What is the average IQ of this site?

[bladeenjoyer123]

100

 

[Harold O'brien]

IQ is a measure. It is not a quantity that is being measured. Intelligence is the quantity that iq measures.

Iq is a measure of generalised intelligence. But there are also many measurement problems associated with obtaining IQ scores in the first place

First problem is how well performance on a battery of tests reflects the pertinent latent variables.(measurement of g)
Second problem is whether these performances can be compared to each other fairly. For example are the questions culturally dependent, do all test takers have similar levels of motivation etc. (measurement of iq)

i don't know if this is correct but that's how I think of this

 

[dracoreptile]

120IQ

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Iq is a measure of generalised intelligence. But there are also many measurement problems associated with obtaining IQ scores in the first place

First problem is how well performance on a battery of tests reflects the pertinent latent variables.(measurement of g)
Second problem is whether these performances can be compared to each other fairly. For example are the questions culturally dependent, do all test takers have similar levels of motivation etc. (measurement of iq)

i don't know if this is correct but that's how I think of this

You are really a plebian, proper pleb.

Since you didn't read my links here is something relevant to the iq debate.

Forcing a statistically convenient model onto something overtly complex is not science. This is caused by “physics-envy” where those studying complex phenomena want to anchor their narrative on simplistic models that are easy to understand (and influence policy with).

Fitting a model to data and discovering a model from data are 2 very different things. Taking something like intelligence, which lacks any cohesive definition, and shows the hallmarks of emergence, cannot be understood by mapping simplistic trend lines to scattered data.

Forcing nature to adhere to a naive, convenient story isn’t science. Neither is making circular predictions that show scoring well on tests makes you better at scoring well on tests.

IQ tests have been unable to show they could predict reliably any effect of intelligence other than scoring high on IQ test. If it can't then it is nothing better than a pseudoscience like psychoanalysis.

Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?

IQ has played a prominent part in developmental and adult psychology for decades. In the absence of a clear theoretical model of internal cognitive functions, however, construct validity for IQ tests has always been difficult to establish. Test validity, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stop believing in everything which the so-called intellectual community worships, pleb.

 

[Harold O'brien]

You are really a plebian, proper pleb.

Since you didn't read my links here is something relevant to the iq debate.

Forcing a statistically convenient model onto something overtly complex is not science. This is caused by “physics-envy” where those studying complex phenomena want to anchor their narrative on simplistic models that are easy to understand (and influence policy with).

Fitting a model to data and discovering a model from data are 2 very different things. Taking something like intelligence, which lacks any cohesive definition, and shows the hallmarks of emergence, cannot be understood by mapping simplistic trend lines to scattered data.

Forcing nature to adhere to a naive, convenient story isn’t science. Neither is making circular predictions that show scoring well on tests makes you better at scoring well on tests.

IQ tests have been unable to show they could predict reliably any effect of intelligence other than scoring high on IQ test. If it can't then it is nothing better than a pseudoscience like psychoanalysis.

Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?

IQ has played a prominent part in developmental and adult psychology for decades. In the absence of a clear theoretical model of internal cognitive functions, however, construct validity for IQ tests has always been difficult to establish. Test validity, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stop believing in everything which the so-called intellectual community worships, pleb.

I skimmed through the first one and it was just taleb being a dumbass

These critiques of social sciences are nothing new or profound. Muh it isn't physics! What an insightful observation

The reality is that iq is a strong predictor of academic performance and a moderate predictor of job success, income, health and probably many more. The construct of general intelligence (g) is given credence because of the existence of the positive manifold

Bashing it for not having the rigor of things like math or physics (which it never will due to its nature) while providing no improvements to the current models or proposing viable alternatives is exactly the type of close minded dipshittery I would expect from someone who calls bitcoin worthless. Oh wait

 

[Deleted member 17872]

The reality is that iq is a strong predictor of academic performance and a moderate predictor of job success, income, health and probably many more.

Did you even read the link? It clearly says that reliable correlation has ever been found between IQ and Job performance.

Also muh "you can't criticize social science for lacking the rigour of physics because of it's nature."

Natural laws work the same way everywhere. The problem with social science is their flawed methodology.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Did you even read the link? It clearly says that reliable correlation has ever been found between IQ and Job performance.

