MUH IQ

well of course it will be when you're throwing in groups of people. You're using circular reasoning here.

As a whole, no it doesn't.
You can become brain damaged, and your I.Q. goes up. If it goes up to the detriment of your other cognitive faculties, it's not measuring intelligence, it's measuring skills related to specific regions in the brain, despite rendering you an idiot in many other respects.

Every time

intredasting

You new or is this supposed to be a thinly-veiled insult? Not sure what your point is lad.

And people who are very learned in Neuroscience might not be as knowledgeable in economics and an econ major

The two aren't equatable if you're purporting I.Q. is, itself, intelligence as a whole.
No.

Honestly the only good thing these tests are good for is showing us on what level of development children are, what they were made for from the start.

I honestly don't think people really understand how these tests were built on shaky ground to begin with.
Yes, they are a measuring some kind skill set to navigate academia and be successful under capitalism, but it's still one guy's subjective view of what intelligence is after all these years.

Attached: charles spearman.jpg (250x316, 27.26K)

Being good at solving arbitrary puzzles doesn't translate into anything in the real world. Who knew?

Oh I agree they were built on shaky grounds. But if you standardize them enough for the groups you want to do them on, then you can sort out which children are a bit slower than the others.
Among other tools, it's pretty efficient in showing if you should let a kid attend school or wait out a year.

Attached: 5f3.jpg (680x695, 30.29K)

I'm sure it does translate to logical ability to an extent but the testing itself is impure. for example your familiarity and practice with certain puzzles is going to give you an advantage even if you aren't all that smart, since you'll already have a conception of those patterns.
I think the reality is three's no way to sufficiently test intelligence even if we wanted to, since it's impossible to strip any puzzle of all its a posteriori synthetic knowledge. even insane timesink shit like Cicada 3301 trusts your familiarity with certain kinds of mathematical tricks.

To add to this, even if you are great at doing I-Q tests and solving the puzzles involved, you might still fall flat if you were given one of those 3D puzzles Russians have been using for a while.

friendly reminder that we we are already identifying the exact genotypes that effect intelligence
nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3
gattca world soon frens

the social sciences have dropped the ball, but geneticists armed with super computers cannot be stopped

AI is the only thing that can save humanity (socialism) from this shit.

Wow this is really bad fucking pseudoscience.

The bulk of arguments I hear against Autism Level in the real world come from people who never read & can't do math. It's a reaction that comes from self defense. The liberals I hear critiquing it argue that it's used to promote eugenics – as if eugenics is a bad thing? If your Autism Level is below 70, meaning that you struggle with just about anything that demands brainpower, you probably shouldn't be having kids.

just think how much better the world would be if people weren't condemned to be retarded their whole life due to a bad spin of the genetic wheel. I legit can't understand why libs think it's a bad thing to save people from genetic disorders.

No offence lad since I agree with eugenics potentially being used for good in a socialist society but don't make some kind of argument of association fallacy; I've never scored below 140 on the few real Autism Level tests I've taken personally but more importantly the arguments being made by the sort of posters on Zig Forums aren't going to be the equivalent of what you're familiar with in a lot of cases. Essentially you're just reconstituting the "ur just jealous of porky" argument, and it's pretty embarrassing.

Funnily enough a lot of people think Im this intelligent guy because Ive spent my whole life cultivating an affect of thoughtfulness and intelligence. Even when I do stupidnshit or act in a clumsy or absent minded manner people take this as a sign of even greater intelligence and they treat and reward me differently because of it. Tl;dr I suspect intelligence is simply a facade or a stand in for a kind of cultural upbringing. Its like the same way people worship the physical festures and mannerisms of the respective ruling classes or their countries

I Q itself is not pseudoscientific as much as the way its applied to the real world tends to be. The theory behind g factor and general intelligence is sound, even if cognitive science does tend to attract people who only want justification for their prejudices.

Suburbia must burn. The weird shut ins and borderline NEET students who worship this I Q shit need to be dragged into the light.

I didn't post about myself ITT but this is plain truth. I'm glad I actually do something with myself instead of taking comfort in a high score I didn't do anything special to get.

It’s just a test like any other you can study for it. I’m skeptical of the idea that it’s fixed but the idea that it doesn’t a referendum on academic ability is a little childish. I don’t think it can be said that people with high scores “did nothing” to get them but on the other hand it’s not like people who don’t do well on it can’t improve.

