0 users browsing Discussion. | 35 bots
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-09, 08:42 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #41 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Posted by sureanem The Flynn effect indicates a *massive* increase in IQ, and IQ in and of itself is not an absolute number. Therefore, saying IQ determines success is the same as saying good grades determine success. Yes, people with good grades in general will succeed better in life, but the correlation is the other way around. Education brings better IQ, and I have never met a person whose grades could not be improved by studying. And no, this is not a PC thing, this has been proven by a ton of scientific studies. A high IQ does give you a certain advantage statistically but is not causative. It's like saying a poor person or a person of darker skin will never reach success because the odds are stacked against them. Posted by sureanem If you have done 20 problems like this the answer is easy - Realise (14-x)² = 16 --> 14 - x = 4 --> x = 10. If you have done none of these, the answer is hard. And you need to know what (14-x)² even means. And therein lies the rub. Whatever problem you are faced with, your experience dictates what you find easy and not. Two persons of equal intelligence but where one studied 4x as much as the other will lead to the person studying more achieving much better on the test. It's all about preparation. Regarding the loans bit, yes I exaggerated, but my American associates do have to pay around $1000+ a month minimum due to their bad deals on loans. So this is real world experience. And if you want to know what a loan costs you per month, see for instance https://studentloanhero.com/calculators/student-loan-payment-calculator/. |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 19-06-09, 11:19
|
 Post: #131 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1876 days Last view: 1848 days |
Plenty of people with mental illnesses have high IQ's. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-09, 21:10
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #376 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by wertigon Yes, but this massive increase only applies for the lower half or so. In other words, it can take someone from poor to average, but not from decent to excellent. Thus, for the purpose of scientific research, it isn't very important. IQ is in and of itself an absolute number, in the sense that it has a high test-retest validity and a strong predictive power. It's true that grades also predict life outcomes, but grades are caused by intelligence and not the other way around. We can verify this by looking at the genetic heritability of IQ as determined by, for instance, twin studies. And no, this is not a PC thing, this has been proven by a ton of scientific studies. A high IQ does give you a certain advantage statistically but is not causative. It's like saying a poor person or a person of darker skin will never reach success because the odds are stacked against them. The article doesn't provide any evidence for your claim, it's just some Quora answer without sources written by a random executive I've never heard of. Someone with an IQ of 70 could never reach any kind of success, no. Someone with an IQ of 90 could hardly become a prominent researcher. And a person with an IQ of 110 would be rather unlikely to win a Nobel Prize (then again, so is everyone). And so on, and so forth. Don't get your point about poor people. Their average IQ is probably lower than that of the middle and upper classes, making success less likely, but far from impossible. This has been known since antiquity. If you have done 20 problems like this the answer is easy - Realise (14-x)² = 16 --> 14 - x = 4 --> x = 10. If you have done none of these, the answer is hard. And you need to know what (14-x)² even means. And therein lies the rub. It becomes far less easy when you're doing 20 of them in a row and have a minute each. Even someone with perfect skills will eventually slip up. For instance, to solve it the right way as you suggest requires one to know that sqrt(x^2) = x. Someone who has more time doesn't need to know this just to brute-force the answers. For regular subject tests, it's true that practice makes perfect. This is not to the same extent true for the SAT. It is true that you can improve arithmetic skills and such, but eventually a cap will be hit. For instance, about 500 students (out of 1.7 million) each year score perfect scores, and out of those probably just a few dozen have actual perfect raw scores. If it were trivial to train for the SAT, why isn't this number higher? Shouldn't at least 5-10% score perfect scores, necessitating new norms? Regarding the loans bit, yes I exaggerated, but my American associates do have to pay around $1000+ a month minimum due to their bad deals on loans. So this is real world experience. And if you want to know what a loan costs you per month, see for instance https://studentloanhero.com/calculators/student-loan-payment-calculator/. Well, sure. But then they'd have loans of around $120k, if we go with 15 year repayment and 6% APR, which for a 4-year degree would imply $30k a year. This is clearly excessive, it's what a middle class person earns after taxes. Other first-world countries aren't nearly this expensive to study in, even without any government aid. Posted by Kakashi Well, where do you think the "mad scientist" archetype comes from? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-09, 22:10
|
|
Post: #42 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Posted by sureanem So, in other words you agree with my point that IQ = Knowledge. Great! :) |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-09, 23:17
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #377 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by wertigon No. IQ = Genetics; the various social classes differ genetically. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-10, 05:13
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #510 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 13 hours |
