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 am just a mere mortal, the more sex than roc was less about me and more that it'd be shocking to learn if roc didn't get married rather yound (and quite some time ago) and for bonus points probably married to his hs sweetheart - i have no other info beyond that he's married but it doesn't feel like i'm going out on a limb with that assumption (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong)
the recency in which you've received a poor quality handjob is very relevant to the validity of one's opinions on d
I didn't refuse to believe anything about the modern dating world and I didn't get married young. I was living with my wife for quite a while before I got married.
I also have no moral objection to someone having tons of casual partners unless that person is habitually lying about his or her true intentions. But if two consenting adults want to **** just for fun with no strings attached, that's more than OK with me so long as they take basic precautions.
Seems like the IQ discussion has been making the rounds on twitter the last few days too
I actually somewhat agree with that. I saw in the past insanely low IQ estimates for countries, sometimes like 45-50 IQ, and some of those tests were on like random mentally disabled people schools. Whatever the 67 IQ country meme means there definitely has to be something weird going on there. Like that level of IQ in the west would basically be a nonfunctioning person. This is maybe the strongest argument against IQ because those stats seem like utter BS to me somehow.
When it's normalised to a mean of 100, what is the data set used to normalise it? I know that the mean is 100 by construction, but the mean of what?
I think "environmental factors" kind of covers everything outside of "innate ability" (including iii and iv in your list), so I don't know if that's quite how I'd break it down.
Probably the important buckets for me are that they measure:
(I): Intelligence, which has the factors of:
(A) Genetic:
(B) Environmental, which could be further broken down into:
(1) Temporal environmental factors, eg:
- Caffeine, adderall, etc
- Stress
- Sleep
- Distractions
- That day's nutrition
(2) Pervasive environmental facto
Isn't III basically their IQ score if you renormalised IQ based on age?
How much weight would you say the other factors carry in relation to innate ability?
Note to all the IQ critics: you should read this guy's posts for some tips on how to make a good argument.
I had a lot of trouble wording that last one before I gave up and just said “or something like that.” That bullet is a description of what IQ scores DO represent, but I wanted a bucket that opened up a whole world of possibility for how IQ testing data could be used to measure any other number of things.
Well let me say right up front: IDFK, I’m not on expert on ANY of this. At least some of them matter a lot: having fetal alcohol syndrome is probably quite detrimental to your IQ. Caffeine probably doesn’t matter much.
They can certainly matter quite a bit in aggregate. You might notice I’m really hung up on that fact that a median 1950s* Netherlander would score an 85 today (*double checked the number, and I had it wrong when I said the 60s). I think there’s a lot to unpack there.
Even the seemingly smaller factors (eg: test taking ability) can matter a lot more in extreme cases. There’s studies with African factory workers showing scores improving significantly just with more instruction or a second go at the test. Cases that aren’t important when it comes to you and your homey comparing your IQ or whatever, can matter more with some particularly egregious cases of drawing large group differences across wildly different contexts and cultures.
Note to all the IQ critics: you should read this guy's posts for some tips on how to make a good argument.
You really shouldn’t do this to my ego.
When it's normalised to a mean of 100, what is the data set used to normalise it? I know that the mean is 100 by construction, but the mean of what?
Number of questions correct. Assuming IQ is really normally distributed and you give enough people a 50 question IQ test, you'll be able to find the mean by plotting questions right vs how many people got that result. Say the most common number of questions correct is 20 with an SD of 5. Since it's normally distributed, half of people will get 20 right or more, 2.5% will get 30 right or more etc. You would then define 20 correct answers as a 100 IQ.
Number of questions correct. Assuming IQ is really normally distributed and you give enough people a 50 question IQ test, you'll be able to find the mean by plotting questions right vs how many people got that result. Say the most common number of questions correct is 20 with an SD of 5. Since it's normally distributed, half of people will get 20 right or more, 2.5% will get 30 right or more etc. You would then define 20 correct answers as a 100 IQ.
I think I didn't phrase my question very well. I mean, do they take the data from all tests done worldwide in a given year to perform that exercise you describe above, or in the US, or how does that work? Who are the "enough people", in other words? I'm trying to understand how a whole country can have an average that is not 100.
I think I didn't phrase my question very well. I mean, do they take the data from all tests done worldwide in a given year to perform that exercise you describe above, or in the US, or how does that work? Who are the "enough people", in other words? I'm trying to understand how a whole country can have an average that is not 100.
US indexed at 100 and the rest compared to that afaik.
when checking for Flynn effects, US at year X set at 100
I feel like IQ peaked with Einstein and it had all been downhill from there.
Bro if any of
ScienceShot - Professional Insights, Unique Perspectives.
Bro if any of
ScienceShot - Professional Insights, Unique Perspectives.Uh? where did i deny Einstein was very intelligent?
