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.
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
this happened to me, but in the opposite direction
in a world of zero preparation and study i absolutely crush so i really stood out academically as a young child and was way off the scale on state level testing at that age - my nickname at school was human dictionary because my tism gave me stupid hobbies where i loved reading encyclopedias and had graduated to john grisham books after reading through the entire collection of redwall/hardy boys/dahl/etc
don't worry, i've since rejoined my rightful place firmly in the bell curve
but i got pulled out into all these testing programs that summer and there was all this chit chat about doing college level classes at johns hopkins over the summer which i assume is this program https://cty.jhu.edu/ but genuinely have no idea
then one day the testing stopped, when i ask about it they say it's not happening and that's that and i go back to reading my baseball alamanc and i never heard of it again and just went back to my normal life not thinking much of it
about a decade later i was visiting home on a college break and bumped into a mom of one of my childhood friends, and she starts talking about much better the college experience must be when i'm the same age as all my classmates, i have literally no clue what she's talking about, assuming it's a joke where she's calling me stupid and how fortunate i was i didn't get held back and i just roll with it and add to the joke, and then she's finally like "no seriously, I think your parents made a great decision to not put you into college classes when you were still just a kid, it would have probably been a really bad social situation" to which i'm just wholly dumbfounded - she soon realizes i still have no clue and mentions that i had the opportunity to skip a lot of grades and start taking some college classes right away - she goes on and on about how she would have never said no if it were her kid but now agrees with my parents decision
i asked my parents about it and they barely remembered it and only when pressed did they mention that they never took it seriously, brought me to the exams the school wanted me to take and then once they were like "ok now send your kid to baltimore this summer" they were just like "nah"
i think they partly didn't think it was anything legit, and partly thought it'd destory my childhood if i were suddenly with people much older than me
i am fairly indifferent about it, but do often wonder where my life would have taken me if my parents took that seriously and enrolled me
perhaps they were correct in that my true stupidity was just in a cocoon and waiting to emerge once i discovered drugs, alcohol and video games
Are you familiar with "ceteris paribus" abstract reasoning? It's fairly necessary to discuss any monovariate hypothesis
I'm saying that if IQ equals intelligence, I'd probably be more subjectively content and satisfied in general with a lower IQ, so I'd trade IQ to be more eudaimonic, for lack of better words.
Asking for clarification isn't a misunderstanding of the concept of a hypothetical.
People keep saying that IQ doesn't equal intelligence, then proceeding to define intelligence as everything IQ tests measure plus a bunch of other stuff. Yes, if those are your definitions, then IQ does not equal intelligence.
I'm saying that if IQ equals intelligence, I'd probably be more subjectively content and satisfied in general with a lower IQ, so I'd trade IQ to be more eudaimonic, for lack of better words.
Asking for clarification isn't a misunderstanding of the concept of a hypothetical.
Ok he was claiming the opposite, ie that more IQ is always better for him (cet par, IE if we can't prove any negative increases with higher IQ).
Personally I think it's the kind of unanswerable hypothesis because who I am is strongly linked to my IQ (whatever that might be) so I can't conceive what it would be like with a lower or higher IQ
Ok he was claiming the opposite, ie that more IQ is always better for him (cet par, IE if we can't prove any negative increases with higher IQ).
Personally I think it's the kind of unanswerable hypothesis because who I am is strongly linked to my IQ (whatever that might be) so I can't conceive what it would be like with a lower or higher IQ
It depends. One of my best friends is a public school janitor. He gets up at 5:00 a.m., takes the dog out, goes to work, comes home, does the kid thing for a while, puts them to bed, watching some sports, goes to bed, and does the whole thing all over again the next day. I can't imagine a life like that, but part of me covets it.
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?
It's because the EV distribution of a hand like 66 is extremely lopsided toward a small percentage of flops, whereas a hand like T7s has much more stable distribution (at least in HU pots). Without normalizing the distribution, 66 would have a long-low tail on the left side with a huge bump over to the far right of the curve that remains elevated throughout most of the rest of the curve. T7s would have a more bell-shaped curve (though still skewed in the case of, for example, defending the BB against a preflop raiser).
