Why are niggas on here so obssessed with iq

[LampPostPrime]

mirin the 4% heritability

Its like talking to a brick wall lol. Be honest neither of us understand that. Plus probably cherry picked

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/&ved=2ahUKEwjOgeWNv5n_AhWCmIkEHahID0EQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Xu1UqVchPeDR-FaKyKxHD

I look it up and see :
"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits" and "(i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood"

Explained simply for us laymen instead of your cope posting something you don't understand as a weak way to be immune to attacks

 

[Deleted member 29796]

I see what @Crusile is getting at and he is right but I wouldn't make the hard claim that physical properties that can contribute to an "innate" intelligence can't be observed. He is right, the IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they just don't, and it's honestly absurd to think that if you look at it properly. But I do think, given the brain and how it functions, it is physical, that one day we can break the brain down to every little aspect, and when that is possible, we could possibly derive intelligence and quantify it... That's why I wouldn't make the hard claim about not being able to physically measure intelligence. Now, we as humans can be wiped out before we are able to do that, but I say the possibility under ideal conditions is >0. Imagine the Interstellar scenario where the brightest minds in the field have 1000s of years and infinite funds to study this, that's why I wouldn't rule it out completely. I think all physical things can eventually be explained by us.

 

[Crusile]

Its like talking to a brick wall lol. Be honest neither of us understand that. Plus probably cherry picked

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/&ved=2ahUKEwjOgeWNv5n_AhWCmIkEHahID0EQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Xu1UqVchPeDR-FaKyKxHD

I look it up and see :
"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits" and "(i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood"

Explained simply for us laymen instead of your cope posting something you don't understand as a weak way to be immune to attacks

Twin studies can't prove genetic causality, heritable doesn't equal genetic. Newer within family GWAS studies (2020 and 2022) failed to find causal gene snps for behavioral traits

 

[LampPostPrime]

I see what @Crusile is getting at and he is right but I wouldn't make the hard claim that physical properties that can contribute to an "innate" intelligence can't be observed. He is right, the IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they just don't, and it's honestly absurd to think that if you look at it properly. But I do think, given the brain and how it functions, it is physical, that one day we can break the brain down to every little aspect, and when that is possible, we could possibly derive intelligence and quantify it... That's why I wouldn't make the hard claim about not being able to physically measure intelligence. Now, we as humans can be wiped out before we are able to do that, but I say the possibility under ideal conditions is >0. Imagine the Interstellar scenario where the brightest minds in the field have 1000s of years and infinite funds to study this, that's why I wouldn't rule it out completely. I think all physical things can eventually be explained by us.

No ones saying iq measures intelligence. But it obviously is a big part of it. Way too strong correlations with a bunch of other shit that cant be explained any other way

 

[LampPostPrime]

Twin studies can't prove genetic causality, heritable doesn't equal genetic. Newer within family GWAS studies (2020 and 2022) failed to find causal gene snps for behavioral traits

But you literally brought up heritability first lmao. Fucking idiot lol. Also this is beyond me (and you lets be honest, lol at your verbal diarhea and contradicting yourself) and so im just going by what experts say. And most experts say iq definitely matters. Not to say it's everything obviously not, no ones claiming that but it's definitely important.

 

[Crusile]

But you literally brought up heritability first lmao. Fucking idiot lol. Also this is beyond me (and you lets be honest, lol at your verbal diarhea and contradicting yourself) and so im just going by what experts say. And most experts say iq definitely matters. Not to say it's everything obviously not, no ones claiming that but it's definitely important.

Where is the contradiction? If intelligence is innate, it must exist in the genes and brain. Twin studies heritability estimates do not equal genetic estimates.

 

[LampPostPrime]

Where is the contradiction? If intelligence is innate, it must exist in the genes and brain. Twin studies heritability estimates do not equal genetic estimates.