SWEET MERCIFUL ALTHENA, JUST STOP TALKING. Social darwinism was disproved over half a century ago. The lower classes are not actually genetically inferior. This is an exceptionally uncomfortable argument as here in America we've substituted classism for racism since shortly after overt racism became illegal, so it is difficult to not read that as "people of color are poor because they are genetically inferior to white folk", though I'm fairly sure that was not your intention. BUT even ignoring that... America has also had a few decades of overt class warfare as the richest people have made a quite successful attempt to destroy the middle class, fattening their own wallets at the expense of society. The middle class shrinks more every year, with the vast majority of those households falling down the ladder rather than moving up. So either everyone that isn't rich is mutating to become genetically inferior, OR social darwinism is a load of complete hogwash, social class has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics, and you're full of shit. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-10, 08:15 (revision 2)
|
|
Post: #43 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Posted by sureanem See, that's where Science does not agree with you. Genes are a fickle thing. Two sets of genes will produce an offspring that may or may not have beneficial traits. Two smart people could end up with a retarded kid with an IQ of 65, for instance. In fact, two black people can give birth to a white child; and two white people can give birth to a black one. It is not common, but it happens. If your statement is true, that IQ is in the genes alone, this means we should see a wide scattering of IQ all across the social classes. Just like genetic diseases, that strike both highborn and lowborn alike and indiscriminately. Do we really, though? Conclusion: Your statement is fatally flawed. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-10, 10:00
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #378 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by wertigon Well, she's hardly White. But with white skin, sure. The phenomenon wouldn't be unheard of, anyway. Even if the child on average would end up like the average of their parents' IQ scores, there are still contributions from non-shared environment and the like. Same thing for height. It's still a genetic trait, and it still correlates with social class. If your statement is true, that IQ is in the genes alone, this means we should see a wide scattering of IQ all across the social classes. Just like genetic diseases, that strike both highborn and lowborn alike and indiscriminately. Do we really, though? How do you conclude that "IQ is equal across social classes" from the premise "IQ is genetic"? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-10, 12:11 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #44 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Posted by sureanem If a good IQ score is genetically inclined, then it would have a similar spread as genetic diseases. It doesn't. Instead, there is a very clear correlation that the lesser the Socioeconomic Status (SES), the lower the IQ of that person. Furthermore, studies of infants being adopted from poor SES to high SES parents, compared to high SES natural borns, have shown that the adopted kids had a similar IQ to it's foster siblings and/or high SES friends. So, studies have been made and shows that while some genetic may play a part, it's minor and most of it is about SES. I do not know how much clearer this can be said, you are simply in the wrong here. :) |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 19-06-10, 12:14
|
|
Post: #132 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1876 days Last view: 1848 days |
Posted by sureanem Certainly not from those I am referring to. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-10, 14:15
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #379 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by wertigon It doesn't follow. Skin color is obviously genetic, yet it's not equally spread across the population. The mechanism causing social stratification for IQ is quite simple: IQ leads to SES/Educational level, and assortative mating takes place for at least one of those. I don't see how this could take place for genetic diseases, unless they would also cause SES/Educational level. Instead, there is a very clear correlation that the lesser the Socioeconomic Status (SES), the lower the IQ of that person. Furthermore, studies of infants being adopted from poor SES to high SES parents, compared to high SES natural borns, have shown that the adopted kids had a similar IQ to it's foster siblings and/or high SES friends. Untrue. The experimental design you suggest ("identical twins reared apart") is excellent, and it suggests a correlation of around 0.75, or an R2 of ~58%, meaning that about 58% of the variation could be explained by genetics alone. Unrelated children reared together have a correlation of 0.04, which is hardly better than chance. So, studies have been made and shows that while some genetic may play a part, it's minor and most of it is about SES. I do not know how much clearer this can be said, you are simply in the wrong here. :) I would not call 57-86% heritability minor. There is no evidence to suggest that SES would be a causative factor. The contributions from shared environment (e.g. SES) are extremely low (according to the study cited above, 0.04, which is even lower than I'd expect) with genetics+nonshared environment accounting for >95%. Posted by CaptainJistuce Sorry, I missed your post. I didn't intend to ignore it. I have never advocated for Social Darwinism, I don't know from where this accusation comes. Your second paragraph makes sense. I don't think I can or even want to address it directly because it's such a sensitive topic, so I'll just say that making a position illegal doesn't make it any more or less true, and that it's an absurd claim that just because the