When the dramatards obsess over something, they do not let it go until it's completely torn apart. You're the pitbulls of people, but with less to contribute to society.
They don't think you can measure intelligence. All talk around IQ is pure cope from low IQ that can't accomplish anything or high IQ that haven't accomplished anything but still want to feel superior. The only successful people that want to talk about IQ are spectrummy assholes.
I can't wait for a bunch of smoothbrains who use DNA editing to create the perfect race, except they get a bunch of sterile tards because the human genome is not as "solved" as some people think, or that biotech companies even know what the fuck they're doing half the time.
There is a possibility that the first few attempts would result in very autistic people with a bunch of scary side effects like torsion dystonia.
But I wouldn't bet against the free market meeting the demand eventually. After all, the people who get recruited to work on this are the exact opposite of "smoothbrains" you might expect from arguing with smoothbrains on the internet.
Ehhh, I'm not a Libertarian who trusts the free market enough to believe what you say will happen. There's also the massive social consequences of introducing "genetically better" humans into the population. Rather than better treatment, they would face colossal prejudice from people who understandably see them as their replacement, not to mention the political and economic aspects adding fuel to the fire.
Imagine if China were ahead of the US on this front. That would be a very easy excuse to start a war that would undermine the process. Plus, we're talking about what exactly does IQ measure, and does it factor in application. I know that the first genome babies will not literally be capeshit geniuses, which means whatever boon they bring to society is meaningless in the face of a nuke dropped on them because of a nationalism fueled deathwar.
Not to trigger longpostbot, but one last thing that came to mind is also the psychological complications. Having a high IQ can help with outside interference of a shitty childhood, for example, but can't nullify it. Even if society makes better people via genetics, it's sabotaged if everyone who raises these kids are scumbags. They won't apply themselves due to bad social programming, meaning a tall smart dude will still throw his life away on obesity and video games because his parents were neglectful, not to mention the x-factor of free choice.
Rather than better treatment, they would face colossal prejudice from people who understandably see them as their replacement
Just like current society treats children of wealthy parents who stick them into the Ivies. Or how it treats children of upper middle class people blah blah
Like, I don't know, this is a very interesting question. Our current society seems to grumblingly agree to the fact that the children of the rich people get a lot of unearned privilege. How would that change when the outcomes are personally earned because rich kids really are better then you?
Imagine if China were ahead of the US on this front. That would be a very easy excuse to start a war that would undermine the process.
China is already ahead of US as far as the baseline intelligence goes. And again, if they start doing population-wide IQ improvement, that would require some very funny backtracking from the "IQ doesn't real" crowd.
Even if society makes better people via genetics, it's sabotaged if everyone who raises these kids are scumbags
The idea is that high-average-IQ societies are generally way better at cooperation. Because there's a level at which everyone understands what a Prisoner's Dilemma is and what a Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma is and cooperates according to the latter while efficiently punishing defectors by the similarly immediately understood need.
And also the high-IQ culture similar to what Jewish diamond traders had, with an appreciation for the shared culture and resulting much lower transaction fees compared to gentiles'.
I have to admit that currently the Chinese are the strongest counterexample to that, because of having been mindfucked by the government trying to enforce cooperation, which naturally resulted in them resisting cooperation.
Anyways, maybe 105 average IQ is not enough, maybe when China manages to get it to 120 is when they achieve the actually good Capitalism, and then a Superhuman Artificial Intelligence and Gay Space Communism shortly afterwards.
One last thing I'll say is maybe we shouldn't both be using China as examples. Yes, they're already doing this stuff, but as far as everything else the country is surrounded by a wall of propaganda Chapos could wish Murica could have. This makes greater discussion of Chinese society and how it relates to things difficult, since we are constantly seeing a warped, state controlled view of everything.
I would trust China even less with this tech than I would good ol' retard run USA. They're the same government that sees their cities covered in visible pollution to the point they need video displays to show the sunrise, and go "ehhh this is fine".
the only useful measure - that isnt of intelligence - is just like, what you were already judging people by. strength, innovation, wit, morals, etc. autistic modernists need a number bc they cant understand the first
just cuz culture A thinks killing is immoral and culture B thinks killing is immoral unless the person is human sacrifice doesnt make it impossible to tell A is better
Oof you right. Maybe we can throw in some RNA testing or something. Or if protein folding is eventually solved we could get a much better idea of how intelligence works at the roots. Anyways, I gotta go deal with the stiffy I just got from this
Their ability to put shaped pegs in the right holes quickly or whatever the newest meme IQ test is means little if they're poorly-socialized weirdos who don't interact with other people.