Its not totally innate but like 50% iirc. Just because we havent discovered the genes yet exactly doesnt mean shit lol,theres already a bunch that have been linked. Brain structures too. Pretty dishonest of you to say this when it takes 3 seconds to google search

Yea other poster was right in saying you're a contrarian troll

And how do twin studies not measure genetic contributions? Its pretty clear cut . . . Identical twins have the same genes

 

[Crusile]

No ones saying iq measures intelligence. But it obviously is a big part of it. Way too strong correlations with a bunch of other shit that cant be explained any other way

SELF-FULFILLED VALIDITY

Spoiler

It is undoubtedly true that IQ test scores predict school achievement moderately well, with correlations of around 0.5. The problem lies in the self-fulfillment of this prediction. Some test items are devised to contain knowledge that has been learned in school: “In what continent is Egypt?” “Who wrote Hamlet?” “What is the boiling point of water?” and so on. Or they use a lot of textlike rules and analogies. So it should come as no surprise that performance on them is associated with school performance. As Robert L. Thorndike and Elizabeth P. Hagen explained in their leading textbook, Educational and Psychological Measurement, “From the very way in which the tests were assembled [such correlation] could hardly be otherwise.”10

Rather than independent measures confirming an underlying cognitive power or capacity, IQ tests and school tests are simply different measures of the same learning. This is why correlations between IQ and achievement tests tend to increase with age. This is why parental drive and encouragement with their children’s school learning itself improves the children’s IQ (as the American Psychological Association group reports).11

And that raises another question. If it is genuine predictability we need, why not just rely on teachers’ judgments? It has long been demonstrated that teachers can predict with far greater accuracy, and in a fraction of the time, the future achievements of their pupils. One review suggested a correlation of around 0.66, which far surpasses the predictive power of an IQ test.12 Yet how much more seductive is the mystique of a scientific-looking test of “general intelligence.”

Similar doubts arise about the use of occupational level, salary, and so on, as validatory criteria. School achievement largely determines level of entry to the job market. The frequently reported correlation of 0.5 between IQ and occupational level (and therefore, income) is also self-fulfilling. Again, the measures are not independent.

The really critical issue, therefore, surrounds the question of whether IQ scores predict individual differences in the more independent measure of job performance. So let us take a much closer look at that issue.

Nope, the correlations would still exist if IQ measured something other than intelligence. Its predictive power is innate

 

[Crusile]

Its not totally innate but like 50% iirc. Just because we havent discovered the genes yet exactly doesnt mean shit lol,theres already a bunch that have been linked. Brain structures too. Pretty dishonest of you to say this when it takes 3 seconds to google search

Yea other poster was right in saying you're a contrarian troll

If there arent causal gene snps, IQ cant be innate. Can you link something that proves innate intelligence exists in the brain? where does g exist in the brain?

 

[Crusile]

IQ's predictive power exists within teachers subjective feedback given to all students, and standardized test scores. IQ measures nothing that isnt already innately measured. IQ tests are of 0 value

 

[LampPostPrime]

If there arent causal gene snps, IQ cant be innate. Can you link something that proves innate intelligence exists in the brain? where does g exist in the brain?

Look it up. 2 second google search shows a bunch of brain structures associated with iq

[PDF] Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics | Semantic Scholar

Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable, and these exciting scientific advances encourage renewed responsiveness to the social and ethical implications of conducting such research. Human...

www.semanticscholar.org

Found in 1 minute. You can look it up with genes too instead of throwing terms at me you dont understand

Also lets examine your insane statement that only difference between a retard and einstein is environment. So you're saying if the retard grew up in an educationmaxxed environment he could become a world class scientist? Lmfao.

 

[Crusile]

Look it up. 2 second google search shows a bunch of brain structures associated with iq

[PDF] Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics | Semantic Scholar

Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable, and these exciting scientific advances encourage renewed responsiveness to the social and ethical implications of conducting such research. Human...

www.semanticscholar.org

Found in 1 minute. You can look it up with genes too instead of throwing terms at me you dont understand

Also lets examine your insane statement that only difference between a retard and einstein is environment. So you're saying if the retard grew up in an educationmaxxed environment he could become a world class scientist? Lmfao.

Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable.\

"2004". 20 years later, it never happened lmfao

 

[LampPostPrime]

Also how do you explain the health correlations with iq?

 

[LampPostPrime]

"2004". 20 years later, it never happened lmfao

Its almost as if the human body is complex and it'll take a long ass time to figure out. . Also lol at the reasoning. Hasnt been figured out yet, therefore impossible

 

[Crusile]

Look it up. 2 second google search shows a bunch of brain structures associated with iq

[PDF] Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics | Semantic Scholar

Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable, and these exciting scientific advances encourage renewed responsiveness to the social and ethical implications of conducting such research. Human...

www.semanticscholar.org

Found in 1 minute. You can look it up with genes too instead of throwing terms at me you dont understand

Also lets examine your insane statement that only difference between a retard and einstein is environment. So you're saying if the retard grew up in an educationmaxxed environment he could become a world class scientist? Lmfao.

