IQ is a metric that isn’t valuable in determining anything. No one cares about how quick you can finish timed puzzle and pattern recognition tests.
You can literally acquire any degree of meaningful intelligence in a particular subject, such as computer programming or math, through a few trips to your local library or the internet. Or school.
Of course Africans have lower intelligence on average. They can’t afford none of those things.
Other urls found in this thread:
thesocietypages.org
isteve.blogspot.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>t. brainlet
IQ is about showing aptitude/ability to learn. its not about the puzzles themselves.
from aptitude we can extrapolate intelligence.
>They can’t afford none of those things.
You do know Africa is not actually just mud huts rights? Plus your argument falls apart on niggers in western europe and america.
>computer science has the highest fail / drop out rates
>Le everyone is equal meme
“All teachers of programming find that their results display a 'double hump'. It is as if there are two populations: those who can [program], and those who cannot [program], each with its own independent bell curve. Almost all research into programming teaching and learning have concentrated on teaching: change the language, change the application area, use an IDE and work on motivation. None of it works, and the double hump persists. We have a test which picks out the population that can program, before the course begins. We can pick apart the double hump. You probably don't believe this, but you will after you hear the talk. We don't know exactly how/why it works, but we have some good theories.”
“Despite the enormous changes which have taken place since electronic computing was invented in the 1950s, some things remain stubbornly the same. In particular, most people can't learn to program: between 30% and 60% of every university computer science department's intake fail the first programming course. Experienced teachers are weary but never oblivious of this fact; brighteyed beginners who believe that the old ones must have been doing it wrong learn the truth from bitter experience; and so it has been for almost two generations, ever since the subject began in the 1960s.”
IQ in general is not a good metric.
There ARE substantial differences in brain structure that do make a huge difference in determining life success.
Mainly the catecholaminergic system, latent epigenetic expression of certain genes, memory efficiency, amount of brain matter and the number of connections between each neuron.
I’ve always thought that IQ tests measure how closely the test subject thinks like the test maker.
The ability to recognise patterns indicates the extent to which one may 'acquire any degree of meaningful intelligence in a particular subject'.
>IQ is a metric that isn’t valuable in determining anything.
thesocietypages.org
In general, its an even better predictor of failure than even income. Not a lot of 85 IQ people designing airplanes or managing hedgefunds, well at least. Plenty of 150 IQ janitors though.
Also, rich blacks average out about the same as poor whites. Pic realated.
isteve.blogspot.com
IQ is about taking a test and answering it within a certain time frame. There is no learning that actively takes place while you take a test. You recognize patterns and solve puzzles, which are all things you can teach yourself to do.
>I’ve always thought that IQ tests measure how closely the test subject thinks like the test maker.
Yes, and the test maker is a person who is a highly productive individual living in a technically challenging western civilization. That is the WHOLE POINT of the test, to see how well you can function within such a society.
IQ doesn't measure your ability to memorize.
The IQ test is broken down into several components that can be roughly analogized into computer parts:
Visual-Spatial: The quality of your video card
Short Term Memory: The amount of RAM in your computer
Processing Speed: Your computer's CPU speed
There is one other component that doesn't have a computer analogy, that is the "verbal comprehension" portion. I still don't quite understand what this measures, perhaps a person's ability to build abstract structures in their minds, all I know is that Jews tend to do VERY well on this part of the test.
So basically IQ tests and the concept of IQ is molded around somebody’s subjective idea of what determines intelligence, such as the ability to solve mundane puzzles and pattern recognition tests?
Sounds more like a highly functional autistic individual with an obsession for such things touting them as “important”
>shower thought
>reddit spacing
OP was a faggot again today.
Except it has been demonstrated that practising for IQ tests has little to no effect at all. You can't "practice" your short term memory, bandwidth, speed, etc
IQ has predictive validity in lifetime earnings, violent crime rate, sticking around to raise kids, charitable giving, and more.
IQ tests have to be constantly adjusted to make up for increases in average education level in the population.
Scoring a 80 in a 2010 test is roughly equivalent to scoring a 100 in a 1950 test.
The idea of "general intelligence" itself is very questionable, but insofar as something like it exists, an early and high-quality exposure to education seems to be the cause, not the consequence, of high IQ.
IQ IS shit as a metric at determining a given people's ability to survive and thrive (in their definition, of course) in their environment.
IQ is decent as a metric at determining, in aggregate, if a person will be able to assimilate and be productive in a post-industrial Western setting. sure, it doesn't account for shitty social beliefs or proclivities, it doesn't account for ethics or culture, but its a fuckton better than nothing.
