How iq works and decent ways to test it.

[FrameMogger]

I am a lonely incel

It’s too bad you graduated college. I remember you used to talk about how you were invited to parties every week. Even at my peak in HS when I was a good athlete had decent gf and had solid popular friends, I would go to party maybe once a month at most.

At college I was rarely invited to exclusive parties.

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

It’s too bad you graduated college. I remember you used to talk about how you were invited to parties every week. Even at my peak in HS when I was a good athlete had decent gf and had solid popular friends, I would go to party maybe once a month at most.

At college I was rarely invited to exclusive parties.

Yeah pretty much man, I hate my life and honestly think there is something wrong with my fucking brain. I think adderall prescription will save me, but I'm unsure. I JUST WISH I COULD WORK GIGA HARD

 

[Cali Yuga]

Iq tests mainly try to measure g, or the generalized inteligence factor. Essentially what scientists find is that seemingly unrelated tasks (like writing ability and math ability) happen to be highly correlated. G is a sort of broad factor that plays a large role in nearly all types of cognitive functioning .That’s why people who tend to be good at math also tend to be good writers, better musicians, better soldiers etc. Essentially g is a construct that represents the correlations between a wide plethora of cognitive tasks , from everything ranging from skill as a mechanic, to how large your vocabulary is, to your college gpa. The entire value of an iq test is predicated on its ability to predict how you’ll perform on practically any task that involves some form of thinking or cognitive ability.

Most iq tests are broken into categories that correlate largely with G. These categories include working memory, processing speed, verbal intelegence and spatial/fluid reasoning.

Working memory essentially tests the ram of your brain or how many distinct pieces of information your brain can store for a short period of time. Good tests include the digit span test which I’ll link right here.

Digit Span Memory Test - MemoryHealthCheck

Digit Span Memory Task Online, both Forward & Reverse (Backwards). Increase the number of digits displayed (the span) to increase test challenge.

www.memorylosstest.com

Backwards and sequence are far better at measuring g than forward. The average person has a backwards span of about 5 with a standard deviation of 1.25. To convert to iq use this formula (((Score-5)/1.25)*15)+100

Verbal intelegence on this forum had been lauded as unimportant or not as predictive of intelegence as fluid (inductive measures). These claims are completely false for many reasons. First is that measures of vocabulary and general knowledge correlate just as well with G as fluid tests like matrices. Second, while it may seem that verbal intelegence only measures how much random info is stored in your brain, the truth is much deeper.
Developing a large vocabulary essentially requires great long term memory and an ability to quickly learn and codify information. All the crazy hard words you see on a good verbal iq tests are words you have probably seen before in one way or another. The high iq person only had to see a hard word a few times to be able to infer its meaning based on context and effectively codified the definition with only limited exposure. A low iq person on the other hand most likely was unable to even infer the meaning of the word and even if he was exposed to the word several times, he would just forget it soon after.

Some good verbal iq tests include the reading comp on the sat.

Here are some others

https://pdfhost.io/v/nIHnZcYkQ_CAIT_Copy(Do the vocab and gen info.)

1980 SAT https://pdfhost.io/v/F3fb0u6uV_SAT_1980pdf.pdf(This one is pretty long but will give an excellent estimate of verbal ability (just do vocab and reading))

Miller Analogies Test

A good mix of gen knowledge and vocab.

Finch's Public Domain Intelligence Test (PDIT)

A public domain test of verbal and non-verbal cognitive abilities.

antjuanfinch.com

(Solid test but a bit overinflated)

Here is an official wais gen knowledge and vocab test. Basically note down how many of the words you can define well and calculate your score with the norms. (2 points for each correct definition)
View attachment 1620735
View attachment 1620736

View attachment 1620737


Processing speed.
Processing speed essentially measure how quickly you can perform cognitive tasks. It’s an important measure as it predicts g quite well and can even make up for lower working memory.

CAIT - Copy.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - CAIT - Copy.pdf

pdfhost.io

(Do the symbol search)

wonderwick_formV.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - wonderwick_formV.pdf

pdfhost.io

Answers at end.

Use this to calc iq [(wonderlic score – 23.32)/7.5][15] + 100


Fluid reasoning.

Fluid reasoning is essentially a measure of inductive reasoning. Contrary to popular opinion it does not really do that much better of a job of predicting stem performance as verbal iq funny enough. But it’s still a useful measure and is great for comparing people of different ethnicities and classes and life experiences.

Some good tests are:

Any of the Mensa ones: like Mensa dk mensa Norway/Sweden etc

Ravens advanced matrices(prob better than the Mensa ones imo).

Ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

Êóëüòóðíî-íåçàâèñèìûå òåñòû èíòåëëåêòà, ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

web.archive.org

(Subtract 5 iq points from the norms on that site since their old.)

you dont really need all this knowledge

how good you are at math is the best heuristic and you dont really need to know your iq with that much precision

 

[FrameMogger]

you dont really need all this knowledge

how good you are at math is the best heuristic and you dont really need to know your iq with that much precision

I agree your sat scores or math scores are a decent enough predictor. But some people find this stuff interesting so I posted it mostly for fun.