position is unacceptable it's wrong. Popularity is a decent heuristic in general, but consider that in this case the various races having the same IQs is more a matter of dogma than of legitimate scientific inquiry. This doesn't mean it's automatically wrong, nor that I believe it to be so, but it does mean the heuristic ceases to be useful. This is the failure of the Republican party, I suppose. They went for dog-whistle politics and thought they could both have their cake and eat it, but then people started taking things too literally and genuinely thought they were concerned about "states rights" and joined up. Then again, combining racism with fiscally liberal policies is far more politically unacceptable than with fiscally conservative such due to the horrors of the Second World War. In other words, they had no choice but to do this. If you want a less controversial example, go with Israel. A right-wing party that's critical of Israel, oh boy, that's some ground you don't want to tread on. While a left-wing party doing the same is acceptable, because there are not the same problematic associations to it. I don't think your point about shrinking middle class is relevant. Any number of transforms can be applied to the incomes, as long as the relative order stays the same. It's possible that increased nepotism would decrease the causative value of intelligence for SES. In fact, I would reckon this is the case for the extreme upper classes. For instance, it is far more common for elite colleges to grant legacy preference than others, which would mean they'd have a less apt student body than good but not strictly elite such. This also rhymes well with the anecdotal evidence I've heard. Then again, sour grapes. At any rate, this doesn't prevent the general point from holding. As you can see in the second graph in this post, when holding intelligence constant the class difference disappears for the high- and low-IQ students. Posted by Kakashi Not quite sure I follow. Nikolas Tesla was very smart and very insane. For a more general example, engineers do like their terrorism, on both sides of the pond. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-10, 15:03
|
|
Post: #45 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Sigh... So, what you are saying is that it is basically impossible or a very low chance that a person with high IQ is born from a lower class. I tried to ascertain this was the case, and it is. Well, if you choose to believe that classist/racist garbage, it's up to you. Just do be aware it *is* based on a flawed reasoning that there does exist human races and that some races are better suited for certain work than others. In other words, classical social darwinism. And coming from a worker background to taking a Master and soon Ph.D. in engineering, I am living proof of the opposite. It's pointless to say anything more. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-10, 18:33
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #380 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
I have never once stated that, it is a grossly dishonest misrepresentation of the facts. The probability is indeed somewhat lower, but hardly impossible. If we use SAT as a proxy and disconsider ethnic minorities, we get that there's a 152-point gap between the extremely affluent (Family income > $200k) and the extremely poor (Family income < $20k). Between the lower middle class ($20k-40k) and upper class ($160k-$200k) the gap narrows to 96 points. One standard deviation is 200 points. So the difference is somewhere between 0.5-0.75 SD. I'll go with the lower one, because it makes for a more realistic comparison. The standard deviation of the IQ scale is 15 and the mean is 100. This would imply the difference is 7.5 points, if we use the SAT as a proxy for IQ. Let's take "high" to mean +2 SD, or 130 IQ. For a population with m = 96.25 and s = 15, P(X ≥ 130) = 0.012 For a population with m = 100 and s = 15, P(X ≥ 130) = 0.023 For a population with m = 103.75 and s = 15, P(X ≥ 130) = 0.040 In other words, someone from the lower middle class would be about 50% less likely to have an IQ above 130 than someone of average income, and someone from the upper middle class should be about 75% more likely to do so. So it's hardly "basically impossible," nor is the chance "very low". Considering that the SAT as a proxy for IQ also mixes in conscientiousness etc (which is far stronger among better-off people), the differences are likely even smaller. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| BearOso |
Posted on 19-06-10, 19:17 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #88 of 175 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1451 days Last view: 1451 days |
Posted by wertigon Yes. IQ is nothing more than knowledge. All IQ tests include subjects like "World History." Suppose a person took said IQ test and missed a question about world history. Immediately afterward, the person is taught that fact; the person takes the IQ test again and gets a higher score. Thus, it's proven what we call "IQ tests" don't solely measure innate intelligence. They're a load of crap. Same goes for standardized tests like SAT and ACT. I got a high score on the ACT and I'm an imbecile. Posted by "sureanem" Missing the point? The framing article is about how to proceed with revelation of results given that correlation is not causation. What is the measure used for "intelligence", anyway? IQ like above? Then it's meaningless. Posted by "sureanem" It probably comes from the fact that you're advocating social darwinism. Posted by "sureanem" Careful, there. Your capitalization implies something you shouldn't go into. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-10, 19:27
|
|
Post: #46 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
The only thing that proves is that low SES correlates to low education. Which is hardly news. A ton of scientific studies have proven IQ correlates to low education. A ton of scientific studies have proven IQ is affected by so much more than just genes, and environment plays a very large part in how your IQ is shaped. These are cold, hard, scientific facts. The studies you link to are not contradicting this. Hence, IQ depends on your training, not the other way around. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-10, 19:49