>predictive
indicative*
>the ability to solve mundane puzzles and pattern recognition tests
Yes, these are the things that correlate with high success in a high-tech western civilization.
>touting them as “important”
Importance is indeed subjective. For example, if you were living in the stone age, the IQ test probably has a very weak correlation with success because puzzles and patterns are not as important as hunting and other physical skills. But you don't live in the stone age, you live in the US where your success depends on your ability to solve puzzles and see patterns.
>somebody’s subjective idea of what determines intelligence
Wow who would have thought? Come up with a better test, people have been trying for 60 years to no effect.
The broken English was a nice touch, but this is bad bait.
Fuck off to reddddit, you faggot piece of shit.
Sage for being off topic. I hope you die.
>You can't "practice" your short term memory, bandwidth, speed, etc
Not exactly true. There are things you can do to improve your IQ; it is not completely static. Your brain performance is heavily dependent on your overall health. If you maintain a very healthy lifestyle you can keep your IQ high.
You can also lose IQ by damaging your health, for example, if you skip a night of sleep and attempt to do an IQ test, you will end up doing 10 to 15 points lower than normal.
>Plus your argument falls apart on niggers in western europe and america.
Have you seen what a ghetto is and the people born and raised from them?
I finna tryna convins u anglo.
Can you come up with a test of intelligence that Africans will solve better than Europeans?
We got a buttmad retard under 100 IQ boys
And the West has supplied Africa with plenty of books and education, including higher ed. Africans have done zilch with it.
Look at Irish people around the world. They were a literal slave class in the British Isles and Europe and the Middle East, in chains, indentured, low wages, poverty. But they raised themselves out of that. Why can't Africans do the same? They cannot because they are (a) not the same species and (b) have low IQs because they are a different species.
Because IQ is all-encompassing, the Bell Curve can be applied to socio-economics, too. IQ is everyting. IQ is evolution. Consciousness is evolution. Africans and every low IQ NPC in other human species are not conscious the way smarter human beings are conscious.
>Except it has been demonstrated that practising for IQ tests has little to no effect at all.
Except you provided no sources to prove this.
And what does one’s success in a timed pattern recognition test have to do with the natural human ability to learn things of actual merit, such as math, science and engineering, as traditionally done through schooling?
I don’t see the correlation between IQ and actual intelligence.
If you're really interested in "rubber meets the road" impacts of IQ, this is a great talk.
>what does one’s success in a timed pattern recognition test have to do with [...] math, science and engineering
Is this a joke
>be me
>10-15 years ago
>cousin is majoring in child psychology
>has project to get IQs of 20 girls and boys between the ages of 10 and 15
>cousin already completed the 10 boys
>cousin has my sister go through her IQ test
>ff some time
>above average IQ
>has me do the same for shits and giggles
>I intentional answered incorrectly
>by the standards my cousin had, I scored much higher than my sister
Im a bit of critical thinker. But if we were going by Jow Forums's standards, Id be nigger-teir retarded.
But the point is if you want the score at the end to be comparable to everyone else's you may as well drop those 10 points to get your "real" score.
Whether or not YOU see the correlation, it's there.
>is this a joke
Is this an insightful response of substance meant to be taken as a serious refute to a valid observation?
>a valid observation
No, it is not because your entire career as a scientist is to recognize patterns in nature and attempt to fit a mathematical model on to the pattern.
In engineering, your career depends on your ability to visualize machinery inside your own head and move pieces around. There is a timed block design portion of the IQ test that tests this.
This is factually incorrect. IQ as a metric is highly predictive of success even as young as age 11. You’re a retard and I’m a neuroscientist by trade.
>can't afford none
>low IQ brainlet
IQ aside brown people are more physically aggressive on average and the cause of the majority of violent crime despite being a minority of the population so i would rather not live near them.
My argument is basically that IQ is merely something someone DID come up with. It doesn’t measure anything of any actual merit that one couldn’t learn through a quality education.
It’s almost as if it’s a social construct meant to convince other people feel they’re inherently better than others, by ignoring all other relevant factors that play a role in the acquisition of intelligence.
Shut up amerimutt lol
>studying for an IQ test hasn't been shown to improve your score
Yes it most certainly does, faggot. There's certainly a limit to how much studying is useful and there's debate to be had as to where diminishing returns sets in, but if you're going in having not practiced things like basic arithmetic under significant time stress, or really just practiced under significant time stress at all, then you're going to do really shitty compared to someone who's used to having a timer ticking away behind them at all times.
fpbp
Op thinks the public library costs money.