 

[Cali Yuga]

I would trade in my IQ for greater discipline and ability to work harder. Yeah when I was younger, I was practically able to get away with slacking off with work and I sort of do to this day. But it's bad habit and I wish I could work harder. Imagine this feeling.

Imagine you had the potential to do any job and career, but your inability to work hard prevents you. It's like being a chad but with ED/no dick, it's just a constant life of suffering and pain. Hence I say I am low IQ probably, like at least if I was low IQ, I'd not be missing out on anything. If I was harder worker, I might have been a wall street banker or some other shit. Instead I rot on this site.

I read tough material because I am a lonely incel who has nothing better to do. Things like videogames bore me after a while and so I just read because how else am I going to cope? This world used to make no sense to me, I wanted to sort my flawed views out so I started reading. At most I am just self aware

same tbh ngl

if i traded like 15-20 iq points to be more success motivated and more conscientious id be 1000x better of practically

the only things I'm really interested in are completely unmonetizable and actively harm my ability to relate to normal people and women

+1-2std dev is optimal for life success and long term happiness ime

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

same tbh ngl

if i traded like 15-20 iq points to be more success motivated and more conscientious id be 1000x better of practically

the only things I'm really interested in are completely unmonetizable and actively harm my ability to relate to normal people and women

+1-2std dev is optimal for life success and long term happiness ime

Avg IQ is optimal tbh, if you are a hard worker you can do ANYTHING. Literally IQ is cope, hard work mogs everything. It just pisses me off I am wasting potential all the time

 

[Cali Yuga]

I agree your sat scores or math scores are a decent enough predictor. But some people find this stuff interesting so I posted it mostly for fun.

yeah psychometrics is definitely an interesting thing to study

especially given how terribly uncomfortable it makes normies and how powerful it is at explaining so many real world phenomena

its completely insane how normal people will turn their brains completely off and start autism shrieking when you bring up basic and scientifically uncontroversial facts about intelligence

 

[Harold O'brien]

Experimentation has been done. A lack of iodine can cause certain problems such as a reduced brain volume. Thus people lacking iodine score markedly lower on iq tests establishing a cause/effect relationship with brain volume and iq scores, thus signifying real biological value of G.

Also people who have experiences events resulting in brain damage or lowered iqs have seen a marked drop in iq. Those same people also tend to perform worse at work and have lower productivity again establishing a cause and effect and not just a correlation.

Iq is also highly heritable signifying it is a genetic real trait and not just a statistical anomaly.

This says nothing about iq, only that iodine is detrimental to both test performance and brain volume

And this is all besides the point anyway, I'm not denying that the physical brain is linked to intelligence. Only that our measurements of intelligence are not particularly meaningful

 

[Harold O'brien]

Post modernist trash

"THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE FACTS, IT'S ALL INTERPRETATIONS AND POWER STRUCTURES!" jfl, sure you can argue that, but in practical terms there are relationships. While we do not claim this as concrete and it is subject to change, there is no counter-evidence to prove that relationships do not exist.

Keep seething at the illusion of objectivity

 

[Cali Yuga]

Avg IQ is optimal tbh, if you are a hard worker you can do ANYTHING. Literally IQ is cope, hard work mogs everything. It just pisses me off I am wasting potential all the time

yeah but a person with top 1% work ethic/motvation with 120IQ will outperform the same person with 100IQ

it is cope wrt material success so long as you arent subhumanly low int

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

yeah but a person with top 1% work ethic/motvation with 120IQ will outperform the same person with 100IQ

it is cope wrt material success so long as you arent subhumanly low int

Not being subhuman low IQ isn't hard

 

[Harold O'brien]

yeah but a person with top 1% work ethic/motvation with 120IQ will outperform the same person with 100IQ

it is cope wrt material success so long as you arent subhumanly low int

But it is impossible to disentangle motivation/work ethic from the iq test performance

 

[FrameMogger]

Avg IQ is optimal tbh, if you are a hard worker you can do ANYTHING. Literally IQ is cope, hard work mogs everything. It just pisses me off I am wasting potential all the time

You may wanna take that wish back.

Iq is more predictive of income and productivity and even life satisfaction than conscientious tbf. Truth is you have a gift and need to make the best of it. You have to dig deep down and try figure out why you’re not putting in your best effort.

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

You may wanna take that wish back.

Iq is more predictive of income and productivity and even life satisfaction than conscientious tbf. Truth is you have a gift and need to make the best of it. You have to dig deep down and try figure out why you’re not putting in your best effort.

Because I hate sitting down and studying, it just stresses me out and makes me feel helpless because I have so much work to do. Idk how im going to solve this issue

 

[FrameMogger]

But it is impossible to disentangle motivation/work ethic from the iq test performance

There are ways to do this. One is to administer iq tests in different manners. One is to claim the test is just a game and just do your best, don’t be too stressed out and have fun.

The second way can claim that top performers will earn 1000 dollars. Quantify the differences and you can sort of gauge the effect of work ethic as reward has been shown to increase work ethic.

 

[FrameMogger]

because I have so much work to do

Make a schedule and designate times for specific tasks in such a way you can get everything done on time.

Also forget about everything you need to do. Right now you only need to finish your quota for the day which you know is achievable. Thus only focus on what you need to do for the day.