If you think IQ measures intelligence, the differences between einstein and a "r*tard" in IQ test taking performance is probably due to exposure to IQ test taking material knowledge. I cant explain the differences in intelligence if you think IQ is a measure of intelligence, son

 

[Crusile]

Its almost as if the human body is complex and it'll take a long ass time to figure out. . Also lol at the reasoning. Hasnt been figured out yet, therefore impossible

the search for g in the brain was been done and tried, and h2 estimates from causal genes have been getting closer to zero.

 

[Crusile]

Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable.

wen mechanistic model of intelligence

 

[LampPostPrime]

If you think IQ measures intelligence, the differences between einstein and a "r*tard" in IQ test taking performance is probably due to exposure to IQ test taking material knowledge. I cant explain the differences in intelligence if you think IQ is a measure of intelligence, son

I brought that up not in relation to iq but to you saying intelligence doesn't exist. Then you said innate intelligence doesnt exist but a million examples prove that wrong that i already brought up

 

[LampPostPrime]

the search for g in the brain was been done and tried, and h2 estimates from causal genes have been getting closer to zero.

Something that complicated being "done and tried" like you're just making a sandwich lol.

 

[Crusile]

I brought that up not in relation to iq but to you saying intelligence doesn't exist. Then you said innate intelligence doesnt exist but a million examples prove that wrong that i already brought up

Your idea of innate intelligence, isnt innate intelligence. Intelligence is developed thus cant be innate. Variation in intelligence in equal environments can be intellectual luck that cant be reproduced given identical environments and genes. ie not innate

 

[LampPostPrime]

Your idea of innate intelligence, isnt innate intelligence. Intelligence is developed thus cant be innate. Variation in intelligence in equal environments can be intellectual luck that cant be reproduced given identical environments and genes. ie not innate

I never said it was fully innate . Its largely innate tho. Like estimated to be half innate iirc the research

 

[Crusile]

Something that complicated being "done and tried" like you're just making a sandwich lol.

Dont claim something exists if it cant be found in the locations they must exist?

 

[Crusile]

I never said it was fully innate . Its largely innate tho. Like estimated to be half innate iirc the research

Twin studies cant differentiate environment from genetics, it is impossible. Within family GWAS are able to isolate causal genetics

 

[LampPostPrime]

Twin studies cant differentiate environment from genetics, it is impossible. Within family GWAS are able to isolate causal genetics

How do twin studies not differentiate between environment and genes? How hard can it be to understand. 2 genetic sets the same but in different environments lol.

You keep mindlessly repeating this without explaining. This is why i think you're trolling

 

[Crusile]

How do twin studies not differentiate between environment and genes? How hard can it be to understand. 2 genetic sets the same but in different environments lol.

You keep mindlessly repeating this without explaining. This is why i think you're trolling

Exploding the “Separated-at-Birth” Twin Study Myth

In twin studies, pairs were often not “separated at birth." They were raised nearby, often by family members, and interacted frequently.

www.madinamerica.com

• Some pairs were separated well after birth
• Some pairs grew up nearby to each other and attended school together
• Most pairs grew up in similar cultural and socioeconomic environments
• Many pairs were raised by different members of the same family
• Most pairs had varying degrees of contact while growing up
• Some pairs had a close relationship as adults
• Some pairs were reunited and lived together for periods of time

twin study h2 estimates falsely assume 0% environment when these twins clearly shared environments and had the opportunity to copy each other's behaviour (behaviour is the cause of IQ test taking ability)

 

[LampPostPrime]

Exploding the “Separated-at-Birth” Twin Study Myth

In twin studies, pairs were often not “separated at birth." They were raised nearby, often by family members, and interacted frequently.

www.madinamerica.com

• Some pairs were separated well after birth
• Some pairs grew up nearby to each other and attended school together
• Most pairs grew up in similar cultural and socioeconomic environments
• Many pairs were raised by different members of the same family
• Most pairs had varying degrees of contact while growing up
• Some pairs had a close relationship as adults
• Some pairs were reunited and lived together for periods of time

twin study h2 estimates falsely assume 0% environment, but these twins clearly shared environments and had the opportunity to copy each other's behaviour (behaviour is the cause of IQ test taking ability)

Lol obviously twin studies done badly arent good, like any other study done badly. What does this prove.