Populations inherit traits of the dominant ethnic groups. You can't judge a race by an individual, but you can judge a race by a large homogenous community
And if you're not used to working under significant time stress, then you're going to suck at it no matter how smart you might be, and someone who's an absolute retard could very well do better than you because they're used to working under time stress.
>2 posts by this ID
Allright i will take the bait anyways.
There is a diferance between Fluid and crystallized intelligence.In short, there is a diferance between how much you know and how well you can use it.
>It doesn’t measure anything of any actual merit that one couldn’t learn through a quality education.
IQ measures things like your short term memory and processing speed. These are attributes that you cannot improve through quality education. The only way to improve those things is maintaining a healthy lifestyle and some mental practice, but only up to a certain limit.
>by ignoring all other relevant factors that play a role in the acquisition of intelligence.
I think you are confusing education with intelligence.
Low IQ brainlets watch other people beat videogames, or they use cheat codes trying to convince themselves that they don't have extremely obvious limitations and simply ignore things that frustrate them.
> IQ isn’t significant
Ok, find one 80 IQ engineer or doctor who contributed through sheer hard work and training.
>don't see the correlation between IQ and actual intelligence
Of course there's a correlation, but there are other factors to take into account. Resource expenditure, for example, is a pretty major one; after all, a kid who's 99 IQ that's had millions dollars spent on them to make them the world's best underwater basket weaver or whatever, will be better at underwater basket weaving than the 200 IQ kid who's never even touched wicker in his life. But, the 200 IQ kid might only need $50 to be as competent as the 99 IQ kid, rather than millions of dollars. And furthermore, the 200 IQ kid has the potential to be far, far better than the 99 IQ kid at underwater basket weaving.
>your entire career as a scientist is to recognize patterns in nature and attempt to fit a mathematical model on to the pattern.
It’s called the scientific method. It’s something that’s literally taught in a majority of grade schools. Nobody is “born” knowing the scientific method, contrary to the idea that people are born more intelligent than others, which the construct of IQ tries to reinforce.
>construct of IQ
Marxist detected. IQ isn't a construct, it's measurable factor of the human condition that can be empirically verified. Like it or not, some people are born smarter than others, some people are born dumber than others, that's the way biology works.
and they cant afford those.. why?
But scientific and technological progress isn't about learning things, it is about discovering new things, new principles, etc, by new generating new hypothesis from anomalies in previous theories or principles. If IQ is a ranking of ability to detect patterns, it is also an ability to detect paradox, and scientific breakthrough is often through paradox's.
I once read about jet aeroplanes and how the scientists working on them couldn't understand why they were getting problems at the speed of sound; they had to completely overhaul their knowledge of aerodynamics, as their theories on what worked changed over at certain speed.
It isn't about information, it is about pattern recognition.
Read Buckminster Fullers work.
>It’s called the scientific method. It’s something that’s literally taught in a majority of grade schools.
Okay, then why aren't more people scientists then if it is so easy to teach people to become scientists?
>contrary to the idea that people are born more intelligent than others
Some people are born stronger, healthier, taller, faster, heavier, etc.. than other people, correct? What kind of magical thinking are you engaging in that says the same thing cannot happen to people's brain, a physical object that is subject to the same variability across humans that the rest of your body is?
spbp
Explain that to school districts full of niggers in states that just throw money at th problem.
>teach people to become scientist
That's a false equivalency. The scientific method isn't about being a scientist, it's the foundation of the Cartesian philosophy (further expounded upon by John Locke, if I recall correctly). *Everyone* in the Anglospheric world is a scientist, because everyone in the Anglospheric world is a Cartesian (with the exception of us burgers, who are Lockians). And guess what: most people aren't actually able to grasp the scientific method. Just look at the colloquial usage of the word "theory" in place of hypothesis, and you'll see the flagrant misunderstandings perpetuated by an ill-understanding population base.
But, to get back to my proper point, what you were conflating was a Cartesian understanding of the world with an "educated" understanding of the world, and to gain that "educated" understanding of the world requires an incredible level of specialization that most people simply do not have the single-minded autismo superpowers to fathom.
>IQ measures things like your short term memory and processing speed. These are attributes that you cannot improve through quality education
But quality education provides repetition because simply doing something more often tends to allow one to form a better understanding of it. This is why periodic curriculums, flash cards, quizzes, tests, homework and studying in general are all core concepts of quality education. Repetition is how one develops memory and the ability to “process” information more quickly, like memorizing your times tables or majoring in a particular subject in college.