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

Make a schedule and designate times for specific tasks in such a way you can get everything done on time.

Also forget about everything you need to do. Right now you only need to finish your quota for the day which you know is achievable. Thus only focus on what you need to do for the day.

I do that and then become fucking philosophical and think of sisyphus and how he rolls that rock up a mountain only for it to come back down, a life where I just live like this in pain 24/7. What even is the point?

See what I mean, "high IQ" = DEATH SENTENCE!

PHILOSOPHY RUINED MY LIFE!!!!!!

I only want to do meaningful shit, studying is not fucking meaningful nor does it stimulate my basal desires.

But yeah when I was on adderall, I stopped feeling that constant dread and was so engrossed into my work that doing the work and solving problems became it's own journey. Brutally over for rotten brain niggas like me

 

[FrameMogger]

rolls that rock up a mountain only for it to come back down

It only comes back down cause he rolled it all the way to the top. Eventually life comes to an end and the rock rolling down represents that. You will eventually descend to senescence just as the rock will descend down the mountain. You start at the bottom and die there as well. However you will also reach your peak .

But think about how much worse it would be to roll the rock half way up and then get discouraged and let the rock roll back down and squish you. That’s what happens every time you feel discouraged and give up.

Also you still make lateral progress even as the rock descends so you end up better than when you started

 

[FrameMogger]

I only want to do meaningful shit, studying is not fucking meaningful

But becoming a physician and helping others and doing a job you will truly love will be meaningful and stimulating. You gotta do the boring painful shit if you want to get to the peak.

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

It only comes back down cause he rolled it all the way to the top. Eventually life comes to an end and the rock rolling down represents that. You will eventually descend to senescence just as the rock will descend down the mountain. You start at the bottom and die there as well. However you will also reach your peak .

But think about how much worse it would be to roll the rock half way up and then get discouraged and let the rock roll back down and squish you. That’s what happens every time you feel discouraged and give up.

Also you still make lateral progress even as the rock descends so you end up better than when you started

That’s true man, I honestly am considering checking if I have ADD or not. But yeah man, working hard is such a mogger trait and I get scared thinking if I don’t work hard and stay persistent I’ll never amount to anything.

It’s so over, I know guys in my class who are dumb as a sack of rocks but they work so hard and get good grades, brutally over. I need to make an enemy or some shit to motivate me JFL

 

[Cali Yuga]

Not being subhuman low IQ isn't hard

its mostly genetic

nothing people who are born retards can do tbh

But it is impossible to disentangle motivation/work ethic from the iq test performance

no amount of motivation will make a person born with a 80IQ brain able to do complex math but a person born with a 140IQ brain with low motivation might not perform well in complex math tasks because he isnt interested enough to practice correlated learnable skills or engage fully with the material but IF HE WERE to become interested he would have the potential to do well while the 80IQ brained person would not

it can also be disentangled given sufficient EXTRINSIC motivation. e.x. if you offered contestants a million dollars to the highest IQ or put a gun to their heads or whatever you would see the genetic differences control more and more of the variation in iq

motivation is part of intelligence but is bottlenecked by genetics

this is all academic though, its pretty easy to determine your own level of int if youre just honest with yourself regardless of your level of motivation

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

But becoming a physician and helping others and doing a job you will truly love will be meaningful and stimulating. You gotta do the boring painful shit if you want to get to the peak.

Yeah literally you need to be able to carry the pain in order to reach greatness, akin to the camel in the 3 stage metamorphosis of the übermensch. Idek if I will enjoy medicine too, I just want a decent job with enough time to do bjj and shit

 

[Cali Yuga]

That’s true man, I honestly am considering checking if I have ADD or not. But yeah man, working hard is such a mogger trait and I get scared thinking if I don’t work hard and stay persistent I’ll never amount to anything.

It’s so over, I know guys in my class who are dumb as a sack of rocks but they work so hard and get good grades, brutally over. I need to make an enemy or some shit to motivate me JFL

incentive structures and institutions are designed for middle of the bell curve people in the same way that doorways/chairs/airplane seats are designed around people of close to average height

if youre high enough in intelligence it is very unlikely that you will be as interested in participating in those institutions or similarly motivated by those incentive structures

nothing to do with 'ADD' its just the reality

taking something like adderal or modafinil for 'ADD' will help you but not because its solving some intrinsic chemical imbalance or pathology in your brain but because its synthetic motivation which circumvents the normal process of generating natural motivation which involves your brain discerning whats actually important and worth doing and then rewarding you for pursuing it

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Iq tests mainly try to measure g, or the generalized inteligence factor. Essentially what scientists find is that seemingly unrelated tasks (like writing ability and math ability) happen to be highly correlated. G is a sort of broad factor that plays a large role in nearly all types of cognitive functioning .That’s why people who tend to be good at math also tend to be good writers, better musicians, better soldiers etc. Essentially g is a construct that represents the correlations between a wide plethora of cognitive tasks , from everything ranging from skill as a mechanic, to how large your vocabulary is, to your college gpa. The entire value of an iq test is predicated on its ability to predict how you’ll perform on practically any task that involves some form of thinking or cognitive ability.