Again an argument so bad not sure if trolling

 

[Crusile]

https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Twenty-Two-Invalidating-Aspects-of-the-MISTRA-by-Jay-Joseph-Full-Version.pdf

 

[LampPostPrime]

Durrr study done badly, that kind of study derefore invalid

Its like saying someone did math wrong therefore math is wrong lol. Jesus fucking idiot

 

[Crusile]

Lol obviously twin studies done badly arent good, like any other study done badly. What does this prove.

Again an argument so bad not sure if trolling

Twin studies can not show genetic causation because environment can not be properly confounded for

heritability estimates of behavioural traits in animals are <.2 in properly controlled environment

 

[Crusile]

Durrr study done badly, that kind of study derefore invalid

Its like saying someone did math wrong therefore math is wrong lol. Jesus fucking idiot

No twin studies can prove show genetic causation, only within sibling/within family GWAS studies can show genetic causation

 

[LampPostPrime]

Twin studies can not show genetic causation because environment can not be properly confounded for

heritability estimates of behavioural traits in animals are <.2 in properly controlled environment

Youre saying ALL twin studies are done badly? Pretty easy to have one kid in China and another in Africa lol

 

[LampPostPrime]

No twin studies can prove show genetic causation, only within sibling/within family GWAS studies can show genetic causation

You're a blubbering parrot at this point. How many times have you repeated this without explanation lmao

 

[Crusile]

You're a blubbering parrot at this point. How many times have you repeated this without explanation lmao

I explained why twin studies cant prove genetic causation in 2nd last post.

Btw, can you tell me what IQ tests are measuring? and the unit of measure, ofc

 

[Crusile]

You're a blubbering parrot at this point. How many times have you repeated this without explanation lmao

1. IQ tests dont measure anything

2. There is no evidence for genetic causation of IQ test taking ability

3. IQ test taking ability is not innate

4. Intelligence cant be measured

5. Innate intelligence cant exist if it can not be found in the locations it must exist in, for it to be innate: genes and brain

 

[Deleted member 29796]

I don't think it's worth arguing about, there are just too many confounding variables to suggest the IQ and inherent intelligence are linked, it's like working towards the affirmation or negation of god (lowercase) through probability. Technically, @Crusile will always have more grounding because you @LampPostPrime are making an affirmation but you have no definite proof, it's more of a "well it's linked because of correlation with these things that we attribute to success). I think, if intelligence is a physical property in the brain, it's definitely not measured with an IQ test, it might have a link but to what degree, and while noting this link, it needs to be a link to "innate" intelligence, so it can't be influenced by external factors, it's possible a string of words first heard by a baby could have an impact on what we measure when we administer an IQ test, something as simple as that could possibly have a wild impact on the results of an IQ test, and you currently could neither deny or affirm that.


Consider, @Crusile says:

- IQ tests don't measure anything (Thats is true)
- Intelligence can't be measured (That is true, but I posit "for now", I could be wrong but I think it's a physical property and all physical props can eventually be explained by us, in an ideal environment, so before this planet wipes us away or our star does it, for example. So I think if a tiny physical sector of the brain is linked to intelligence, and we are able to weight that sector and consistently predict the IQ score of a person based on the weight of that sector, then we could quantify it and that would serve as our best estimation for determining the intelligence of an individual. But you can still get pedantic about that, tbh. )

And what do you @LampPostPrime say is a truth, of the association of IQ and intelligence, because I'm only seeing correlation, thus probability, no truths.


What do you say to this analogy, @LampPostPrime: Psychopathy can be "measured" (it can't) through a series of tests that either add a point towards the possibility of psychopathy or a near towards a low probability of psychopathy (it can't be 0 because that would be like saying it's false that someone has psychopathy, no reasonable psychologist would make that claim). Just think, IQ and psychopathy are essentially the same thing right now, you could kill this current IQ argument and start arguing for the presence of psychopathy and it would play out the exact same way.

@Crusile has more "truths" right now, and I'm saying this proves anything but he does have truths, you don't have any right now, none. Just correlation.

 

[Deleted member 29796]

This is related:

I'm an atheist and an agnostic. I'm atheist towards the man made assertions of what is true, but it's through probability that I suggest they are wrong, and its truly through probability that they think that I am wrong. But I am an agnostic to the question of God (capital "g" Abrahamic), because I think that due to our subjective limitations we could never either negate or affirm this, the atheist says "no" but they are working with probability, the christian says "yes", they are also working with probability.