Also muh "you can't criticize social science for lacking the rigour of physics because of it's nature."

Natural laws work the same way everywhere. The problem with social science is their flawed methodology.

of course not. you need to convince me with your own words, not parroting some article. here is a study: https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162

did you even read my study?

really? then why do Newtons laws of motion not apply to photons? physics is just glorified guesswork too at its core

 

[Johnnybegood]

Luck is the only defining factor for major success, you either get lucky and are born into a massively rich family or you get lucky and become famous.

For everyday types of success, connections and your face are the most important.

Intelligence is not very high on the list for success, at all. It gets buried by nearly every other factor.

+ sacha baren cohen mogs your favorite pretentious comedian and it is not close

For everyday type of success I would rank:

1 face
2 connections
3 height
4 extroversion/ntness

Most successful people I know are either good looking, well connected or tall.

 

[Marsiere214]

Check ur room temperature

 

[Deleted member 17872]

of course not. you need to convince me with your own words, not parroting some article. here is a study: https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162

I'm not parroting one article but providing peer reviewed evidence for my arguments.

did you even read my study?

First, you didn't linked any study
Second, you are trying so hard to copy me lol and still failing.

really? then why do Newtons laws of motion not apply to photons? physics is just glorified guesswork too at its core

Newtonian physics succesfully predicted almost every everyday phenomena. It only fails at sped of light and at atomic level.

Meanwhile social has never accurately predicted anything nor have they consistently reproduced their observations.

 

[Harold O'brien]

I'm not parroting one article but providing peer reviewed evidence for my arguments.


First, you didn't linked any study
Second, you are trying so hard to copy me lol and still failing.



Newtonian physics succesfully predicted almost every everyday phenomena. It only fails at sped of light and at atomic level.

Meanwhile social has never accurately predicted anything nor have they consistently reproduced their observations.

My study is peer reviewed too

How the fuck am I copying you? Elaborate.

>It works except when it doesn't
How insightful

Social science is fundamentally different from the natural sciences because it is infeasible to control all variables. It will never be able to do these things. But you cannot deny that some theories and ideas are better than others. And that is exactly what it does, filters out shit models and tried to find ones that better fit the data.

Dismissing the entire field of social science is the stem midwit trap. It's ludicrous, especially when you consider that it was built by some of the greatest minds humanity has ever seen .

 

[Deleted member 17872]

My study is peer reviewed too

How the fuck am I copying you? Elaborate.

>It works except when it doesn't
How insightful

sentience 404

Social science is fundamentally different from the natural sciences because it is infeasible to control all variables. It will never be able to do these things. But you cannot deny that some theories and ideas are better than others. And that is exactly what it does, filters out shit models and tried to find ones that better fit the data.

Except social science has been wrong about almost everything. From communism to Aryan Migration.

Dismissing the entire field of social science is the stem midwit trap.

Except only midwits take social studies seriously

It's ludicrous, especially when you consider that it was built by some of the greatest minds humanity has ever seen .

More like failed stem graduates.

 

[Deleted member 15917]

90-100

 

[Harold O'brien]

sentience 404

Except social science has been wrong about almost everything. From communism to Aryan Migration.

Except only midwits take social studies seriously

More like failed stem graduates.

Retard

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Retard

I will take this as admission of defeat.

 

[Harold O'brien]

I will take this as admission of defeat.

It's just a low effort reply to your low effort reply

Sentience 404

Not stem = midwit

You expect a meaningful response to that? I took that as an admission of defeat, especially considering it took you over two days to come up with that

 

[Deleted member 17872]

It's just a low effort reply to your low effort reply

Sentience 404

Not stem = midwit

You expect a meaningful response to that? I took that as an admission of defeat

No matter how hard you try to copy me you will never be me.

 

[Harold O'brien]

No matter how hard you try to copy me you will never be me.

Failed troll attempt dumbass. Face it, you will never be as good at trolling as me

 

[Deleted member 5786]

average

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Failed troll attempt dumbass. Face it, you will never be as good at trolling as me

Another pathetic attempt at copying me.

 

[striker_reborn]

104

 

[Deleted member 5818]

iq is good for separating the niggers from the whites and the geniuses from the dunces

different factors like social class are more pertinent than IQ for the general pop

 

[contributing_autist]

seems average