Teacher (kind of) here: I don’t support using IQ tests unless it is absolutely necessary, since they DO help determine if someone is actually mentally handicapped (we use standard deviations as a measure for it). But the fact that somebody would take an IQ test just to brag about it, instead of actually doing something useful with their intelligence, is beyond me.
Read this as many times as you need because I won’t be answering anymore.
we don’t comprehend it well enough for what?
To measure it. That’s kind of the whole point. We can’t measure something that intrinsically can not be measured.
Imagine you’re asked to measure a house that can’t be seen or touched. Still, it’s your job to find out its measurements. So, what do you do? You gather around all the implicit indirect information that you can, like asking neighbors and reading about the other houses in the neighborhood. You could even come with an estimate. This estimate can either be accurate enough, or just plain wrong. This is the problem with IQ tests. The certainty of the measure is just as good as what the test creators consider intelligence.
If I’m creating an IQ test, and I consider something like knowing the three Laws of Newton as a legit measure for intelligence, I’ll put an ‘item’ about it in my test. A genius could take the test and fail that question because he didn’t remember or cared about Newton, or simply because he’s too young and haven’t taken physics yet. Is he dumb? No. He’ll probably do well in other questions. But he cannot know everything the test makers assume genius-level people know.
So, what do we do? We build a test around OUR idea of intelligence. Psychologists like Howard Gardner have been debating this for years, saying there’s multiple intelligences to consider, and IQ only measures one of them.
Like I said, IQ tests are useful to find out if a person could be mentally handicapped, but it’s not even close to be comparable to a physical attribute like height just yet. To do so, we’d have to literally understand 100% not only the brain, but about HOW it works. Spoiler alert: we don’t. Neuroscience and psychology still find out new things every single year, and the IQ tests are a necessary evil until we find a more concrete way to measure intelligence, if it can even be measured at all.
It's another chapo false flag attempt I assume. The reason the_donald doesn't allow lefties since like a year and half ago is because chapo kept going into the sub to larp and post Nazi shit in an attempt to get them banned.
Not really, IQ does in fact measure something very real, the problem is we don't know exactly what IQ testing is measuring because the human brain is complex and perpetually affected by a number of people factors.
That being said, most people who take IQ to mean a simple "brain score" also think dudes who learn C++ are on the same level as Einstein and Hawking.
But like C++ is so complex, like you have like objects and you have to like instantiate them and get this, those object can have their own objects!!!!
Real talk, learning a computer language is easy, anyone can do it. The difficult part of programming and why some people make way more than others is that a really good programmer can do in minutes what a shitty programmer takes weeks or months to accomplish.
The thing is, you can hire some moron to work on your frontend as a web dev using JavaScript in less than half a year, and it will actually somewhat work.
You cannot create software engineer who knows what they're doing in under 6 months though.
I can agree on C++ though, so many skids try to use C++ for literally everything then act like they're tough shit when they are incapable of writing code that doesn't have a billion hidden bugs, most popular probably being
alloc something, make sure you use new since you saw it done in java and working, new is always good
do something that can throw an exception inbetween this new and delete
delete, but because your shitty code threw an exception, it will never be released, so in fact, it would be better if you were a brainlet who doesn't even delete, will find the bug faster, in fact, even better idea is to go back to frying fries in local McDonald's, programming isn't for you.
Imagine using those keywords without knowing how unsafe they are and treating them like normal part of any code, instead of boxing your pointers and letting people who actually know how to program handle that part for you, then thinking that you're good at programming.
We know exactly what IQ tests. Pattern recognition, abstraction capabilities, mental arithmetic capabilities and so on. Now how useful those skills are for you will obviously change by vocation, a lawyer won't have much use for mental arithmetic capabilities and a clerk won't have much use for pattern recognition. I kind of wish IQ tests broke the test down by these categories TBH, would make for a much more interesting result page.
I was also meaning how much of the intelligence quota is based on biological factors versus education access or environment. There's been data that has been able to clear it up somewhat but I also feel like every once in awhile, some other researchers find a mistake in the data set that exposes a critical bias or blindspot for IQ that looks the data's "reputation", for lack of a better term.
Or the classic, not gathering enough data from a wide enough community over a wide enough time period.
Yes but if most people with above average IQ is Asian, comes from a good family, and is wealthy, and the way we're measuring success is educational success, then it's questionable how much of an impact IQ alone is having.