Most iq tests are broken into categories that correlate largely with G. These categories include working memory, processing speed, verbal intelegence and spatial/fluid reasoning.

Working memory essentially tests the ram of your brain or how many distinct pieces of information your brain can store for a short period of time. Good tests include the digit span test which I’ll link right here.

Digit Span Memory Test - MemoryHealthCheck

Digit Span Memory Task Online, both Forward & Reverse (Backwards). Increase the number of digits displayed (the span) to increase test challenge.

www.memorylosstest.com

Backwards and sequence are far better at measuring g than forward. The average person has a backwards span of about 5 with a standard deviation of 1.25. To convert to iq use this formula (((Score-5)/1.25)*15)+100

Verbal intelegence on this forum had been lauded as unimportant or not as predictive of intelegence as fluid (inductive measures). These claims are completely false for many reasons. First is that measures of vocabulary and general knowledge correlate just as well with G as fluid tests like matrices. Second, while it may seem that verbal intelegence only measures how much random info is stored in your brain, the truth is much deeper.
Developing a large vocabulary essentially requires great long term memory and an ability to quickly learn and codify information. All the crazy hard words you see on a good verbal iq tests are words you have probably seen before in one way or another. The high iq person only had to see a hard word a few times to be able to infer its meaning based on context and effectively codified the definition with only limited exposure. A low iq person on the other hand most likely was unable to even infer the meaning of the word and even if he was exposed to the word several times, he would just forget it soon after.

Some good verbal iq tests include the reading comp on the sat.

Here are some others

https://pdfhost.io/v/nIHnZcYkQ_CAIT_Copy(Do the vocab and gen info.)

1980 SAT https://pdfhost.io/v/F3fb0u6uV_SAT_1980pdf.pdf(This one is pretty long but will give an excellent estimate of verbal ability (just do vocab and reading))

Miller Analogies Test

A good mix of gen knowledge and vocab.

Finch's Public Domain Intelligence Test (PDIT)

A public domain test of verbal and non-verbal cognitive abilities.

antjuanfinch.com

(Solid test but a bit overinflated)

Here is an official wais gen knowledge and vocab test. Basically note down how many of the words you can define well and calculate your score with the norms. (2 points for each correct definition)
View attachment 1620735
View attachment 1620736

View attachment 1620737


Processing speed.
Processing speed essentially measure how quickly you can perform cognitive tasks. It’s an important measure as it predicts g quite well and can even make up for lower working memory.

CAIT - Copy.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - CAIT - Copy.pdf

pdfhost.io

(Do the symbol search)

wonderwick_formV.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - wonderwick_formV.pdf

pdfhost.io

Answers at end.

Use this to calc iq [(wonderlic score – 23.32)/7.5][15] + 100


Fluid reasoning.

Fluid reasoning is essentially a measure of inductive reasoning. Contrary to popular opinion it does not really do that much better of a job of predicting stem performance as verbal iq funny enough. But it’s still a useful measure and is great for comparing people of different ethnicities and classes and life experiences.

Some good tests are:

Any of the Mensa ones: like Mensa dk mensa Norway/Sweden etc

Ravens advanced matrices(prob better than the Mensa ones imo).

Ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

Êóëüòóðíî-íåçàâèñèìûå òåñòû èíòåëëåêòà, ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

web.archive.org

(Subtract 5 iq points from the norms on that site since their old.)

It’s not even proven to be a perfect way to measure Intelligence JFL @ people really thinking this hard into it

 

[Introvertednarc]

I did that finch IQ test

View attachment 1676758

You said it was inflated, can u convert to normal score

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

View attachment 1680062

high iq mogger

 

[Introvertednarc]

high iq mogger

for verbal iq tests and digit span STM yah, I did terrible on the processing speed one.

 

[looksmaxxed]

the truest test of intelligence is complexity and depth of thought. muh puzzles don't do that, muh iq tests don't do that. only blackpilled knowledge is proof of that.

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

for verbal iq tests and digit span STM yah, I did terrible on the processing speed one.

iq mogs me

 

[Introvertednarc]

iq mogs me

okay Mr Anglia Ruskin med student

 

[FailedNormieManlet]

okay Mr Anglia Ruskin med student

JFL,my long lost bro

 

[Harold O'brien]

There are ways to do this. One is to administer iq tests in different manners. One is to claim the test is just a game and just do your best, don’t be too stressed out and have fun.

The second way can claim that top performers will earn 1000 dollars. Quantify the differences and you can sort of gauge the effect of work ethic as reward has been shown to increase work ethic.

this is a good read for deluded iq worshipers

 

[Lygodactylus]

Iq tests mainly try to measure g, or the generalized inteligence factor. Essentially what scientists find is that seemingly unrelated tasks (like writing ability and math ability) happen to be highly correlated. G is a sort of broad factor that plays a large role in nearly all types of cognitive functioning .That’s why people who tend to be good at math also tend to be good writers, better musicians, better soldiers etc. Essentially g is a construct that represents the correlations between a wide plethora of cognitive tasks , from everything ranging from skill as a mechanic, to how large your vocabulary is, to your college gpa. The entire value of an iq test is predicated on its ability to predict how you’ll perform on practically any task that involves some form of thinking or cognitive ability.

