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.
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.
Sure, nobody doubts that some (most?) people that don't play are doing so for pretty bad reasons. We were talking about the OK reasons not to play.
Of course plenty of people that play are going to be doing it for the wrong reasons as well; moron action junkies that would have still played if the payout was 18. Granted, here we'd be more inclined to say that person isn't necessarily an idiot, they are paying a rake for the fun of gambling etc.
Why people would do this seems less important than the fact that it can happen.
I disagree. If it happens on a handful of occasions, with no particular bias as to which group it affects if your concern is that it skews inter-group comparisons, it has no effect on anything whatsoever. If your suggestion that it happens more in some groups than others, you'll have to provide some data for that.
Sure, ideally we'd have a test where it can't happen. But at the time of writing, it seems that we don't. Maybe you and chez and Luckbox could collaborate on that for your next big project.
Sure, nobody doubts that some (most?) people that don't play are doing so for pretty bad reasons. We were talking about the OK reasons not to play.
Of course plenty of people that play are going to be doing it for the wrong reasons as well; moron action junkies that would have still played if the payout was 18. Granted, here we'd more inclined to say that person isn't necessarily an idiot, they are paying a rake for the fun of gambling etc.
Moron action junkie here. You're talking to one. Although no, I wouldn't take -EV coin flips, it would have to be a game I actually enjoy playing for me to give up the EV.
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
Chinese officials take children and test them on general strength, speed and agility metrics and then based on their scores place them in sports they expect will translate to innate ability to do well in the sport. And then this "gifted" group undergoes sport specific training, and further weeding out is done via actual performance in the sport.
You guys are trying to re-invent the wheel. We know how to test for innate ability controlling for gaming the system. For political reasons we just pretend like we dont.
I disagree. If it happens on a handful of occasions, with no particular bias as to which group it affects if your concern is that it skews inter-group comparisons, it has no effect on anything whatsoever. If your suggestion that it happens more in some groups than others, you'll have to provide some data for that.
Sorry, are you now questioning whether it is possible to improve test scores via test prep? Because there's an entire industry dedicated to doing this.
Sorry, are you now questioning whether it is possible to improve test scores via test prep? Because there's an entire industry dedicated to doing this.
No, I am asking what you see as the problem. Say, for example, everyone did this. It would have the same effect as nobody doing it, since it's graded on a curve. Say, 1% of people do this. It doesn't really matter because it's not a significant enough number to have any effect on general trends. So, how many people do it, and what specifically do you see as the problem here? Who is going round artificially inflating the results, and which specific results are being artificially inflated?
No, I am asking what you see as the problem. Say, for example, everyone did this. It would have the same effect as nobody doing it, since it's graded on a curve. Say, 1% of people do this. It doesn't really matter because it's not a significant enough number to have any effect on general trends. So, how many people do it, and what specifically do you see as the problem here? Who is going round artificially inflating the results, and which specific results are being artificially inflated?
The problem right now is you dancing all over the place with irrelevant questions.
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.
No you can't conclude from that, that doing better requires more intelligence. Other factors such as preparedness matter.
Its also a big mistake to think you have to be trying to learn to score better to be better prepared. Similarly with other factors.
The problem right now is you dancing all over the place with irrelevant questions.
I wouldn't have to if someone didn't pipe up like clockwork every couple of pages to point out "hey guys, you can score better on tests if you prepare for them, bet you didn't know that, hope that helps". Oh well, I guess the fact you can prepare for tests means that measuring what we mean when we say someone is "dumb" or "smart" is just beyond the capacity of the human race in 2024. Might as well pack up the thread, let's revisit this when P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis is solved, our civilisation might be sufficiently advanced for such problems then.
I wouldn't have to if someone didn't pipe up like clockwork every couple of pages to point out "hey guys, you can score better on tests if you prepare for them, bet you didn't know that, hope that helps". Oh well, I guess the fact you can prepare for tests means that measuring what we mean when we say someone is "dumb" or "smart" is just beyond the capacity of the human race in 2024. Might as well pack up the thread, let's revisit this when P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis is solved, our civilisat
I genuinely don't know how something this simple has completely broken you.
"IQ testing is a best an indirect proxy measurement of intelligence" seems like a fairly non-controversial take, but here we are.
I wouldn't have to if someone didn't pipe up like clockwork every couple of pages to point out "hey guys, you can score better on tests if you prepare for them, bet you didn't know that, hope that helps". Oh well, I guess the fact you can prepare for tests means that measuring what we mean when we say someone is "dumb" or "smart" is just beyond the capacity of the human race in 2024. Might as well pack up the thread, let's revisit this when P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis is solved, our civilisat
Obviously until you come up with a blood test that measures intelligence dumb or smart are meaningless......in this conversation only. OFC in every other situation we know what those words mean and are completely OK they are a little fuzzy, imperfect can change a little with effort and subject to some interpretation.