Linear regression is a simple (and 200 year old) method to solve this problem that you apparently consider intractable.
You might be surprised to hear that in most circumstances an outcome depends on multiple variables, and humans have actually figured out ways to estimate how strongly each of them influences it.
income inequality creates IQ inequality and IQ is not a valid measure of intelligence
Actually the truth, devoid of an explantion of what it is measuring, but the aswer isn't bad. What is measures is how effective your education is basically, and how well trained you are at learning.
Basically global standards of education are so shit across every country it is measurable in tests. Most 'gifted' students just literally recieved a better education.
It's a big factor in intelligence, so big that data shows giving black people better education in society is helping them "catch up" to the rest of the population at a far faster rate than how fast the non-black population is naturally getting smarter.
I think there is something insane like a 30 point difference when accounting for wealth and race. This is actually how some college in America decided to decline the applications of Asian students; they were 'overrepresented' in the college or something.
There are studies from the late 19th century, using very undeveloped IQ measures, that however showed a strong correlation between IQ and reaction speed. They kept being confirmed whenever anyone cared to measure.
Some people have faster firing neurons and better neuronal organization, deal with it. Deal with it now by saying that IQ is not a measure of a person's moral worth instead of actually affirming fascists' position that it is but claiming that IQ isn't real. The backtracking wouldn't be fun otherwise.
That's not the case, there have been studies since that show a strong connection between IQ and household income. It's a surprise, wealthier families have better educated children.
IQ is not connected to reaction time, because it is connected to household income. It's impossible for more than two things to correlate at the same time.
So why do full siblings under perform so badly if its all nature and not nurture, then? The correlation is even lower than adoptees for years of education and socioeconomic skills.
First of all, just to be clear, that's not a performance plot, it's a plot of correlations between siblings of various degrees of closeness that gives us some idea of how much some trait is determined by genetics and how much by nurture.
Then as you noticed "heritability" doesn't actually mean "inherited from your parents", because there's a lot of variation in even highly heritable traits such as height between usual siblings, you have to look at monozygotic twins to see really correlated outcomes.
And nobody says that "its all nature and not nurture", as you can see, yes, years of schooling appears to be more affected by parents' socioeconomic status seeing that the correlation is lower in full siblings growing apart than in adopted children growing in the same family.
In IQ there's still a connection, the correlation between adopted children (presumably caused entirely by nurture) is visible. It's just that I would never call it "strong", compared to some actually strong shit, like the correlation between traits of monozygotic twins growing in the same family, on the nearly complete lack of correlation in height and BMI in adopted children. A strong correlation with nurture should have remained up there in the 0.8+ range all along, not decrease all the way below 0.2.
I'd also add that the relative contributions obviously depend on the larger environment: you can only get height and BMI uncorrelated in adoptees like that in a society where universal food safety is a solved problem, like Sweden apparently. Then yeah, all variation in height is purely genetic obviously.
You probably wouldn't see the same plot for the US even for height, and of course it suggests that there is space for improvement in the nurture component even for IQ. Just not very much space.
(On a side note, the same graph is ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT for counter-trolling the CICO "just don't eat food nigga" guys, they feel genuinely betrayed by Science and seethe and cope like you won't believe)
It measures how similar siblings are yes. However there is a problem with your argument, aside from twins the deviation between together and apart siblings show variance in all areas by 15-20% - equal or similar to that of half siblings and adoptees.
Twins weren't measured when raised apart, so discounting them there is actually a very big difference based on nurture in how they perform.
Ultimately they will be notably different in how they perform mentally, but the variance could reduce substantially with a more effective education.
However there is a problem with your argument, aside from twins the deviation between together and apart siblings show variance in all areas by 15-20% - equal or similar to that of half siblings and adoptees.
I don't see a problem with what my argument actually is: that in that sample of Swedish conscripts the variation in IQ seems to be about 3/4 genetic, which puts a hard limit on how much it can be reduced by reducing social inequality. Not that we shouldn't strive to do that, and not that most countries have a long way to go even to the 70s Sweden level, but don't get your hopes too high beyond that.
Also,
What is measures is how effective your education is basically, and how well trained you are at learning
No, we can clearly see that the thing that it measures correlates at 0.8 level for identical twins but the correlation gradually decreases with genetic similarity all the way to 0.2 for adopted siblings -- raised in the same family, going to the same school, etc. Again, with a huge asterisk about the sample being representative only for countries with the same kind of universal social support as Sweden, yada yada. But we are definitely measuring something that exists and is mostly genetic there.