This is essentially the same thing as the current IQ and intelligence discussion. Think about it, you are like a christian or an atheist saying "yes" or "no", but it's really just a working probability, right?

------------------------------

@LampPostPrime

If you can, can you put your argument into syllogistic form?

Example:

I'm asking you to become a logician, I'm charitable, I just want the rough draft argument. Right now this convo is messy as hell, but on your end, tbh.

 

[Crusile]

What do you say to this analogy, @LampPostPrime: Psychopathy can be "measured" (it can't) through a series of tests that either add a point towards the possibility of psychopathy or a near towards a low probability of psychopathy (it can't be 0 because that would be like saying it's false that someone has psychopathy, no reasonable psychologist would make that claim). Just think, IQ and psychopathy are essentially the same thing right now, you could kill this current IQ argument and start arguing for the presence of psychopathy and it would play out the exact same way.

Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL-R: an international perspective - PubMed

Its controversial past notwithstanding, psychopathy has emerged as one of the most important clinical constructs in the criminal justice and mental health systems. One reason for the surge in theoretical and applied interest in the disorder is the development and widespread adoption of reliable...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We conclude that the ability of the PCL-R to predict recidivism, violence, and treatment outcome has considerable cross-cultural generalizability, and that the PCL-R and its derivatives play a major role in the understanding and prediction of crime and violence.

psychiatric diagnosis have a proven real utility, even if they arent valid constructs that exist in the brain. There isnt any measuring occurring, its a 'pursuit of utility'.

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

It is important to distinguish between validity and utility in considering psychiatric diagnoses. Diagnostic categories defined by their syndromes should be regarded as valid only if they have been shown to be discrete entities with natural boundaries that separate them from other disorders. Although most diagnostic concepts have not been shown to be valid in this sense, many possess high utility by virtue of the information about outcome, treatment response, and etiology that they convey. They are therefore invaluable working concepts for clinicians.

Meanwhile, IQ tests are harmful, misleading, not a measure of anything, and have zero utility as the predictive power of "g" exists within teacher's subjective feedback of student, and standardized tests.

Rather than independent measures confirming an underlying cognitive power or capacity, IQ tests and school tests are simply different measures of the same learning. This is why correlations between IQ and achievement tests tend to increase with age. This is why parental drive and encouragement with their children’s school learning itself improves the children’s IQ (as the American Psychological Association group reports).11

And that raises another question. If it is genuine predictability we need, why not just rely on teachers’ judgments? It has long been demonstrated that teachers can predict with far greater accuracy, and in a fraction of the time, the future achievements of their pupils. One review suggested a correlation of around 0.66, which far surpasses the predictive power of an IQ test.12 Yet how much more seductive is the mystique of a scientific-looking test of “general intelligence.”

(Genes, brains, and human potential) 2017

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000603#bib16

Results from both samples converged: While the SAT and ACT were highly g loaded, both tests generally predicted GPA after removing g. These results suggest that the SAT and ACT are strongly related to g, which is related to IQ and intelligence tests. They also suggest that the SAT and ACT predict GPA from non-g factors. Further research is needed to identify the non-g factors that contribute to the predictive validity of the SAT and ACT.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X20300679

The results indicate that Hoge and Coladarci (1989) underestimated teachers’ judgment accuracy (r = 0.65 in the original study versus r = 0.80 in the current study). We found no evidence that teachers’ judgment accuracy differed between “classical” or social judgment theory tasks, nor did we find evidence that teachers’ judgment accuracy depended on subject (language/mathematics/miscellaneous), whether students had a learning disability, or grade level

 

[Deleted member 29796]

psychiatric diagnosis have a proven real utility, even if they arent valid constructs that exist in the brain. There isnt any measuring occurring, its a 'pursuit of utility'.

Fair enough, I have no problem with that, I was simply trying for an analogy to bridge the possible gap I see between you two. I think, assuming both parties are acting in good faith, so it isn't one party not willing to admit to wrongs because of ego, that this is just a matter of you guys slightly talking past each other. I think your position is more concrete though, I don't think any reasonable person would suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, IQ tests are harmful, misleading, not a measure of anything, and have zero utility as the predictive power of "g" exists within teacher's subjective feedback of student, and standardized tests.