All the critics ITT remind me of boomer mom’s complaining on Facebook about why their kid didn’t do well on their standardized tests. I doubt many of the brainlets here could have made it through a school in the East bloc or China today because it was far stricter and far more was expected of students there than what’s expected in the West.

Attached: 08EA6E1B-01DE-42C8-9AFA-C20864D9CD46.jpeg (500x410, 32.45K)

Yes but the point is that you don't train beforehand. Of course your social determinations will determine the score, the verbal tests largely revolve around vocabulary which is obviously linked to your social class.

I have 147 Autism Level (and 155 on purely verbal skills) and I can absolutely guarantee you I never felt intellectually challenged till I was in university. I did not work for my intellectual abilities.

These expect diligent work from pupils, not "intelligence" or creativity. These are indeed very harsh on expectations but a very mediocre person can get through them just through hard & regular work. I never gave a shit about studies and breezed through everything because I actually have a thirst for knowledge.

It is true that repeating I Q tests improves your scores, but comparing them to standardized tests doesn't make much sense. The point of intelligence testing is to analyze your ability to solve problems immediately presented to you, not to verify that you were paying attention in class.

This is just me guessing but from what I understand scores for the psychologically atypical vary by a huge amount from test to test, while "normal" people (however you define) tend to score in line with their SES.

I scored 150-something as a 5 year old, but 100-110 as a teenager.

I think there is definitely a hereditary factor for general intelligence but the application of intelligence testing is wholly political. The designers of the test had a directive to isolate the stupids, make sure they don't breed, and make sure they remain politically marginalized for the rest of their life. It's like the existence of the reserve army of labor in capitalism - the structure of "meritocracy" (for lack of a better word) requires that there be a marginalized class of losers in order to exert pressure on the general pool of people. As a rule, the aristocracy is exempt from this pressure even when it is obvious their intelligence is lacking, unless they are born with severe deformities.

I think many of the significant cases of retardation and developmental disabilities could be tied to neurological causes, but at present science doesn't know a whole lot about them; besides that, screening for such things is a matter of political motivation and political economy, so there is desperate pressure to avoid any talk of neurological causes lest it upset a vague claim to "hereditary genius" which in fact does not exist in any meaningful way. It's just reduced to this notion that "durrr it's genetic" without any further examination of what the genes actually do, in order to justify the immediate aims of those who seek to calcify their social status on the basis of heredity.

I don't even know what to say here, yeah social class plays a major factor but if we take two black kids from an inner-city school the kid who reads in his spare-time is going to perform better than no-books who plays basketball or watches TV in his spare-time even if their in the same social class.

So, we're making the argument that intelligence is not genetic only for people to turn around and say they didn't have to "work" for their abilities. Rather than debunking the right-wing view your outlook here would tend to confirm it. I highly doubt that intellectual abilities just osmosis'd into you from your early exposure to bourgeois culture but whatever. Even if things came easier than your peers are you really gonna say that you did no reading, writing, or studying that helped you develop these abilities? I've never met someone with 140+ Eyekew that didn't read regularly tbqh

>getting caught by the word filter
yikes

I think in actuality you would have needed all three but okay. I see you subtlety appealing to the "smart but lazy" meme there.

It always surprises me how the critics of intelligence testing and modern schooling end up somehow being more elitist than the very thing you criticize. You feel entitled to talk down about someone's accomplishments and hard-work in school by appealing to some notion that there are truly exceptional individuals–out there somewhere, above it all, but you admit you don't even know how we should go about measuring something like that.

It all kind of reminds me of the denialism on Zig Forums regarding East Asian test scores.

Attached: Beria.jpg (700x500, 80.63K)

That means that you were developing faster in your early childhood and came to the mean in your teenage years.
It's honestly interesting how people treat I-Q so differently when they talk about childhood and adulthood.
Like it's common knowledge that I-Q can change drastically during your childhood and early teens because you are still developing.
And it's basically compared as "Kid A,age 6, has the I-Q of 8years old, while Kid B, age 6, did a bit worse and has the I-Q of an 5year old.
BUT suddenly when talking about adulthood everyone treats I-Q as some sort of static score.

