isn’t a 1:1 comparison to a unit of measure. But whatever it is measuring relatively has predictive power for real world success. Nobody would claim that all else equal they want a lower IQ. That makes no logical sense.
I don't see how it's in the slightest bit arguable, to be honest. Is saying that programmers and physicists are probably better than carpenters and plumbers at maths (or logic puzzles, if you prefer) some sort of hot take?
Here's where we might be talking past each other. I would say that lack of knowledge about math is not a good indication of lack of intelligence.
The summer after elementary school, I took the SAT to qualify for a summer program. I was 12 and hadn’t yet taken pre-algebra. I’d never taken a test like it before and I had no preparation. When my score came back significantly higher than the state average for 12th graders who also took the test, my parents took me for IQ testing. I took the Wechsler scale, and it was grueling. After that they skipped me several grades and I took college courses over the summers.
Many if not most of the other
OK, this makes sense. I just grew up in a place where if you were gifted, you were placed in accelerated K8 programs, which fed into accredited high schools where you landed into a wealth of AP classes and/or after-school college courses. There were no IQ tests needed here because the structure of the system differentiated to challenge advanced learners.
The results of where my peers landed are all over the place, though. There are just as many people who struggle or became losers as there are success stories.
Here's where we might be talking past each other. I would say that lack of knowledge about math is not a good indication of lack of intelligence.
I was using proficiency at maths and logic puzzles as a proxy for "analytical reasoning skills", which is the wording I originally used and what you seemed to be objecting to.
\
Nobody would claim that all else equal they want a lower IQ. That makes no logical sense.
It's not a tautology. For instance, my ladyfriend Sue, is an expert in vintage fashions. Sometimes we go to a historical movie where the costumes didn't actually exist until several years beyond the date being portrayed. When that happens it seriously lessons her enjoyment of the movie. Something similar could occur regarding some high IQ people.
It's not a tautology. For instance, my ladyfriend Sue, is an expert in vintage fashions. Sometimes we go to a historical movie where the costumes didn't actually exist until several years beyond the date being portrayed. When that happens it seriously lessons her enjoyment of the movie. Something similar could occur regarding some high IQ people.
Many people I know including me would like to be able to forget the plot of a book/movie they enjoyed a lot in order to replicate the positive shock the first time we read/saw it
I don't see how it's in the slightest bit arguable, to be honest. Is saying that programmers and physicists are probably better than carpenters and plumbers at maths (or logic puzzles, if you prefer) some sort of hot take?
No. And yet if I told you I hire carpenters based on which one has the lowest IQ score, you'd think I was a bit odd.
It's not a tautology. For instance, my ladyfriend Sue, is an expert in vintage fashions. Sometimes we go to a historical movie where the costumes didn't actually exist until several years beyond the date being portrayed. When that happens it seriously lessons her enjoyment of the movie. Something similar could occur regarding some high IQ people.
That's true - being above 100 certainly interferes with my appreciation of your displays of logical prowess.