The correlation between intelligence and mundane puzzle/pattern tests is largely unfounded.
>My argument is basically that IQ is merely something someone DID come up with. It doesn’t measure anything of any actual merit that one couldn’t learn through a quality education.
Education gives you knowledge, not intelligence. Intelligence can be boosted somewhat by early education but you are not arguing about that.
I don't think there ever was a STEM PhD who would score lower than 100 on an IQ test. Not a single one. People with low IQ won't get some abstract concepts no matter how hard you try to teach them.
>by ignoring all other relevant factors that play a role in the acquisition of intelligence.
What other factors is it ignoring?
My argument is you can't come up with a viable definition of intelligence that won't be correlated with IQ.
I would, but they make money off those nigs, so there's really no way to convince them without them losing their jobs.
IQ is cool and all,
But being stupidly motivated, stubborn to the point of retardation and never giving up are all way more important in life success.
Being “””smart””” and depressed and unmotivated is THE meme. Useless people, (though if you were truly smart you wouldn’t get depressed (a whole different discussion)).
Basically shonen anime > “””brainlet”””
But shonen anime + brainlet is the most OP genetic combination.
>Can you come up with a test of intelligence that Africans will solve better than Europeans?
Yes. A test of how well you're able to survive in a hut in a water scarce, predator heavy environment.
See the fallacy?
^This. Someone who is IQ 100 with the motivation of a madman is infinitely more useful than an IQ 150 doomer.
Now stick those Europeans in there with the equivalent understanding of the environment as the nigs, to equalize the scenario, and see who comes out on top.
Protip: it's the Europeans.
>thinks IQ is about knowing how to solve explicit problems and not about identifying patterns, extrapolating information, and processing speed.
Brainlets don't know IQ tests have been around like 100 years and we've done major studies with things like the US military ASVAB to correlate real-world, on-the-job, task-oriented, hands-on vocational trainability with IQ levels.
Plus the top scholars in Psychometrics are always using their results to study "higher-resolution" biological models of intelligence as further detail in their investigation of individual differences.
en.wikipedia.org
yeeee
>tfw 98 ASVAB masterrace
And I left three math questions blank because fuck it, too.
IQ is the single biggest predictor for income more than any other factor.
Learn some actual sociology you fucking retard.
/thread
Adaptation is not necessarily intelligence. That being said, most Europeans would survive in a water scarce hut surrounded by predators better than Africans. Most niggers are AIDS ridden stick people. Have you ever seen Somalians? They snap in half when you hit them.
My point was that no matter how many resources you throw at them, niggers don't compete academically. Mo money for dem programs, yet no improvement in performance, so resources don't seem to solve this problem.
>Now stick those Europeans in there with the equivalent understanding of the environment as the nigs, to equalize the scenario, and see who comes out on top.
Are suggesting that doing well on a subjective test is more about being taught the answers than being born with some innate attribute or quality?
They do to a certain point, which was the point I was trying to make. The issue with nigs isn't that they're dumb necessarily, the issue is that they're lazy and unmotivated and that's a bigger killer of success than any lack of intelligence could ever be.
IQ tests measures someone's ability to recognize patterns. This is correlated with intelligence. However, you are right when you say that basically anyone can learn anything and become really knowledgeable about something.
>That being said, most Europeans would survive in a water scarce hut surrounded by predators better than Africans.
>better
Aside from pulling this out of your ass, there is no "better." These are the conditions you're subject to. You fail by dying or you pass.
>Repetition is how one develops memory and the ability to “process” information more quickly, like memorizing your times tables
Repetition doesn't improve your ability to process generalized information, it improves your ability to recall specific information quickly.
For example, both a high-IQ and low-IQ person are able to learn and memorize how to do mathematical integrals. What's the difference then? The difference is that a high-IQ person can look at a leaking water tower and realize that the relationship between the rate of leaking and total capacity can be described by a mathematical integral, whereas a low-IQ person cannot.
The high-IQ person can recognize the similarity between a math equation and a physical phenomenon whereas a low-IQ person doesn't see any similarity or pattern whatsoever.
>majoring in a particular subject in college.
Strongly depends on the major. You cannot repetition memorize your way through all majors
God you're fucking retarded. Let's change things up a little then:
Let's drop 1,000 sub-sarahan, non-aboriginal Africans into the South American jungle with no prior experience as to how to deal with the South American jungle. They have a basic understanding of how to survive in the wilderness.
Now, let's drop 1,000 Europeans into the same South American jungle, with the same amount of experience and training. By doing this, we create a completely even playing ground where neither side has any familiarity with the environment they are in. By doing this, we control entirely for their nurture and therefore, the differences displayed between the two will be entirely nature.