Not sure where you got the idea that it measures ability to learn, but pattern recognition and facts aren't about learning, you either see/know, or you don't.
Remembering something is also not a sign of actually having learned it.
A more comprehensive early education is provably beneficial to developmental plasticity, which does actually have the potential as far as we know to improve the ability for a child to learn.
facts aren't about learning, you either see/know, or you don't.
You are born knowing all facts, or you don't. Now that is a galaxy brain take.
I mean the IQ question is just so straight forward, and the "Anyone want to tackle this cookie? Or all you lefties total intellectual pussies?" - does this sound like something TD poster would write?
Then you got this major mistake of linking Reuters instead of Fox/Federalist/Human Events or any other trash sites.
There's also a post where correct words like gender dysphoria or trans woman are used, again I can't really see to many rightoids say this, especially if they're trying to argue that it's all mental illness.
121 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-07-06
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SnapshillBot 2019-07-06
When the dramatards obsess over something, they do not let it go until it's completely torn apart. You're the pitbulls of people, but with less to contribute to society.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
they're never able to provide a better measure tho
1 UnhappySong 2019-07-06
They don't think you can measure intelligence. All talk around IQ is pure cope from low IQ that can't accomplish anything or high IQ that haven't accomplished anything but still want to feel superior. The only successful people that want to talk about IQ are spectrummy assholes.
1 Slump_o 2019-07-06
strange game, the only winning move is not to play.
1 UnhappySong 2019-07-06
Wrong! The winning move is genetic engineering and immigration policy that's obviously about IQ but doesn't ever directly reference it.
1 forseti911 2019-07-06
I wanna go back now Morpheus.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
I can't wait for a bunch of smoothbrains who use DNA editing to create the perfect race, except they get a bunch of sterile tards because the human genome is not as "solved" as some people think, or that biotech companies even know what the fuck they're doing half the time.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
There is a possibility that the first few attempts would result in very autistic people with a bunch of scary side effects like torsion dystonia.
But I wouldn't bet against the free market meeting the demand eventually. After all, the people who get recruited to work on this are the exact opposite of "smoothbrains" you might expect from arguing with smoothbrains on the internet.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
Ehhh, I'm not a Libertarian who trusts the free market enough to believe what you say will happen. There's also the massive social consequences of introducing "genetically better" humans into the population. Rather than better treatment, they would face colossal prejudice from people who understandably see them as their replacement, not to mention the political and economic aspects adding fuel to the fire.
Imagine if China were ahead of the US on this front. That would be a very easy excuse to start a war that would undermine the process. Plus, we're talking about what exactly does IQ measure, and does it factor in application. I know that the first genome babies will not literally be capeshit geniuses, which means whatever boon they bring to society is meaningless in the face of a nuke dropped on them because of a nationalism fueled deathwar.
Not to trigger longpostbot, but one last thing that came to mind is also the psychological complications. Having a high IQ can help with outside interference of a shitty childhood, for example, but can't nullify it. Even if society makes better people via genetics, it's sabotaged if everyone who raises these kids are scumbags. They won't apply themselves due to bad social programming, meaning a tall smart dude will still throw his life away on obesity and video games because his parents were neglectful, not to mention the x-factor of free choice.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
Just like current society treats children of wealthy parents who stick them into the Ivies. Or how it treats children of upper middle class people blah blah
Like, I don't know, this is a very interesting question. Our current society seems to grumblingly agree to the fact that the children of the rich people get a lot of unearned privilege. How would that change when the outcomes are personally earned because rich kids really are better then you?
China is already ahead of US as far as the baseline intelligence goes. And again, if they start doing population-wide IQ improvement, that would require some very funny backtracking from the "IQ doesn't real" crowd.
The idea is that high-average-IQ societies are generally way better at cooperation. Because there's a level at which everyone understands what a Prisoner's Dilemma is and what a Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma is and cooperates according to the latter while efficiently punishing defectors by the similarly immediately understood need.
And also the high-IQ culture similar to what Jewish diamond traders had, with an appreciation for the shared culture and resulting much lower transaction fees compared to gentiles'.
I have to admit that currently the Chinese are the strongest counterexample to that, because of having been mindfucked by the government trying to enforce cooperation, which naturally resulted in them resisting cooperation.