"IQ testing is a best an indirect proxy measurement of intelligence" seems like a fairly non-controversial take, but here we are.
Seems like just a vacuous point since "intelligence" appears to be defined completely amorphously, however is convenient for the present argument. In fact, I am the only person ITT who has even attempted an explicit definition, everyone else appears to just work with whatever definition is in their own mind, making pretty much any statement they make about it trivially true.
So Rick you claim it's wealth yet you admit you can have *all your assets forfeited* and children rebuild quickly with massive success.
But it's always genes
i very clearly said in my OP that there's other factors at play and it could be genetic/family values/etc
just that the single greatest determinant of the income of the newest generation is not what school they went to, how tall they are, what their gender is, what's their geographic location, etc it's the wealth of their parents
ie studies which tracked kids who went to ohio state vs harvard unanimously show the harvard graduates making more money 10 years after graduation, but those who turned down harvard for ohio state vs kids who went to harvard shows little difference between the two because although the ohio state kid doesn't have it as easy directly out of school, the skills they had which brought them acceptance to harvard will eventually show up within a few years once employers care more about work history and performance than your diploma (which is quite soon)
but, the kids from ohio state who never could have gotten into harvard from wealthy families do make more money 10 years later than the full need based scholarship kids from harlem and indian reservations at harvard and even to lesser extend the middle class harvard kids (but let's not kid ourselves, only half the kids at harvard are on any form of financial aid - it's by and large a very wealthy student body and if you separate harvard grads into cohorts of wealthy, middle class and poor then their outcomes are very similar to a state school - there is far greater correlation to success based on the income of the parents of a college student that determines their future than anything else)
Chinese officials take children and test them on general strength, speed and agility metrics and then based on their scores place them in sports they expect will translate to innate ability to do well in the sport. And then this "gifted" group undergoes sport specific training, and further weeding out is done via actual performance in the sport.
You guys are trying to re-invent the wheel. We know how to test for innate ability controlling for gaming the system. For political reasons we just
this
Does anyone disagree with the following statement:
IQ tests measure a specific type of cognitive performance. ( I would say that IQ tests measure analytic performance rather than creative performance, but I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.) Performance on IQ tests is partly related to at least the following four factors: (i) inherited traits (which, for ease of conversation, we can call "innate" ability); (ii) environmental factors; (iii) how the test subject is feeling and functioning on that specific day; and (iv) preparedness.
Does anyone disagree with the following statement:
IQ tests measure a specific type of cognitive performance. ( I would say that IQ tests measure analytic performance rather than creative performance, but I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.) Performance on IQ tests is partly related to at least the following four factors: (i) inherited traits (which, for ease of conversation, we can call "innate" ability); (ii) environmental factors; (iii) how the test subject is feeling and functio
Are we still calling people who score low "dumb" and people who score high "smart" as a group? If so, I'm good with it.
More seriously, what do we use IQ scores for, anyway? I've sort of been arguing for this, but I don't even know how it's used. Really, for me, I just want to put a number on this or something like it:
However, if you were to ask me for my definition of intelligence, it would be something along the lines of "proficiency in analytical reasoning and critical thinking, the faculty for recognising common logical fallacies, and the ability and desire to arrive at conclusions through logic rather than emotion or superstition."
Are we still calling people who score low "dumb" and people who score high "smart" as a group? If so, I'm good with it.
More seriously, what do we use IQ scores for, anyway? I've sort of been arguing for this, but I don't even know how it's used. Really, for me, I just want to put a number on this or something like it:
For most people, "dumb" and "smart" refer mainly to innate ability and certainly don't refer to preparedness or whether a person is unable to concentrate because he is puking his guts up, but I guess that's a semantic issue.
I don't think IQ tests are used for much besides research and as an input for diagnosing stuff like ADHD or assessing eligibility for extra services.
You probably can't be a card carrying member of MENSA without taking an IQ test.
Then again, if you are the sort of asshat who wants to be in MENSA, you have bigger problems.
For most people, "dumb" and "smart" refer mainly to innate ability and certainly don't refer to preparedness or whether a person is unable to concentrate because he is puking his guts up, but I guess that's a semantic issue.
I don't think IQ tests are used for much besides research and as an input for diagnosing stuff like ADHD or assessing eligibility for extra services.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't personally call someone "dumb" if they were able to prepare and score well on an IQ test. The sort of person I am calling "dumb" would not be scoring well on an IQ test regardless of preparation.
"Smart" is a different matter. A person would probably need to do a bit more than present an IQ score for me to consider them "smart".
And also they are used to prop up the kind of crude race science trash that so fascinates our good friends Lucio and Kelhus.
There is a long history of IQ tests being used to support dubious race science, but when it comes to that sort of thing, I am more inclined to blame the carpenter than the tool.