And yeah, I see your point with this. I have a friend who tested high on an IQ test (140+), and I see what it has done to him. We play similar games and I always get ahead of him because he refuses to acknowledge any faults of his own to get better, whereas me, I'm studying pro players, learning the game, and in every game I end up outranking him. But if he applied himself properly he would likely blitz me. Ironically, I see he is trapped, I expressed this to him but what do I know as a simpleton, right?

But one thing of concern on my end, sure, IQ =/= intelligence, but I think people who are clearly disadvantaged, and this is primarily due to environmental factors, need to be acknowledged and they need considerations to be treated "fairly" in this world. Yeah, "IQ" is toxic, I agree, I just don't like people being exploited so I sometimes to try make it easy and just point to IQ as the thing we need for considerations in bringing people up to speed.

 

[Crusile]

Fair enough, I have no problem with that, I was simply trying for an analogy to bridge the possible gap I see between you two. I think, assuming both parties are acting in good faith, so it isn't one party not willing to admit to wrongs because of ego, that this is just a matter of you guys slightly talking past each other. I think your position is more concrete though, I don't think any reasonable person would suggest otherwise.




And yeah, I see your point with this. I have a friend who tested high on an IQ test (140+), and I see what it has done to him. We play similar games and I always get ahead of him because he refuses to acknowledge any faults of his own to get better, whereas me, I'm studying pro players, learning the game, and in every game I end up outranking him. But if he applied himself properly he would likely blitz me. Ironically, I see he is trapped, I expressed this to him but what do I know as a simpleton, right?

But one thing of concern on my end, sure, IQ =/= intelligence, but I think people who are clearly disadvantaged, and this is primarily due to environmental factors, need to be acknowledged and they need considerations to be treated "fairly" in this world. Yeah, "IQ" is toxic, I agree, I just don't like people being exploited so I sometimes to try make it easy and just point to IQ as the thing we need for considerations in bringing people up to speed.

if iq tests were called proxy knowledge tests, and g was called General obtained knowledge, they could have some use. The claim of measuring intelligence is built into the name, unfortunately

 

[Crusile]

Yea IQ is harmful for both low and high iqed people. differences in iq scores are due to knowledge seeking behavior, not some magic brain processing power. Low IQ people get discouraged and high iq people become lazy/deluded

 

[LampPostPrime]

if iq tests were called proxy knowledge tests, and g was called General obtained knowledge, they could have some use. The claim of measuring intelligence is built into the name, unfortunately

I looked up the official stanford binet test like 7 out of 8 subtesrs are not knowledge tests. I agree its dumb that theres any knowledge tests at all tho

 

[LampPostPrime]

Yea IQ is harmful for both low and high iqed people. differences in iq scores are due to knowledge seeking behavior, not some magic brain processing power. Low IQ people get discouraged and high iq people become lazy/deluded

Knowledge seeking power magically makes you more able to comprehend? Speaking as someone curious who still doesnt understand truly high iq subjects lol. I usually look up eli5s or synopses or simplifcations. Im very curious but it doesnt matter how many times i look up complex scientific or philosophy topics i never understand them

 

[Crusile]

I looked up the official stanford binet test like 7 out of 8 subtesrs are not knowledge tests. I agree its dumb that theres any knowledge tests at all tho

literally all, test proxy knowledge to estimate your general knowledge.

 

[LampPostPrime]

This is related:

I'm an atheist and an agnostic. I'm atheist towards the man made assertions of what is true, but it's through probability that I suggest they are wrong, and its truly through probability that they think that I am wrong. But I am an agnostic to the question of God (capital "g" Abrahamic), because I think that due to our subjective limitations we could never either negate or affirm this, the atheist says "no" but they are working with probability, the christian says "yes", they are also working with probability.

This is essentially the same thing as the current IQ and intelligence discussion. Think about it, you are like a christian or an atheist saying "yes" or "no", but it's really just a working probability, right?

------------------------------

@LampPostPrime

If you can, can you put your argument into syllogistic form?

Example:

View attachment 2229966

I'm asking you to become a logician, I'm charitable, I just want the rough draft argument. Right now this convo is messy as hell, but on your end, tbh.

Iq measures SOMETHING
That SOMETHING clearly has importance
Therefore iq tests are important

And hows my argument messier than the other guys? He keeps parroting shit whthout explanation and makes ridiculously sweeping statements without evidence or jumping to giant conclusions like that intelligence cant be found in the brain or that it cant be measured or that iq tests dont measure anything

 

[LampPostPrime]

literally all, test proxy knowledge to estimate your general knowledge.