Anyways, maybe 105 average IQ is not enough, maybe when China manages to get it to 120 is when they achieve the actually good Capitalism, and then a Superhuman Artificial Intelligence and Gay Space Communism shortly afterwards.
1 LongPostBot 2019-07-06
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
One last thing I'll say is maybe we shouldn't both be using China as examples. Yes, they're already doing this stuff, but as far as everything else the country is surrounded by a wall of propaganda Chapos could wish Murica could have. This makes greater discussion of Chinese society and how it relates to things difficult, since we are constantly seeing a warped, state controlled view of everything.
1 Slump_o 2019-07-06
lmao china will never be a world power
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
Luckily China is doing the initial experimentations so they can figure out how to fix the technology and deal with all the initial failures.
There have been a few very interesting successes with monkeys with higher puzzle solving capabilities than the average monkey.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
I would trust China even less with this tech than I would good ol' retard run USA. They're the same government that sees their cities covered in visible pollution to the point they need video displays to show the sunrise, and go "ehhh this is fine".
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
Well until the US starts giving more of a fuck, China is the best hope we got. Can't improve the tech when half of the experimentation is banned
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-07-06
Dude this was literally the plot to Metal Gear Solid
1 VicisSubsisto 2019-07-06
No, the plot Metal Gear Solid was a guy in bondage gear with cigarettes up his ass trying to destroy robot Enola Gay.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
You are a new face here, but I like your radical centrism already!
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
IQ is one of the best measure of intelligence we have but all of our measures suck. Genetics and AI will eventually give us much better measures
1 forseti911 2019-07-06
I think if IQ was called something more specific than "intelligence quotient" there'd be less of a controversy about it.
1 F_t_M_t_F 2019-07-06
the only useful measure - that isnt of intelligence - is just like, what you were already judging people by. strength, innovation, wit, morals, etc. autistic modernists need a number bc they cant understand the first
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
Half of those things you listed vary greatly between cultures, though
1 F_t_M_t_F 2019-07-06
just cuz culture A thinks killing is immoral and culture B thinks killing is immoral unless the person is human sacrifice doesnt make it impossible to tell A is better
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
yeah it's something that can be measured.
if you want to do social science, you need to work with concepts that can be measured.
how do you measure "innovation, wit, morals" ?
1 snallygaster 2019-07-06
*epigenetics and gene-environment interaction block your path and beat u up*
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
Oof you right. Maybe we can throw in some RNA testing or something. Or if protein folding is eventually solved we could get a much better idea of how intelligence works at the roots. Anyways, I gotta go deal with the stiffy I just got from this
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-07-06
That's because intelligence is fucking complicated and varied. It's a vague idea anyway lol
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
Intelligence is complicated, let's go shopping.
1 seenten 2019-07-06
Their ability to put shaped pegs in the right holes quickly or whatever the newest meme IQ test is means little if they're poorly-socialized weirdos who don't interact with other people.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
I don't measure my superiority in math tests, I measure it in Steven Universe fanfics
1 ChumbleHouse 2019-07-06
Good Name 👍
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
You think IQ tests are supposed to measure charisma?
1 seenten 2019-07-06
No, and apparently they don't do reading comprehension either.
1 Gonomed 2019-07-06
Teacher (kind of) here: I don’t support using IQ tests unless it is absolutely necessary, since they DO help determine if someone is actually mentally handicapped (we use standard deviations as a measure for it). But the fact that somebody would take an IQ test just to brag about it, instead of actually doing something useful with their intelligence, is beyond me.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
Are inches and feet (or centimeters) not a legitimate measure for body height or dick size, because some people brag about being tall or hung?
1 Gonomed 2019-07-06
Height is not an abstract, arbitrary thing that can’t be measured. All you need is a ruler
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
oh good, you switched to a different argument
IQ can be measured.
1 Gonomed 2019-07-06
IQ is a numerical measure for something we don’t even comprehend well enough.
I’m guessing this hurt your IQ ego
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
we don't comprehend it well enough for what?
you're projecting your insecurities onto me.
1 Gonomed 2019-07-06
Read this as many times as you need because I won’t be answering anymore.
Imagine you’re asked to measure a house that can’t be seen or touched. Still, it’s your job to find out its measurements. So, what do you do? You gather around all the implicit indirect information that you can, like asking neighbors and reading about the other houses in the neighborhood. You could even come with an estimate. This estimate can either be accurate enough, or just plain wrong. This is the problem with IQ tests. The certainty of the measure is just as good as what the test creators consider intelligence.