Most iq tests are broken into categories that correlate largely with G. These categories include working memory, processing speed, verbal intelegence and spatial/fluid reasoning.

Working memory essentially tests the ram of your brain or how many distinct pieces of information your brain can store for a short period of time. Good tests include the digit span test which I’ll link right here.

Digit Span Memory Test - MemoryHealthCheck

Digit Span Memory Task Online, both Forward & Reverse (Backwards). Increase the number of digits displayed (the span) to increase test challenge.

www.memorylosstest.com

Backwards and sequence are far better at measuring g than forward. The average person has a backwards span of about 5 with a standard deviation of 1.25. To convert to iq use this formula (((Score-5)/1.25)*15)+100

Verbal intelegence on this forum had been lauded as unimportant or not as predictive of intelegence as fluid (inductive measures). These claims are completely false for many reasons. First is that measures of vocabulary and general knowledge correlate just as well with G as fluid tests like matrices. Second, while it may seem that verbal intelegence only measures how much random info is stored in your brain, the truth is much deeper.
Developing a large vocabulary essentially requires great long term memory and an ability to quickly learn and codify information. All the crazy hard words you see on a good verbal iq tests are words you have probably seen before in one way or another. The high iq person only had to see a hard word a few times to be able to infer its meaning based on context and effectively codified the definition with only limited exposure. A low iq person on the other hand most likely was unable to even infer the meaning of the word and even if he was exposed to the word several times, he would just forget it soon after.

Some good verbal iq tests include the reading comp on the sat.

Here are some others

https://pdfhost.io/v/nIHnZcYkQ_CAIT_Copy(Do the vocab and gen info.)

1980 SAT https://pdfhost.io/v/F3fb0u6uV_SAT_1980pdf.pdf(This one is pretty long but will give an excellent estimate of verbal ability (just do vocab and reading))

Miller Analogies Test

A good mix of gen knowledge and vocab.

Finch's Public Domain Intelligence Test (PDIT)

A public domain test of verbal and non-verbal cognitive abilities.

antjuanfinch.com

(Solid test but a bit overinflated)

Here is an official wais gen knowledge and vocab test. Basically note down how many of the words you can define well and calculate your score with the norms. (2 points for each correct definition)
View attachment 1620735
View attachment 1620736

View attachment 1620737


Processing speed.
Processing speed essentially measure how quickly you can perform cognitive tasks. It’s an important measure as it predicts g quite well and can even make up for lower working memory.

CAIT - Copy.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - CAIT - Copy.pdf

pdfhost.io

(Do the symbol search)

wonderwick_formV.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - wonderwick_formV.pdf

pdfhost.io

Answers at end.

Use this to calc iq [(wonderlic score – 23.32)/7.5][15] + 100


Fluid reasoning.

Fluid reasoning is essentially a measure of inductive reasoning. Contrary to popular opinion it does not really do that much better of a job of predicting stem performance as verbal iq funny enough. But it’s still a useful measure and is great for comparing people of different ethnicities and classes and life experiences.

Some good tests are:

Any of the Mensa ones: like Mensa dk mensa Norway/Sweden etc

Ravens advanced matrices(prob better than the Mensa ones imo).

Ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

Êóëüòóðíî-íåçàâèñèìûå òåñòû èíòåëëåêòà, ìàòðèöû Ðàâåíà è Ñåðåáðÿêîâà

web.archive.org

(Subtract 5 iq points from the norms on that site since their old.)

I'm too low IQ to read all that

 

[FrameMogger]

