What have been the greatest technological advances that the United States has generated for themselves in the last ten...

Evangelism
Anal prolabse

funnily enough there was a paper that compared atheist and theist IQ. usually we hear that atheists are smarter right? well it turns out that if you examine these IQ tests, strip the IQ tests of items which are LESS g-loaded, i.e. are less able to measure general intelligence, and are more subject to "gaming" like what i described above, the IQ gap between atheists and theists disappear. people who are better at systemizing are also more likely to be autistic, so it means atheists are slightly more autistic than theists on average. i'm an atheist btw. just thought that was interesting.

Insurance fraud

Modern Terrorism

Rust
Grindr
iPad
RISC-V
rowhammer
branch prediction exploits
TensorFlow and co.
CELT (half of Opus)
WebM/WebP
Urbit

>IQ
you can't really describe intelligence let alone really quantify it

Attached: small heada.png (645x729, 66K)

intelligence is self awareness combined with abstract thought.
Only a handful of creatures on Earth are capable of it.

>reaction times have decreased
You mean increased. Shorter reaction times are better, and Woodley found them increasing. Though it's possible the difference is due to methodology.

>>>/second half of the twentieth century/

Now I want to lick a bike seat.

idk the experts say you can so i'll trust them over you

All thought is abstract.

Self-awareness is a type of thought.

So you are, in essence, saying that intelligence is just thought. Brilliant, absolutrly brilliant.

Attached: 1558349611528.jpg (353x750, 41K)

It's currently cheaper, better performing, and longer lasting than enterprise slc nand. Future versions will be compatible with standard ddr5 memory sockets.

Attached: 61PWR5TrcjL._SX425_.jpg (425x425, 20K)

The experts don't agree on whether or not you can, but you will just blindly agree with whoever confirms what you want to believe rather than abstaining from forming an opinion like you should.

>The experts don't agree on whether or not you can
actual experts do though. you're probably referring to academics who have no expertise in intelligence research and don't know what they're talking about.

This is really good bait, I commend you.

Attached: 1555055984174.jpg (5000x5000, 1.79M)

i'm not. it actually blows my mind when laymen claim intelligence can't be operationalized when they actually don't know anything about intelligence research. it's really dishonest and i don't know why you guys do it.

You do what you need to do to protect yourself, I understand.

those gook legs

Ok yeah sure, despite the fact that we clearly rapidly evolved to be more intelligent in our evolutionary history as Homo sapiens, and it separates us from all of the animals in both quantity and quality. Perceived intelligence depends on overall processing speed in multiple domains (g) and metacognition, or thought about thought. A certain group of 'researchers' has attempt to muddy the waters on this topic and has unfortunately largely succeeded, because we have to put up with people like you parroting their propaganda. You are probably the kind of person who thinks Howard Gardner's ideas are not rank pseudoscience.

>you can't really describe intelligence
> posts brainlet meme

The absoulte state.

gib asian gf

Attached: 1486837887672.png (778x512, 45K)

The ability to solve mechanical and spacial puzzles, as well as profiency for language systems have absolutely nothing to do with metacognition.

Yet these are the domains we use to quantify intelligence.

Beware anybody who gives a simplistic "well actually it's this..." answer, anons. Do your own research, and that includes learning about the people publishing the studies you read and the journals that they are published in. Anybody offering a quick rundown that isn't "it's complex and ill-defined" in relation to philosophical concepts like intelligence are trying to sell you something.

Rockets that can land on their ass, and be cheaply(relatively speaking anyways) reused is a pretty nice invention.

Attached: h5sz7lfrone01.png (744x598, 377K)

Intel and future is an oxymoron

>absolutely nothing to do with metacognition
au contraire, mon frere
The rest of your post is great advice. You should follow it.

>experts
Yeah, the "experts" in ancient aliens also agree about their shit so you can also trust them.
The level of brainwashing induced autism has reached a level on you ameritards.

I don't have any opinion on this. i'm here only for the photos.

Attached: gbike.jpg (1280x804, 260K)

>equating psychometrics with ancient aliens
explain further

>literally a scam

Micron is expected to bring their version of the tech to market later this year.

How so?

Attached: micron_quantx_logo_modified.jpg (763x349, 43K)

Considering the point being made is to ignore your sourceless shitposting, it sounds like he is.

>Anybody offering a quick rundown that isn't "it's complex and ill-defined" in relation to philosophical concepts like intelligence are trying to sell you something.
no, those are people who are actually doing their jobs as scientists. anyone attempting to tell you X is too complex to even attempt to understand is trying to push an agenda.