The most obvious implication comes from the basic mean vs median distinction, which is very relevant when discussing things like EV or income distribution but obviously less so when discussing things like height or IQ. In other words, using the median flop for your hold cards to determine how favorable they are to continue would lead to different conclusions than using the mean amount of money earned (or lost) across all flops. (Hopefully I don't need to explain which you should use in this case). Again, not really as pertinent to IQ distributions for most cases AFAIK.
Where it could be more pertinent to test score distributions is the fact that normalizing the distribution just based on where it falls as a percentile of flops is going to lead to very weird cases in certain parts of the distribution. So 754ssc might score a 120 for 6s6c and 654ddh scores a 121, so anyone simply looking at the Flop Quotient (or whatever) would conclude that these two flops are very close to each other whereas a couple flops that are 15 points apart from each other on a lower part of the distribution (90-105, say) are seen as worlds apart, even though in practice in a poker game they're both janky overcard flops that you're check/folding on.
I suspect this is sort of the inverse of what happens with something like very competitive college admissions where the distributions are very closely bunched together among people who do or don't make the cut for being the top 5% of Ivy League applicants. There's a large lump of applicants that are functionally similar and very marginal differences can create huge leaps in where you are graded to be in the distribution.
People will say things like "you can't possibly explain away x number of difference with such a small y factor" and 99.999999% of the time those people have no knowledge about the raw distribution of a population's unweighted scores. (To be clear, I don't either). There may be parts of the distribution where getting 6 instead of 8 hours of sleep the night before will cost you 9 points; if you fall on other parts of the distribution it may be a blip.
Maybe for a more relevant example, someone in the Netherlands might take an IQ test in 1960 that would give them a score of 100 at the time, but if it were weighted today would be 85. If someone were to get a score on the test that would earn you an 85 in 1960, they'd be quite a dult. But perhaps getting a score that would be normalized to an 85 by today's standards doesn't make you such a blithering dult; it just makes you a median 1960 Netherlander. So what does it mean for someone whose circumstances are more similar to a 1960 Netherlander than a contemporary Netherlander to score an 85 using today's normalization?
The conclusions that can be drawn from the data can get really stupid really fast....
It depends. One of my best friends is a public school janitor. He gets up at 5:00 a.m., takes the dog out, goes to work, comes home, does the kid thing for a while, puts them to bed, watching some sports, goes to bed, and does the whole thing all over again the next day. I can't imagine a life like that, but part of me covets it.
Are you suggesting he has a low IQ because he is a janitor? Seems rather parochial of you.
Rick, the JH and Duke programs are the same. They mine the country for “talent”, they invite the top 2%, and then you can go or not go. The classes are all with other kids your age that were also mined and you dorm with other kids from your school year. Tbh, those summers were the best time of my entire life. I loved those kids and I loved the classes, and my mother made sure I never was forced to take anything I didn’t want to, despite the immense pressure on her to make me take math and stem etc. By the time I graduated highschool I had college credits for Shakespeare, poetry, and 20th century music. Kudos to my mom.
I have a main reason to discuss group IQ.
That is group outcomes. Everytime someone claims a group is worse off AND THEN uses that as proof some sort of violence is operating against that group and that is the reason for the worse outcome, if we have a measurable trait that explains the outcome gap, it helps denying the argument that systemic violence is happening against that group
I would read this post very slowly then and really seek to understand what it's saying: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
You are using IQ in a way that is most specious and should be treated with the most skepticism.
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.
Some of the most popular genres on YouTube are people nitpicking tiny details from media. Your friend could parlay this skill into any number of media criticism or niche historical jobs. If we’re doing a utilitarian calculus, we just need to widen the sample space as much as possible to see if it really would be worth it to lower IQ so she could enjoy a handful of movies more.