this is a good read for deluded iq worshipers

There are so many things I see wrong with this piece that it is hard to even organize the rebuttals, but I’ll try. In no particular order:
A) IQ is NOT a measure of “unintelligence”, extreme or otherwise. It is a comparative measure of the ability to solve abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical problems. The results show how far each individual is from the average, both in terms of being above or below it.
B) Usefulness, reliability, convenience and praxis have made IQ synonymous with “intelligence” in the scientific community. Though there are a myriad of other capacities involving the use of the mind, such as creativity, sociability, leadership, common sense, and self-regulation, which some might consider to comprise “intelligence”, they are usually referred to as “abilities” or “competences”. Its really just a matter of which labels one chooses to use.
C) The observation that IQ explains “only” 13% to 50% of the variance in some tasks (or even a maximum of 17%) merely reflects the fact that performance requires more than just intelligence. Yes, such things include Conscientiousness (which is related to impulse control or the ability to defer satisfaction, i.e., “patience”), but also values, personality, and the way in which all these things relate to sociocultural settings and even physical environment. Actually, one should suspect a “quack” when someone in human or social sciences claims that a single variable alone explains most of the variance of anything. Indeed, the most advanced multivariate statistics in use today were created by psychologists and social scientists in order to deal effectively with such complex problems in their field.
D) The criticism regarding “fat tails”, “via negativa not via positiva” and being a “concave” measure is a series of non-issues and expresses profound ignorance on his behalf. A whole other lengthy thread might be initiated on this alone. The fact that many of the so-called “real-world” performance indexes do not usually show a Gaussian distribution (indeed, most often one finds a Pareto or similar distribution) does NOT imply that the association between a normally distributed IQ (or any Gaussian variable) either “doesn’t exist” or “is uninformational”. At worst, it just means that such associations are better assessed through nonparametric techniques. The same reasoning goes for nonlinear associations, which can be analyzed through nonlinear methods. It is ludicrous to suggest that a nonlinear association between IQ and the SAT is in any way indicative of the uselessness, inadequacy or fallacy of the first. One must also observe that non-Gaussian distributions can frequently be “Gaussianized” through simple mathematical transformations such as taking a natural logarithm or, with a bit more complexity, a Box-Cox transformation, among other methods. Nonlinear association can also be linearized through usually simple transformations. For example, the graph cited from Frey and Detterman (2004) can be easily turned into a strong linear association if one uses Ln(IQ) instead of “raw” IQ scores. And since when do nonlinear associations imply in pseudoscience?
E) Of course the correlation between IQ and performance gets smaller as one takes higher and higher ranges of IQ. It is a simple, straightforward, diminishing returns or saturation-effect. Indeed, if one takes a high enough range, the correlation would HAVE to be zero. If someone with a certain level of IQ can solve, say, “17+34=?” at a certain speed, a person with a higher IQ will tend to solve it faster, but, as one takes people with higher and higher IQs, the improvements in time would become more and more negligible, for everyone would be giving nearly instantaneous correct responses (I would expect that, in such a scenario, the physiology of eyesight and visual perception, as well as psycho-motor phenomena, would eventually be more relevant for the differences in response time than differences in IQ). Why is this to be considered any sort of argument against IQ’s is beyond me. Its is the contrary that would make me scratch my head.
F) “It takes a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems. These are lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation.” To this I simply refer to the saying from Kurt Lewin: “There is Nothing More Practical Than A Good Theory”. Abstract thinking, especially the aloof and detached type, is ESSENTIAL for STEM competences, and one is hard pressed to find skills that are more practical and real world-oriented (or that yield greater employability in the job market, for that matter).
G) The Curse of Dimensionality, including its application to intelligence testing, has been brilliantly addressed by Louis Guttman since 1954 through Multidimensional Scaling, Smallest Space Analysis and Facet Theory. Another interesting, if more limited, approach is the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), by van der Maaten and Hinton (2008). In essence, one uses data to estimate the associations between dimensions and then uses the results to produce a spatial representation of them in fewer dimensions, measuring and minimizing projection error (Alienation or Stress).
H) “Convexity”, a term that I have seen used in the way you do only by yourself and your followers, is an ill-defined and confusing concept that has most certainly never been measured and tested against IQ scores to substantiate the claim that “IQ doesn’t detect convexity”.
I) You argue that the pattern-recognition element underlying IQ tests is not indicative of “true” intelligence, for “Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life”. Are you saying that one can and should discard a pattern due to its lack of significance BEFORE such a pattern is even perceived? How is that even logically possible?
J) Karl Raimund Popper was trained in Psychology and had close ties to the field. What he rejected was mainly the notion that Psychology plays a central role in grounding or explaining some other, non-psychological, type of fact or law (Psychologism) and not Psychology itself. At most, some criticism was made of the way some scholars and researchers in the field constructed their knowledge.
K) The fact that racists and alike used IQ to pseudo-justify their stances is no more of an argument against IQ than pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian is an argument against vegetarianism. It is simply an ad hominem fallacy and an appeal to emotion.
L) Dr. Charles Murray has an A.B. in History from Harvard and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the MIT, having extensive research and experience in social topics such as urban education, welfare services, daycare, adolescent pregnancy, services for the elderly, and criminal justice. In 1994 he wrote, with Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein, the famous The Bell Curve, which presents evidence that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than one’s parents’ socio-economic status or education level. He also warned against a trend where the “cognitive elite” are becoming separated from the general population, which he sees as something dangerous. It is exceedingly inappropriate to refer to him as a “mountebank”.
M) The similarity between IQ test items and “real-world” tasks is not limited to “some” cases, but to many, including most of the better-payed and most valued activities (e.g., education, clerical work, analyst jobs, STEM occupations, etc.). This is a strength, not a weakness (the opposite might be a weakness).
N) There are numerous studies showing positive associations between IQ and various measure of socioeconomic success, including not only wealth, but also income, longevity, procreation, job performance, job advancement (promotions), college-level employment, attaining advanced degrees, having no criminal record, not requiring welfare, and so forth.
O) The existence of “noise” in the associations between IQ and socioeconomic outcomes is simply the reflection of the fact that, in human and social phenomena, the relationship between variables A and B is nearly always mediated or affected by their interactions with C, D, E, and more, so that if one only considers A and B, the impacts of the others will appear as “noise”. The greater the number of other variables affecting the relationship, the larger the “noise” will be. Also, there will always be some “noise” in any measurement due to human errors, the observer effect, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and the fundamental randomness of the Universe. This does not mean that it is useless to measure. Indeed, as George Edward Pelham Box famously said: “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”
P) The saying from Box also goes for the deviations of the tails of the IQ distribution from a perfect Gaussian distribution. The extreme values for which there are larger deviations are very rare, thus, having little or no effect upon the vast majority of the uses the score. If one is interested in detailing what happens in such extreme cases, it is just a matter of using the math that is appropriate for them (and, even so, which cases are to be considered as falling in this realm would still be determined by traditional IQ scoring methods — such as choosing all IQs above 125, 133, 140 or 145, for instance).
Q) Of course the extreme values of many distributions, including the Gaussian, are always going to be estimated more poorly than the more central values. This happens because, empirically, such estimates are based on Bernoulli’s Law of Large Numbers, and, by definition, the tails of the distribution are less frequent in random samples and even in the population. There are MANY mathematical ways of dealing with this.
R) There ARE numerous standardized measures of “well-being” and even “sleep” that are widely used for various purposes, ranging from clinical interventions to the guiding of public policies. No one, except yourself,thinks that they are absurd in essence.
S) The Flynn effect DOES warn us “that IQ is somewhat environment dependent”. This is not new. Even the staunchest defenders of a biological basis for IQ still acknowledge that at least some 20% of the variance comes from environmental factors of various types (nutrition, vaccination, breastfeeding, education, use of digital technologies, engagement in social activities, etc.).