If I’m creating an IQ test, and I consider something like knowing the three Laws of Newton as a legit measure for intelligence, I’ll put an ‘item’ about it in my test. A genius could take the test and fail that question because he didn’t remember or cared about Newton, or simply because he’s too young and haven’t taken physics yet. Is he dumb? No. He’ll probably do well in other questions. But he cannot know everything the test makers assume genius-level people know.
So, what do we do? We build a test around OUR idea of intelligence. Psychologists like Howard Gardner have been debating this for years, saying there’s multiple intelligences to consider, and IQ only measures one of them.
Like I said, IQ tests are useful to find out if a person could be mentally handicapped, but it’s not even close to be comparable to a physical attribute like height just yet. To do so, we’d have to literally understand 100% not only the brain, but about HOW it works. Spoiler alert: we don’t. Neuroscience and psychology still find out new things every single year, and the IQ tests are a necessary evil until we find a more concrete way to measure intelligence, if it can even be measured at all.
1 LongPostBot 2019-07-06
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zoz
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zle
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zozzle
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
haha you're a clown.
1 ResistingDaddyDrumpf 2019-07-06
The only comment in that thread is non-binary Chapo. Is that sub like a free-for/all or something?
1 Slump_o 2019-07-06
was linked in ahs
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
Go to your preferences and tell reddit to show you arbitrarily downvoted comments. How can you enjoy drama properly without that event?
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zoz
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zle
1 Zozbot 2019-07-06
zozzle
1 FearOfBees 2019-07-06
It's another chapo false flag attempt I assume. The reason the_donald doesn't allow lefties since like a year and half ago is because chapo kept going into the sub to larp and post Nazi shit in an attempt to get them banned.
1 Grundleberries 2019-07-06
IQ is a horoscope for people that like huffing their own farts.
1 cfbsympathizer 2019-07-06
It's basically the opposite of a Turing test.
1 SchitPhucker 2019-07-06
iqs don't mean much because they can't tell you if you'll actually end up doing anything of value with your special brain number (which most don't)
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
Not really, IQ does in fact measure something very real, the problem is we don't know exactly what IQ testing is measuring because the human brain is complex and perpetually affected by a number of people factors.
That being said, most people who take IQ to mean a simple "brain score" also think dudes who learn C++ are on the same level as Einstein and Hawking.
1 snallygaster 2019-07-06
Good post
1 Pinksister 2019-07-06
I get butt hurt when people are like "lol IQ isn't real!" so thank you sincerely for making this post.
1 aqouta 2019-07-06
But like C++ is so complex, like you have like objects and you have to like instantiate them and get this, those object can have their own objects!!!!
Real talk, learning a computer language is easy, anyone can do it. The difficult part of programming and why some people make way more than others is that a really good programmer can do in minutes what a shitty programmer takes weeks or months to accomplish.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
The thing is, you can hire some moron to work on your frontend as a web dev using JavaScript in less than half a year, and it will actually somewhat work.
You cannot create software engineer who knows what they're doing in under 6 months though.
I can agree on C++ though, so many skids try to use C++ for literally everything then act like they're tough shit when they are incapable of writing code that doesn't have a billion hidden bugs, most popular probably being
alloc something, make sure you use new since you saw it done in java and working, new is always good
do something that can throw an exception inbetween this new and delete
delete, but because your shitty code threw an exception, it will never be released, so in fact, it would be better if you were a brainlet who doesn't even delete, will find the bug faster, in fact, even better idea is to go back to frying fries in local McDonald's, programming isn't for you.
Imagine using those keywords without knowing how unsafe they are and treating them like normal part of any code, instead of boxing your pointers and letting people who actually know how to program handle that part for you, then thinking that you're good at programming.
1 Sasanka_Of_Gauda 2019-07-06
We know exactly what IQ tests. Pattern recognition, abstraction capabilities, mental arithmetic capabilities and so on. Now how useful those skills are for you will obviously change by vocation, a lawyer won't have much use for mental arithmetic capabilities and a clerk won't have much use for pattern recognition. I kind of wish IQ tests broke the test down by these categories TBH, would make for a much more interesting result page.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
I was also meaning how much of the intelligence quota is based on biological factors versus education access or environment. There's been data that has been able to clear it up somewhat but I also feel like every once in awhile, some other researchers find a mistake in the data set that exposes a critical bias or blindspot for IQ that looks the data's "reputation", for lack of a better term.