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #381 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
If there are "a ton of scientific studies," then how come you haven't linked a single one? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-06-10, 22:14
|
|
Post: #47 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 156 days Last view: 27 days |
Because I got better things to do with my life. :) If you're interested, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy is a good starting point that links to a *lot* of interesting data. Just to dig in and read yourself. Of course Wikipedia is never a definitive answer to anything, but it does cite sources, and a lot of them. Of particular note is Spearman's Hypothesis. |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-06-11, 00:16
|
|
Post: #48 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 660 days Last view: 16 days |
has anyone looked at the wikipeida article for heritability?Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-06-11, 01:35 (revision 2)
|
 Post: #68 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1782 days Last view: 1347 days |
General intelligence is a joke. Hi, I'm autistic, I'm unbelievably intelligent in some ways and fucking retarded in others. I even out to being mildly intelligent on general intelligence tests, but that doesn't mean I'm going to function like I'm intelligent all the time. If someone gives me elaborate verbal instructions? Nuh-uh, not gonna happen. My verbal working memory is literally retarded. Have this game engine or programming language I hacked together for fun instead. People tend to have have more variance between their own personal skills than there tends to be between random people, or even random demographics. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-12, 18:35 (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #383 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by BearOso The WAIS and WISC tests do not. I strongly doubt any serious tests would. There is such a thing as a practice effect (~5-7 points), but this doesn't change the nature of the quantity the test measures, it only decrease its accuracy. This does not just go for IQ tests, for what it's worth. With weight lifting, you get the same thing: people who in isolation practice one exercise will improve rapidly on it, but this owes to learning the movement better rather than an actual increase in strength. Asking someone to lift X heavy object is still a decent way to find out how strong they are. Missing the point? The framing article is about how to proceed with revelation of results given that correlation is not causation. What is the measure used for "intelligence", anyway? IQ like above? Then it's meaningless. In this case, it must be. We are dealing with a genetic correlation, remember? The measure of intelligence is their intelligence phenotype, and the measure of household income is their household income phenotype. It probably comes from the fact that you're advocating social darwinism. How and when? Careful, there. Your capitalization implies something you shouldn't go into. Not quite sure what you're getting at. Aren't ethnicities capitalized in English? It looks utterly jarring to write white, but then write Black, Arab, Castizo, and Jew. Posted by wertigon These are 174 articles, which one in particular are you talking about? Maybe I don't get it, but Spearman's hypothesis seems like common sense provided there are racial differences in intelligence. It just seems like a convoluted way to restate the original claim that there are cognitive differences in intelligence. Because if it is, then it's common sense that a good test for cognitive ability would be good at measuring differences in cognitive ability, no? >The only thing that proves is that low SES correlates to low education. Which is hardly news. No, it doesn't even prove that. It was an estimate of a lower bound for the relative unlikeliness of people of the lower middle class having high IQs, showing it was not at all impossible. If the SAT differences are caused by SES, it only serves to weaken your strawman further. >A ton of scientific studies have proven IQ is affected by so much more than just genes, and environment plays a very large part in how your IQ is shaped. Scientists have had little success so far in identifying which specific genes are responsible for intelligence, but intelligence being genetic has not been falsified, and appears very likely not to say proven considering identical twins reared apart display similar levels of it, and the adopted's do not correlate well to their adoptive parents. Posted by wareya Is this your personal opinion, or have you actually taken IQ tests and received a slightly above average result? The reason I ask is because this pathology is common among sufferers of, for instance, autism and ADHD, and the Wechsler tests are designed taking it into account. If the greatest difference between the subtests is above 1.5 SD, no FSIQ will be computed, or it will be computed but specifically marked as useless. The GAI index may still be able to be computed, unless the differences between its constituents too exceed 1.5 SD. For people without these pathologies, what you describe very rarely happens. The average deviance for each subtest score against FSIQ is just under 7 IQ points, with an IQ test standard error of around 3 points. Since I don't have the raw data, there is no way to compute an intrasubject standard deviation, but a reasonable guess should be 4 points based on this. The intersubject standard deviation is of course by definition 15 points. As for demographic groups, of course it depends on what you compare. But it's certainly possible to take two demographic groups who vary on average by more than four points. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