Yoga pants

Attached: e01128b5e4acf3085e71f8b99e7d516c.jpg (600x771, 90K)

theres nothing scientific about a concept as vague as intelligence

there's nothing scientific about declaring a concept too vague to measure.

whether or not IQ tests measure what we call "intelligence" is irrelevant anyway. you can claim it measures the chances of having an imaginary friend called blarney and scientists will still use it because it's predictive of real world outcomes that people care about. it's just concern trolls attempting to deconstruct things they don't like, as usual.

there's nothing scientific about attempting to measure a vague concept
declaring it too vague to measure is just truth

why does IQ predict and correlate really well with average salary?

clearly its measuring something meaningful as it pertains to success in life

I didn't equate them, I just invalidated your argument, it's simple logic. But if you put the problem this way, they have an important thing in common, they're both pseudoscience, the same type with the one you see on the news: "4 out of 5 scientists agree that if you it...". How could you assign a number to intelligence when it doesn't have a proper definition? How can iq or personality tests or anything of this kind ever be relevant when the results will always vary greatly from one test to another? What is even the point of them? Nobody even gives a shit about this joke tests outside the shithole called usa.

the average IQ of a country can be predicted based off known intelligence-associated SNPs

Attached: genetically predicted IQ.png (758x519, 88K)

>there's nothing scientific about attempting to measure a vague concept
that's like the whole basis of entire fields of study.

I dunno bro, IQ has been around for a while. It has its problems but g factor is pretty much unassailable.

i had nearly forgotten that 3d could look good

>How can iq or personality tests or anything of this kind ever be relevant when the results will always vary greatly from one test to another?
Want to know how I know you're bluffing?

>when the results will always vary greatly from one test to another?
scientists are smarter than you and design tests that are measurement invariant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_invariance
chances are, if you've thought of some obvious confounding variable, the experts who have dedicated their lives to this research have thought of it way before you.

are you implying most scientists are actually doing useful work?

saying intelligence isn't defined isn't the same thing as saying IQ testing is bullshit

There's no use in you arguing with people atop Mt. Stupid

Really, a wikipedia link? You can't design tests that are measurement invariant dumbfuck.

They are the same in that they are both false. You've got to wonder what motivation someone would have to muddy the waters on intelligence research.

>no source
typical of this thread

but the correlation between test and retest is really high and the more g-loaded a test the stronger the correlation between IQ as a teenager and as an old adult.

DOI 10.3390/psych1010005

lmao

Give it up, these kiddos don't even know about the Spearman hypothesis

i don't know much either i'm just going by what i've heard experts say.

your "link" doesn't work
nice bluff though

X86

Tablets.

It's funny how the most stupid always fetishize over some bullshit that they have no understanding of, just because it's asociated with some buzzwords like "science", "culture" and so on. Who wants to bet the tards spamming their murican experts have the lowest IQs in this thread? Really faggots, no need to be so triggered for wasting your lives with stuff like gender studies.

Sarcastically, great reading comprehension. Boiling down something as extremely vague as intelligence into a single axis is a completely disengenuous misrepresentation of reality. You're taking it a step further, by claiming that this point is, in actuality, stating that something is too complex/ill-defined to be understood. Nobody has said that, except for you, and I can only assume you have done so in bad faith as an attempt to construct a strawman.

In truth, you're just trying to boil down an incredibly complex subject matter into a one-line zinger. In this specific case, your post doesn't work, as I am criticizing your reduction of complexities (which you conveniently ignore). Attempting to imply I am doing the same to you goes against the very thing that you're trying to argue, as your entire position is based around one that a positive description containing 1-2 nouns can suffice as a proper answer to the question of intelligence. Substituting it for a positive non-description does not have equal implications, and if you can't even grasp this very basic nuance of linguage and logic, I can already tell your capability to sustain a meaningful argument is nil. Shitpost whatever you want, replying to you after this isn't worth the time.

Attached: 1554863749.jpg (604x453, 89K)

>as I am criticizing your reduction of complexities (which you conveniently ignore)
i didn't ignore it. it's simply unscientific deconstructionist nonsense. no one cares what you declare to be too complex to measure. scientists who know better are just fine with it.

Yeah the problem is there is an entire parallel institution that produces turbid pseudoscience that has set itself up as "experts" in mass media reports on the topic.

if you don't know what a DOI is, or how to use it, you are not fit for this discussion.

It is not unscientific to criticize a system that is heuristic at best.

IQ tests are more often than not issued to people not to measure intelligence, but to quantify reductions in cognitive ability.

The idea that you can extract any meaningful predictors out of them, other than a rate of mental decline, is a completely pseudoscientific concept in the first place.

>The idea that you can extract any meaningful predictors out of them
You can do this quite easily. IQ is a surprisingly powerful predictor of income, educational attainment, job performance, etc.

Every single study I see published stating that is always by literally who's in mediocre journals. Find me a single study by a reputable team.

>IQ is a surprisingly powerful predictor of income, educational attainment, job performance, etc.
Lol, not really. I work with very autistic people with IQ's in the 180 to 210 range.
They are in no way capable to cope with todays society.
One of them is a math genius, but will never ever get a job or riches.

>I work with very autistic people with IQ's in the 180 to 210 range.
Nobody has an IQ that high you fucking idiot

>he doesn't have a 4 digit iq

Attached: c0c.jpg (634x650, 45K)

This is "my dad works at nintendo" tier. It's also appealing to an exception.

Attached: 1543529034422.jpg (800x600, 55K)

Her handle is crysta1lee

We're in more of a politically induced dark age at the moment user, try again in 10 years or so