 

[Harold O'brien]

There are so many things I see wrong with this piece that it is hard to even organize the rebuttals, but I’ll try. In no particular order:
A) IQ is NOT a measure of “unintelligence”, extreme or otherwise. It is a comparative measure of the ability to solve abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical problems. The results show how far each individual is from the average, both in terms of being above or below it.
B) Usefulness, reliability, convenience and praxis have made IQ synonymous with “intelligence” in the scientific community. Though there are a myriad of other capacities involving the use of the mind, such as creativity, sociability, leadership, common sense, and self-regulation, which some might consider to comprise “intelligence”, they are usually referred to as “abilities” or “competences”. Its really just a matter of which labels one chooses to use.
C) The observation that IQ explains “only” 13% to 50% of the variance in some tasks (or even a maximum of 17%) merely reflects the fact that performance requires more than just intelligence. Yes, such things include Conscientiousness (which is related to impulse control or the ability to defer satisfaction, i.e., “patience”), but also values, personality, and the way in which all these things relate to sociocultural settings and even physical environment. Actually, one should suspect a “quack” when someone in human or social sciences claims that a single variable alone explains most of the variance of anything. Indeed, the most advanced multivariate statistics in use today were created by psychologists and social scientists in order to deal effectively with such complex problems in their field.
D) The criticism regarding “fat tails”, “via negativa not via positiva” and being a “concave” measure is a series of non-issues and expresses profound ignorance on his behalf. A whole other lengthy thread might be initiated on this alone. The fact that many of the so-called “real-world” performance indexes do not usually show a Gaussian distribution (indeed, most often one finds a Pareto or similar distribution) does NOT imply that the association between a normally distributed IQ (or any Gaussian variable) either “doesn’t exist” or “is uninformational”. At worst, it just means that such associations are better assessed through nonparametric techniques. The same reasoning goes for nonlinear associations, which can be analyzed through nonlinear methods. It is ludicrous to suggest that a nonlinear association between IQ and the SAT is in any way indicative of the uselessness, inadequacy or fallacy of the first. One must also observe that non-Gaussian distributions can frequently be “Gaussianized” through simple mathematical transformations such as taking a natural logarithm or, with a bit more complexity, a Box-Cox transformation, among other methods. Nonlinear association can also be linearized through usually simple transformations. For example, the graph cited from Frey and Detterman (2004) can be easily turned into a strong linear association if one uses Ln(IQ) instead of “raw” IQ scores. And since when do nonlinear associations imply in pseudoscience?
E) Of course the correlation between IQ and performance gets smaller as one takes higher and higher ranges of IQ. It is a simple, straightforward, diminishing returns or saturation-effect. Indeed, if one takes a high enough range, the correlation would HAVE to be zero. If someone with a certain level of IQ can solve, say, “17+34=?” at a certain speed, a person with a higher IQ will tend to solve it faster, but, as one takes people with higher and higher IQs, the improvements in time would become more and more negligible, for everyone would be giving nearly instantaneous correct responses (I would expect that, in such a scenario, the physiology of eyesight and visual perception, as well as psycho-motor phenomena, would eventually be more relevant for the differences in response time than differences in IQ). Why is this to be considered any sort of argument against IQ’s is beyond me. Its is the contrary that would make me scratch my head.
F) “It takes a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems. These are lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation.” To this I simply refer to the saying from Kurt Lewin: “There is Nothing More Practical Than A Good Theory”. Abstract thinking, especially the aloof and detached type, is ESSENTIAL for STEM competences, and one is hard pressed to find skills that are more practical and real world-oriented (or that yield greater employability in the job market, for that matter).
G) The Curse of Dimensionality, including its application to intelligence testing, has been brilliantly addressed by Louis Guttman since 1954 through Multidimensional Scaling, Smallest Space Analysis and Facet Theory. Another interesting, if more limited, approach is the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), by van der Maaten and Hinton (2008). In essence, one uses data to estimate the associations between dimensions and then uses the results to produce a spatial representation of them in fewer dimensions, measuring and minimizing projection error (Alienation or Stress).
H) “Convexity”, a term that I have seen used in the way you do only by yourself and your followers, is an ill-defined and confusing concept that has most certainly never been measured and tested against IQ scores to substantiate the claim that “IQ doesn’t detect convexity”.
I) You argue that the pattern-recognition element underlying IQ tests is not indicative of “true” intelligence, for “Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life”. Are you saying that one can and should discard a pattern due to its lack of significance BEFORE such a pattern is even perceived? How is that even logically possible?