Or the classic, not gathering enough data from a wide enough community over a wide enough time period.
1 cjsavage10 2019-07-06
Low iq cope
1 Grundleberries 2019-07-06
Listen, I'm pretty high IQ. I watch science videos on YouTube and watch Marvel films tyvm.
1 FearOfBees 2019-07-06
Man I could write a thesis on how wrong this is
1 Pinksister 2019-07-06
People have written thesises about how wrong he is.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
One thing for sure, it shows how good you are at pattern recognition or remembering facts.
Those two things alone are enough to become successful actually, just learn how to speak on top of that and you're good to go.
I mean, look at Ben Shapiro, dude must have at least 200IQ with how many facts he can go through in one sentence.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-07-06
This tbh.
1 TheAlamoDrafthouse 2019-07-06
Horoscopes are horoscopes for Star Lord’s that want to huff their imaginary space farts andi would single moms in their 30s.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-07-06
Iq is the most validated concept in (((social sciences))) so much so it's the best predictor of a persons success.
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
Yes but if most people with above average IQ is Asian, comes from a good family, and is wealthy, and the way we're measuring success is educational success, then it's questionable how much of an impact IQ alone is having.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
Linear regression is a simple (and 200 year old) method to solve this problem that you apparently consider intractable.
You might be surprised to hear that in most circumstances an outcome depends on multiple variables, and humans have actually figured out ways to estimate how strongly each of them influences it.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
Or maybe you should pull the head out of your ass and look at it backwards - IQ is a result, not cause of this.
1 artemis_m_oswald 2019-07-06
...that's what my comment is saying lol?
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
You are saying that it's questionable, I'm saying that it's not.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
Actually the truth, devoid of an explantion of what it is measuring, but the aswer isn't bad. What is measures is how effective your education is basically, and how well trained you are at learning.
Basically global standards of education are so shit across every country it is measurable in tests. Most 'gifted' students just literally recieved a better education.
1 RichEvansSexbot 2019-07-06
It's a big factor in intelligence, so big that data shows giving black people better education in society is helping them "catch up" to the rest of the population at a far faster rate than how fast the non-black population is naturally getting smarter.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
I think there is something insane like a 30 point difference when accounting for wealth and race. This is actually how some college in America decided to decline the applications of Asian students; they were 'overrepresented' in the college or something.
Got the college sued.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
There are studies from the late 19th century, using very undeveloped IQ measures, that however showed a strong correlation between IQ and reaction speed. They kept being confirmed whenever anyone cared to measure.
Some people have faster firing neurons and better neuronal organization, deal with it. Deal with it now by saying that IQ is not a measure of a person's moral worth instead of actually affirming fascists' position that it is but claiming that IQ isn't real. The backtracking wouldn't be fun otherwise.
1 ironicshitpostr 2019-07-06
But it is moral worth tho
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
That's not the case, there have been studies since that show a strong connection between IQ and household income. It's a surprise, wealthier families have better educated children.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
Your case was the a very special exception, not the norm. Sorry they lied to you buddy.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
my case?
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
You linked studies about IQ in later life, the youngest age band there is 30.
30 year olds aren't going to elementary school.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
I thought you were doubting the correlation between reaction speed and IQ.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
Yes, but IQ at later ages is very different to children, I'm talking about people in school after all.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
Not for adopted children somehow 🤔
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
They do, but ok.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
I have a pretty plot, you?
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
So why do full siblings under perform so badly if its all nature and not nurture, then? The correlation is even lower than adoptees for years of education and socioeconomic skills.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
does anybody claim it's all nature?
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
It looks more like it is primarily nurture.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
look at the diagram again
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
It doesn't even account for when someone was adopted, this data is taken from subjects all aged 18.
I don't think this graph means what you think it does.
1 simplicity3000 2019-07-06
I don't think this graph means what you think it does
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
First of all, just to be clear, that's not a performance plot, it's a plot of correlations between siblings of various degrees of closeness that gives us some idea of how much some trait is determined by genetics and how much by nurture.
Then as you noticed "heritability" doesn't actually mean "inherited from your parents", because there's a lot of variation in even highly heritable traits such as height between usual siblings, you have to look at monozygotic twins to see really correlated outcomes.
And nobody says that "its all nature and not nurture", as you can see, yes, years of schooling appears to be more affected by parents' socioeconomic status seeing that the correlation is lower in full siblings growing apart than in adopted children growing in the same family.