Wat are you even saying here. Between your shitty argumentation and broken english half your posts i dont understand lol

Also i looked at your profiles threads and its obvious you're a coper, lol at your " you must learn all day" shit. Trying to compensate

 

[Crusile]

Knowledge seeking power magically makes you more able to comprehend? Speaking as someone curious who still doesnt understand truly high iq subjects lol. I usually look up eli5s or synopses or simplifcations. Im very curious but it doesnt matter how many times i look up complex scientific or philosophy topics i never understand them

it accumulates slowly over time, people with knowledge seeking behavior spend decades obtaining knowledge. iq is a mere measure of proxy obtained knowledge, not ability to learn or comprehend or "intelligence"(can't be measured)

 

[LampPostPrime]

I don't think it's worth arguing about, there are just too many confounding variables to suggest the IQ and inherent intelligence are linked, it's like working towards the affirmation or negation of god (lowercase) through probability. Technically, @Crusile will always have more grounding because you @LampPostPrime are making an affirmation but you have no definite proof, it's more of a "well it's linked because of correlation with these things that we attribute to success). I think, if intelligence is a physical property in the brain, it's definitely not measured with an IQ test, it might have a link but to what degree, and while noting this link, it needs to be a link to "innate" intelligence, so it can't be influenced by external factors, it's possible a string of words first heard by a baby could have an impact on what we measure when we administer an IQ test, something as simple as that could possibly have a wild impact on the results of an IQ test, and you currently could neither deny or affirm that.


Consider, @Crusile says:

- IQ tests don't measure anything (Thats is true)
- Intelligence can't be measured (That is true, but I posit "for now", I could be wrong but I think it's a physical property and all physical props can eventually be explained by us, in an ideal environment, so before this planet wipes us away or our star does it, for example. So I think if a tiny physical sector of the brain is linked to intelligence, and we are able to weight that sector and consistently predict the IQ score of a person based on the weight of that sector, then we could quantify it and that would serve as our best estimation for determining the intelligence of an individual. But you can still get pedantic about that, tbh. )

And what do you @LampPostPrime say is a truth, of the association of IQ and intelligence, because I'm only seeing correlation, thus probability, no truths.


What do you say to this analogy, @LampPostPrime: Psychopathy can be "measured" (it can't) through a series of tests that either add a point towards the possibility of psychopathy or a near towards a low probability of psychopathy (it can't be 0 because that would be like saying it's false that someone has psychopathy, no reasonable psychologist would make that claim). Just think, IQ and psychopathy are essentially the same thing right now, you could kill this current IQ argument and start arguing for the presence of psychopathy and it would play out the exact same way.

@Crusile has more "truths" right now, and I'm saying this proves anything but he does have truths, you don't have any right now, none. Just correlation.

You're argument hurts yourself lol

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://psychopathyis.org/screening/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520PCL%252DR%2520and%2520related,is%2520used%2520to%2520measure%2520it.&ved=2ahUKEwiwqcv5nJv_AhXPMlkFHcXhC2gQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1WM0bV2dhydjMnCWFOKUB_

Theres psychopathy tests. Obviously yes these psychological concepts are kinda ephemeral and hard to measure or even define but that doesnt mean they are meaningless. Thats just how social sciences work

 

[Crusile]

Iq measures SOMETHING
That SOMETHING clearly has importance
Therefore iq tests are important

And hows my argument messier than the other guys? He keeps parroting shit whthout explanation and makes ridiculously sweeping statements without evidence or jumping to giant conclusions like that intelligence cant be found in the brain or that it cant be measured or that iq tests dont measure anything

if it measures something, what is the unit of measurement? And what is that something.

 

[LampPostPrime]

it accumulates slowly over time, people with knowledge seeking behavior spend decades obtaining knowledge. iq is a mere measure of proxy obtained knowledge, not ability to learn or comprehend or "intelligence"(can't be measured)

Its literally not tho???? The fuck i just looked it up you can objectively see 90% of the modern official test isnt knowledge lol. Ive been education maxxed since i was little and i still havent really increased my comprehensive power. Lazy uncurious MIT students wud mog me to hell (even tho thats unlikely cuz iq does correlate positively with being more curious)

 

[LampPostPrime]

if it measures something, what is the unit of measurement? And what is that something.

It measures the gaping hole of cope in your brain where you keep mindlessly repeating something stupid hoping its true