J) Karl Raimund Popper was trained in Psychology and had close ties to the field. What he rejected was mainly the notion that Psychology plays a central role in grounding or explaining some other, non-psychological, type of fact or law (Psychologism) and not Psychology itself. At most, some criticism was made of the way some scholars and researchers in the field constructed their knowledge.
K) The fact that racists and alike used IQ to pseudo-justify their stances is no more of an argument against IQ than pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian is an argument against vegetarianism. It is simply an ad hominem fallacy and an appeal to emotion.
L) Dr. Charles Murray has an A.B. in History from Harvard and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the MIT, having extensive research and experience in social topics such as urban education, welfare services, daycare, adolescent pregnancy, services for the elderly, and criminal justice. In 1994 he wrote, with Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein, the famous The Bell Curve, which presents evidence that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than one’s parents’ socio-economic status or education level. He also warned against a trend where the “cognitive elite” are becoming separated from the general population, which he sees as something dangerous. It is exceedingly inappropriate to refer to him as a “mountebank”.
M) The similarity between IQ test items and “real-world” tasks is not limited to “some” cases, but to many, including most of the better-payed and most valued activities (e.g., education, clerical work, analyst jobs, STEM occupations, etc.). This is a strength, not a weakness (the opposite might be a weakness).
N) There are numerous studies showing positive associations between IQ and various measure of socioeconomic success, including not only wealth, but also income, longevity, procreation, job performance, job advancement (promotions), college-level employment, attaining advanced degrees, having no criminal record, not requiring welfare, and so forth.
O) The existence of “noise” in the associations between IQ and socioeconomic outcomes is simply the reflection of the fact that, in human and social phenomena, the relationship between variables A and B is nearly always mediated or affected by their interactions with C, D, E, and more, so that if one only considers A and B, the impacts of the others will appear as “noise”. The greater the number of other variables affecting the relationship, the larger the “noise” will be. Also, there will always be some “noise” in any measurement due to human errors, the observer effect, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and the fundamental randomness of the Universe. This does not mean that it is useless to measure. Indeed, as George Edward Pelham Box famously said: “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”
P) The saying from Box also goes for the deviations of the tails of the IQ distribution from a perfect Gaussian distribution. The extreme values for which there are larger deviations are very rare, thus, having little or no effect upon the vast majority of the uses the score. If one is interested in detailing what happens in such extreme cases, it is just a matter of using the math that is appropriate for them (and, even so, which cases are to be considered as falling in this realm would still be determined by traditional IQ scoring methods — such as choosing all IQs above 125, 133, 140 or 145, for instance).
Q) Of course the extreme values of many distributions, including the Gaussian, are always going to be estimated more poorly than the more central values. This happens because, empirically, such estimates are based on Bernoulli’s Law of Large Numbers, and, by definition, the tails of the distribution are less frequent in random samples and even in the population. There are MANY mathematical ways of dealing with this.
R) There ARE numerous standardized measures of “well-being” and even “sleep” that are widely used for various purposes, ranging from clinical interventions to the guiding of public policies. No one, except yourself,thinks that they are absurd in essence.
S) The Flynn effect DOES warn us “that IQ is somewhat environment dependent”. This is not new. Even the staunchest defenders of a biological basis for IQ still acknowledge that at least some 20% of the variance comes from environmental factors of various types (nutrition, vaccination, breastfeeding, education, use of digital technologies, engagement in social activities, etc.).

I have read both now and taleb was more convincing

I can see how this response would be satisfactory to an obedient test-taker slave though

 

[Deleted member 15004]

Got 8 right so..136? I'd reduce it to 126, 136 is inflated

So nonverbal IQ would be 133 and verbal IQ would be 129 I guess.

My IQ should be 124 ish tbh, did the Mensa Hungary test on their website online like three years ago, got 125.

At least I've got some brains going for me.

Baidya/Kayastha/Brahmin Zamindar mogger indeed

 

[FrameMogger]

verbal IQ would be 129

128, you need to subtract .2 for each wrong answer for a non inflated result. 128 sounds reasonable considering you got 125 on a real iq test. +/- 3 is normal deviation

 

[Deleted member 15004]

you got 125 on a real iq test.

Surprising to you isn't it? My posts here are generally NOT on that level with all the shitposting I do

 

[Crusile]

Working memory is obtained knowledge. muh brain processing power cant be measured (or estimated)

 

[Crusile]

Working memory is obtained knowledge. muh brain processing power cant be measured

@pessimistic

 

[Crusile]

 

[depressionmaxxing]

i probably got like 100iq i think thats average

 

[rl⠀]

Reminder rl can memorize up to 23 digits in a couple of seconds