So, who do you think will be more successful, the Europeans or the Africans, assuming the same basic level of understanding of survival?
Tell that to the Chinese.
Idk South Africa and Rhodesia did alright for a while before nigs nigged it up
>assuming the same basic level of understanding of survival
>none
You're looking at 1000 casualties on both sides you fucking retard.
There is "better". That is, more people out of a hundred would survive the situation. Why do you think Africa was a scarcely populated shithole before Europeans started to throw food and medicine at them? Africans aren't good at surviving in the environment you described, they are just forced to live there.
How are whites in Alaska doing, praychance?
Yes, but who dies quicker?
>can’t afford none
Black poster detected.
what most people fail to understand is that neither a degree or iq make you smart, those are only tools used by jews to see if they wanna hire you
Elon Musk tho
>You can literally acquire any degree of meaningful intelligence
Intelligence in this situation is a maximum performance, rather than simple knowledge. Training yourself how to think and solve problems would increase testable intellegence. Low IQ poor people who had substandard ubbringings might test lower than their actual IQ because they never learned how to think, but their maximal IQ after similar training might remain lower due to genetic ability.
Overall IQ is mostly unimportant and it is the continous effort, technique and dicipline that matters the most. Remember that behavior is both learned and a product of physical chemistry, hormones and genes. Certain dog breeds are more intellegent or agressive than other dog breeds even with the same environment.
IQ tests are bs
if you complete your first one and get a bunch of shit wrong, you can simply see where you fucked up, retake the test and suddenly you're a high IQ fag
however, for some stupid fucking reason, that'd be considered cheating and not learning
>black-pill
most Westerners today have +100 IQ, yet can't farm or hunt to sustain themselves
when the bad times come, it'll all fall down to the survival of the fittest
>it is about discovering new things, new principles,
We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants. The men who’ve founded the basics of aerodynamics fundamentally did so with the information provided to them by the men who’ve discovered how to craft tools and farm to hunt and acquire sustenance to fuel the evolution of the human mind so that man would actually have two brain cells to rub to together to literally discover the basic laws of gravity as it exists on earth: that all things that goes up, must come down.
Information is a catalyst for every discovery ever made. None is born knowing anything besides the fact they must eat, drink and sleep. Information is obtained via trial and error which is then passed down to others through knowledge, in which ones amount of acquired knowledge determines true intelligence.
Therefore, I find the correlation between the construct of IQ and actual intelligence unfounded.
>if you complete your first one and get a bunch of shit wrong, you can simply see where you fucked up
That's not how it works you idiot. For example, one part of the test requires you to memorize and repeat back a string of random numbers, in reverse. This tests your short term memory and processing power. You cannot "redo" this to get the correct answer.
>basics of aerodynamics
Just because you can teach a nigger the fundamentals of aerodynamics doesn't mean he is going to develop the next space plane.
Can't redo it, but you sure can study for it.
Also, I don't remember doing this when I took my IQ test. It's almost like there's multiple different IQ tests, and they're all in competition with each other... it's almost like IQ tests are a... business?!
Really activates them almonds, senpai
Slide/raid thread.
IQ tests measure what we consider valuable. Niggers fail at taking them because niggers are incompatible with western society. Their "different intelligence" is worthless and should not be catered to.
>That's not how it works you idiot. For example, one part of the test requires you to memorize and repeat back a string of random numbers, in reverse. This tests your short term memory and processing power. You cannot "redo" this to get the correct answer.
Short-term memory and visualization can be improved though.
>I don't remember doing this when I took my IQ test.
>taking random online IQ tests
Maybe that is why
>Short-term memory and visualization can be improved though.
True, these things can be improved up to a certain point but they are not the same things as "memorizing your multiplication tables" as some anons seem to think IQ is.
IQ is a well correlated predictor of success. Who cares about your thoughts when there's all these free facts lying around
>You can literally acquire any degree of meaningful intelligence in a particular subject, such as computer programming or math
>computer programming
Programming is more then copy and pasting shit in some meme interpretive language, you dumb fuck. Programming, i.e. non-meme shit like assembly, c, c++, etc. actually require intelligence to be able to be effectively used; with lower languages requiring greater intelligence. Math is the same. You eventually get to a level of math that you will just not be able to understand, because it requires a certain IQ level to be able to grasp the underlying concepts. Oh sure, you could try programming, or doing high level math. Just don't be surprised when people proficient in those start laughing at you when you show them your macaroni necklace craft tier work.