Also, your pic is pretty retarded because the idea that people can be good at some things and bad at others has a basis in biological reality. American education is a farce that values memorization of factoids over critical thinking, so it is not hard to imagine how someone can have difficulty taking tests without being unintelligent. If anything, you can be a fucking idiot and still succeed in American education with sheer effort, which is exactly how I imagine someone like Tosh.

Real or not I'd kill myself if I had to live in a society comprised solely of MENSA members tbh

...

*in high school

Not the guy you replied to but, yes, it often is more or less just "osmosis". That's how early children learn most of their basic skills to start off, and so long as they grow up in civilized society there are a lot of things which more or less come naturally to most children even if they grow up in shitty conditions. There are also obvious variances between people who grow up more or less in the same environment.

You could argue whether those differences are significant, or whether they constitute a reason to enforce political class distinctions - I don't believe that so-called "geniuses" are in fact anything special or far beyond the rest of the scum that is mankind, but rather just indicate that someone was well acclimated to the test - but there is definitely going to be a difference between someone in the 90 and someone in the 110 range. Whether that should be a life-or-death political distinction is a different question, and I think that would be absurd. I can also talk about whether the difference between 90 and 110 matters that much, and question the methodology of the test (much ink has been spilled on the latter, but curiously little on the former). It is curious why we make general intelligence such a life-and-death political question and wank over it so much, when it is obvious that even the brightest human being is pretty fucking stupid.

I have a developmental disability and all the shit that comes with it. That I even wound up with an average score was surprising because by that point I had checked out completely. When I was 5, I had the instinctive fear that if I failed the test, my life was over, so my mother essentially trained me to the test. I don't think it had anything to do with spectacular mental development, although the pattern of my development seems to repeat often enough in the stories I read from other high-functioning autist types. I knew damn well throughout my childhood that I had extreme deficits in functioning, so I wasn't some absolute genius, despite what some teachers told me (the same teachers who would immediately laugh behind my back about what a retard I was).

IQ must be seen as a static property because of how the emerging form of political economy ties "merit" to worth and the property one is allowed to own, the influence they are allowed to have in society. That, in my view, is why it is common to say someone "has" autism, or "has" a genius Autism Level. It's their ticket to societal worth and status, even though both of these things are essentially political labels. There isn't an actual "thing" you can look at in the brain or psyche and say, "yup, that's the autism" - it's literally just a checklist of observed behaviors and functional deficits, and anyone trying to work with the developmentally disabled isn't trying to "cure the autism" so much as look at each area of deficit and try to manage or account for those problems (or, more often, ensure that the autist remains in their designated political place, which is to live to be the target of humiliation). Autism Level is just a shorthand to describe a mess of presumed psychological and neurological factors that match up with general intelligence, that we don't quite know how to define exactly; but in practice, Autism Level sortition enforces the placement one has in "meritocracy" from an early age, and the system itself is loathe to move people from one part of the hierarchy to another even in the face of overwhelming evidence. When it was obvious that I wasn't actually a genius, the system could not fathom that I was anything other than a drooling retard. The thought that I could be just "average" was abominable to the operators of the schools, and they really, really don't like the thought that I could do things like drive a car, work a menial job, or be even in the slightest position to cause trouble. So I was routinely degraded, denied textbooks, and so on, as is the case with speds in general. The thought that, after all that I went though, I was just a relatively normal human being with some issues, was too much. I just HAD to be deemed a retard and degraded.

I didn't feel like work which is the key here. If you're exposed to bourgeois culture, you learn to value culture & knowledge in and for itself, not think of it as a mean to an end (the diploma then the job).

Honestly I don't know what to say here.
You seem to be pre-emptively projecting some kind of slave morality, accusing people of being "smart and lazy" (as if it were a highly hypothetical thing or a bad one). I'm considered by my peers to be a brilliant individual and to be driven by passion and hard-working. It's because I ended up studying humanities in uni. When I was studying STEM fields I was a "smart but lazy" piece of shit who kept failing year after year because just being smart won't carry you through uni.

Being able to work consistently is life greatest's virtue wtf you talking about. Also yes, I am not impressed by people who work the entire year doing standardized exercises so that they can pass a test/contest. If they're happy about it, fine, but that's just not for me and I'd rather praise creativity, pluridisciplinarity and autonomy than this monkey-see-monkey-do kind of dynamic which is unfortunately what is socially rewarded today, even in extremely prestigious schools in countries renowned for their intellectual scene (I know what I'm talking about here).