I have only one qualm with him which is that he had his morals block his research, when his own models, and the stuff written by colleagues based on his intuitions, made it plausible that stochasticity was at the basis of everything that existed, he went with "god doesn't play dice" and stopped worked on that line of thought.
But anyway others did so not too big of a deal at the end.
Uh? where did i deny Einstein was very intelligent?
I have only one qualm with him which is that he had his morals block his research, when his own models, and the stuff written by colleagues based on his intuitions, made it plausible that stochasticity was at the basis of everything that existed, he went with "god doesn't play dice" and stopped worked on that line of thought.
But anyway others did so not too big of a deal at the end.
Was that because of morals? Or further intuitions convincing him that it was a dead end?
Or your mommy and daddy are filthy, inconceivably rich. The ultimate Trump card, having **** you money.
Which is why Trump went to the university of ... Pennsylvania? UPenn wasn't terrible but at his time it was the easiest of the ivy league schools (and getting into an Ivey league school was easier in general than today)
Or your mommy and daddy are filthy, inconceivably rich. The ultimate Trump card, having **** you money.
Obviously people like Trump and Bush are the exception, but there is more correlation between being a rich scion and intelligence than the narrative accepts. Yglesias did a piece on this once, and he analyzed that if you went strictly on merit versus wealth the composition of the average Ivy League class wouldn't change as much as one might expect.
It is not really so much that rich scions generally aren't qualified to get into the schools they do. It is more a matter of supply is higher than number of slots to get into these schools; and among the pool of equally qualified, rich scions are over-selected.
Or your mommy and daddy are filthy, inconceivably rich. The ultimate Trump card, having **** you money.
Jared Kushner's classmates were shocked he was going to Harvard. And he went to an elite school where dozens of kids will go to Harvard through legacy and other forms of affirmative action and they all knew his parents were billionaires. That one time 7 figure donation the year he applied might have been a factor. Looking back it might have been a mistake to have an affirmative action president and affirmative white house action advisor who no other republican would ever have even considered negotiate a middle east deal.
I think I didn't phrase my question very well. I mean, do they take the data from all tests done worldwide in a given year to perform that exercise you describe above, or in the US, or how does that work? Who are the "enough people", in other words? I'm trying to understand how a whole country can have an average that is not 100.
Oh that data is probably not reliable at all.
I think I didn't phrase my question very well. I mean, do they take the data from all tests done worldwide in a given year to perform that exercise you describe above, or in the US, or how does that work? Who are the "enough people", in other words? I'm trying to understand how a whole country can have an average that is not 100.
That is a very good question, and the answer depends on how responsible the author is.
Anytime you see a number in the 60s or lower, usually what they've done is taken data that isn't even from IQ tests, usually from a non-representative sample (often from another author's study that has multiple test results sometimes from multiple samples, but cherry-picking the lowest one in the study, even when the author specifically states that's the least representative case), sometimes-but-not-always administered in the sample's native language, curve the scores based on how the scores of that test might correlate with IQ test scores based on Western data, normalize it (for some reason), often throw a random transcription error or two in there for good measure (eg: listing the sample size as the test score, yes I'm serious, this is literally the case in some well-cited "data"), and viola, you have a country's IQ! I'll leave such authors' intent up to your imagination, but the most charitable thing you can say of them is that they're doing bad data analysis.
Numbers that are more in the 80s largely take the unavoidable step you're suggesting, which is placing a result in a global distribution. Authors of those sorts of studies at least often contextualize that number by citing differential Flynn effects and the like (my 1950s Dutchman case that I'm obsessed with comes from one such analysis).
, made it plausible that stochasticity was at the basis of everything that existed, he went with "god doesn't play dice " and stopped worked on that line of thought.
But anyway others did so not too big of a deal at the end.
Well that's totally wrong. God does not play dice is just an easily understandable quote that has entered pop culture. Einstein and others were the first to seriously question whether quantum mechanics is compatible with relativity, causality and local realism. This lead directly to Bell's inequalities and literally the last Nobel prize in testing quantum mechanics vs hidden variables and other types of non quantum theories that can reproduce most of it's results. It was absolutely worth testing this and not simply taking Bohr or Heisenberg's word for it....at least according to Nobel Prize committee.
Obviously people like Trump and Bush are the exception, but there is more correlation between being a rich scion and intelligence than the narrative accepts. Yglesias did a piece on this once, and he analyzed that if you went strictly on merit versus wealth the composition of the average Ivy League class wouldn't change as much as one might expect.
It is not really so much that rich scions generally aren't qualified to get into the schools they do. It is more a matter of supply is higher than
this so much - the legacy people were all very qualified to begin with
and it's no sure thing either, the odds are increased for sure but i knew plenty of very hard working and smart legacy kids who didn't get into the school their dad and grandfather went to and it was a massive disapointment