It's because the EV distribution of a hand like 66 is extremely lopsided toward a small percentage of flops, whereas a hand like T7s has much more stable distribution (at least in HU pots). Without normalizing the distribution, 66 would have a long-low tail on the left side with a huge bump over to the far right of the curve that remains elevated throughout most of the rest of the curve. T7s would have a more bell-shaped curve (though still skewed in the case of, for example, defending the BB ag
You pretty much lost me at hello. I guess I failed today's IQ test.
I'm not saying that he has a low IQ because he's a janitor. He's just not a booksmart guy and is completely fine with that and where he is in his simplified life. He's one of the friendliest, most charismatic people I've ever met, but is limited in his range of topics to discuss (and possibly comprehend). I mentioned that he's a janitor in that he has a job that stays at work when he clocks out. I wasn't denigrating how menial it seems to me.
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.
All I am saying is that IQ tests are by nature extremely flawed and skew to have better results for people with more "book learnin".
All I am saying is that IQ tests are by nature extremely flawed and skew to have better results for people with more "book learnin".
Yes. People with higher IQs tend to have better results on IQ tests (ldo) and also to have more book learnin'. The higher IQ causes both, the book learnin' doesn't cause the IQ test results. I'm sure you're familiar with the fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation and the canonical example of ice cream sales going up coinciding with crime rates going up.
I'm not sure what "extremely flawed" means. RaiseAnnounced articulated the limitations with IQ testing very well, I thought. I wouldn't characterise those limitations as "extreme flaws".
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).
Yes, there are ways to measure EV that are superior to how IQ is measured. Yes, those same lessons could be applied to using raw IQ test scores or weighting them in different ways.
In my experience, when people use IQ to prove something about group differences, they are just using IQ scores, though. They are not presenting the raw test scores or taking the raw test scores and adjusting and weighting them in a way that makes sense given the individual context. They're just comparing two bottom-line numbers to each other that have been weighted and adjusted in a bunch of ways that are completely unfit for how they're using them.
Which WOULD be the equivalent of judging whether a hand is good enough to call based on how IQ is measured, and then whenever anyone tries to be like "that's really not the best way to measure EV" being like "Oh so statistics are racist now LOL OK!!"
Or whatever the case may be, again I'm coming to this conversation midstream.
Isn't the purpose of an IQ test to discover one's intelligence regardless of environment or academic history?
No strat in P&S.
Isn't the purpose of an IQ test to discover one's intelligence regardless of environment or academic history?
not primarily no.
it's more about "how you can perform in society" at the end, cognitively.
we have an ongoing problem that people like us tend to minimize, it's harder and harder to be cognitively capable to cope with increasing demands from society.
medicaid access is extremely hard for an IQ 85 person. navigating loan structures can be hard even at IQ 100. understanding political narratives beyond the smokes and screens of experts is harder still. and so on
not primarily no.
it's more about "how you can perform in society" at the end, cognitively.
we have an ongoing problem that people like us tend to minimize, it's harder and harder to be cognitively capable to cope with increasing demands from society.
medicaid access is extremely hard for an IQ 85 person. navigating loan structures can be hard even at IQ 100. understanding political narratives beyond the smokes and screens of experts is harder still. and so on
I'm not sure that the ability to identify what number or pattern logically comes next in a list is a particularly reliable measure of how well someone functions in society.
I'm not sure that the ability to identify what number or pattern logically comes next in a list is a particularly reliable measure of how well someone functions in society.
you think IQ doesn't track very well a capacity to deal with bureaucracy in general, and company, and financial system, attempts to basically scam you?
you think IQ doesn't track very well a capacity to deal with bureaucracy in general, and company, and financial system, attempts to basically scam you?
There's probably a correlation, since people with strong analytical reasoning skills will be better at everything that uses those skills, but if your goal was to test for how well someone does in the areas above, I'm sure you could design a much more reliable test for that.