Well that was a long-ass sentence but I really fail to see the moral outrage here.

"being considered brilliant" is not a meaningful measure of general intelligence. You're attaching a lot of supernatural values to what intelligence is, making it into more than what it actually is. Hard work and dedication of course are relevant to success and actually doing anything in life, but they don't really refer to general intelligence, not in a direct way.

I'm highly skeptical there is anything for me to gain staying in this discussion, between intelligence nominalists and this kind of awkward semantic tiptoeing and general baseless statements. Have nice one.

Cute reply, but, no. Almost all testing in American public education is composed of filling in bubble sheets, to standardize the tests as much as possible. It minimizes the need for labor to cut costs.
Kids with attention deficits (for real, not shit parenting) are usually left behind, and many others simply don't care enough to try because they can intuit how pointless the endeavors usually are, and aren't old enough to understand how arbitrary and stupid the real world can be.

Is it opposite day?

If you say so. I'm not the /pol faggots saying "durrr niggers have 60 Autism Level" or anything moronic like that. I'm telling you that attaching supernatural significance to intelligence isn't helpful for any discussion on the matter, and that tends to plague these discussions, up to the scientists who are supposed to make sense of the matter, whose work winds up being politicized.

If you want to insist on faggotry and walk out to protect wounded pride, it's probably better than hearing a bunch of bullshit about muh hard work or muh merit or whatever hurt feelings you have (don't know exactly who I'm responding to here). Meritocracy is horseshit and a constant threat, probably the biggest real threat to any socialist system one would hope to build once the obvious stupidity of capitalism is disposed of.

Not everyone with ADD/ADHD scores poorly on such standardized tests.
What schools do in those cases is abominable and it's really disgusting when special education departments get their claws in the kid and start denying him/her textbooks and otherwise sidelining them. If they do have problems (and usually there is something going on), they wind up being exacerbated the moment the kid starts to fail. That's what the education system does, sink or swim, shame the weak, failure begets failure. Of course, if you understand meritocracy as a form of political economy, this makes perfect sense - the point of the educational institutions isn't to teach or even maximize the utility of the students for capitalism, but to create the necessary pressure on the workforce to keep conditions poor and act as the driver's whip so to speak. If there were no autistics, no slow kids, it would be quite necessary to invent a similar category and inflict the same kind of treatment on some other group.

All that aside, my gripe with standardized tests isn't that standardization is bad - it's probably necessary for teaching on a massive scale - but that the tests are so bad and silly that they aren't worth a whole lot. Plenty of mediocrities with test prep can pass through those tests, and they are coddled because merit often becomes hereditary in our system. Meanwhile, the underclasses of society intuit that no matter how hard they try, they're going to be confined to the same category they've been in. The schools openly shit on everyone who isn't college bound, the greatest profession an average student can hope for being enlistment in the military, and their only comfort being that they aren't speds.

I never said otherwise. My original post was about how Daniel Tosh himself hails from a country with such abysmal education that his example does not apply.

I took an Autism Level test a while ago. Part of it included inference of words' spelling and pronunciation (so whatever that tests, you can't use it for like a 6th of the world's population who don't use alphabets or don't speak fucked up languages with weird pronunciation rules). Another part was just a string of math problems. So basically, if you remember the correct algorithm for the math problems, you have a high Autism Level, and if you don't or haven't learned it, you go lower. There were many other aspects of it that come down to what you actually know, not innate potential. You could easily take the test, study for it, and then take it again to increase your score.

Your post is okay buddy but I do have to nitpick:
There are locally-adjusted in eyeq tests that are performed in the host language. I don't know that much about it but that is how they know that the Japanese score quite high.

I barely know of Daniel Tosh but from what I can gather nothing suggests he's anything less than average. Many of the so-called meritorious are just mediocrities in the long run, and if it wasn't them then it would be someone else in most cases. Look at the leadership class of this country and the Ivy Leaguers and you can see rank incompetence passed off as the highest merit, and we're still told that these are the smartest guys in the room. That's one of the problems with meritocracy, it turns into a shitfest of one-upmanship and ratfucking more than actually doing something useful with the accumulated knowledge base and abilities of mankind.

If I Q is so important then how did JonTron produce so many amusing videos despite having an I Q of 95?

Attached: mpv-shot0079.jpg (1280x720, 110.54K)