In IQ there's still a connection, the correlation between adopted children (presumably caused entirely by nurture) is visible. It's just that I would never call it "strong", compared to some actually strong shit, like the correlation between traits of monozygotic twins growing in the same family, on the nearly complete lack of correlation in height and BMI in adopted children. A strong correlation with nurture should have remained up there in the 0.8+ range all along, not decrease all the way below 0.2.
I'd also add that the relative contributions obviously depend on the larger environment: you can only get height and BMI uncorrelated in adoptees like that in a society where universal food safety is a solved problem, like Sweden apparently. Then yeah, all variation in height is purely genetic obviously.
You probably wouldn't see the same plot for the US even for height, and of course it suggests that there is space for improvement in the nurture component even for IQ. Just not very much space.
(On a side note, the same graph is ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT for counter-trolling the CICO "just don't eat food nigga" guys, they feel genuinely betrayed by Science and seethe and cope like you won't believe)
1 LongPostBot 2019-07-06
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
It measures how similar siblings are yes. However there is a problem with your argument, aside from twins the deviation between together and apart siblings show variance in all areas by 15-20% - equal or similar to that of half siblings and adoptees.
Twins weren't measured when raised apart, so discounting them there is actually a very big difference based on nurture in how they perform.
Ultimately they will be notably different in how they perform mentally, but the variance could reduce substantially with a more effective education.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-07-06
I don't see a problem with what my argument actually is: that in that sample of Swedish conscripts the variation in IQ seems to be about 3/4 genetic, which puts a hard limit on how much it can be reduced by reducing social inequality. Not that we shouldn't strive to do that, and not that most countries have a long way to go even to the 70s Sweden level, but don't get your hopes too high beyond that.
Also,
No, we can clearly see that the thing that it measures correlates at 0.8 level for identical twins but the correlation gradually decreases with genetic similarity all the way to 0.2 for adopted siblings -- raised in the same family, going to the same school, etc. Again, with a huge asterisk about the sample being representative only for countries with the same kind of universal social support as Sweden, yada yada. But we are definitely measuring something that exists and is mostly genetic there.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
Not sure where you got the idea that it measures ability to learn, but pattern recognition and facts aren't about learning, you either see/know, or you don't.
Remembering something is also not a sign of actually having learned it.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
A more comprehensive early education is provably beneficial to developmental plasticity, which does actually have the potential as far as we know to improve the ability for a child to learn.
You are born knowing all facts, or you don't. Now that is a galaxy brain take.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
Knowing facts isn't learning.
And that's a fact.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
Yes, you will 'just know them' if you're smart, right?
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
Knowing facts doesn't make you smart, nor takes any brain power whatsoever.
1 OceanGeese 2019-07-06
So how do you know anything if you never learn it? Asking as, by your own words, smart people know things without learning anything.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
To learn something, you actually have to understand it.
Also you got it backwards, stupid people (like you) know things without learning anything.
You clearly haven't learned anything from this convo and I don't see a point in continuing it.
1 ChumbleHouse 2019-07-06
I’d just like to say this guy was completely arguing in bad faith he kept back tracking the whole time.
1 TonyDanzaClaus 2019-07-06
If there is a god, the admins will let this new subreddit thrive.
1 trappysaruhs_fan 2019-07-06
Allah* you faggot.
1 Woolgun 2019-07-06
The OP of that TD thread is either a troll or a baiter. No rightoid talks like that.
1 Slump_o 2019-07-06
sounds like someone who wants to sound smart. idk it’s 1 year old and 8 days ago started posting to rightard subs non stop.
1 Woolgun 2019-07-06
I mean the IQ question is just so straight forward, and the "Anyone want to tackle this cookie? Or all you lefties total intellectual pussies?" - does this sound like something TD poster would write?
Then you got this major mistake of linking Reuters instead of Fox/Federalist/Human Events or any other trash sites.
Too obvious.
This is just a rightwing catchphrase word salad
There's also a post where correct words like gender dysphoria or trans woman are used, again I can't really see to many rightoids say this, especially if they're trying to argue that it's all mental illness.
1 zhcyiDnein 2019-07-06
BASED
1 aqouta 2019-07-06
This is literally one of the only things that the social sciences can credibly claim to have proven.
1 ChumbleHouse 2019-07-06
Omg he deleted the post
1 Slump_o 2019-07-06
i think the whole sub is gone. Is pizza in this thread how are there 120 comments???
1 ChumbleHouse 2019-07-06
Ikr it seems like the argument crossed over to this post.