Minimum iq for programming

>success generally isn’t correlated with IQ
sorry, but this is bullshit. a simple google search refutes this statement.

google is part of the sjw elite mindcontrollers. the fact is that IQ is a social construct that has no relation to success

that doesn't sound like proving yourself, that sounds like getting lucky right out of the gate and basically being given job welfare

Do pomodoro meme.

I'd say it depends on the field, uneless you work in legacy webshit you need 115 at least

Seems like you’re right. Whelp, this is what I get for watching TED talks.

Still no reason to give up hope.

I'd say 115.

I do wonder though how much of one’s IQ is crafted. We know that IQ isn’t static. For example, shitty habits will lead to a shitty mind. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s mostly genetic.

O O F
O
F

Absolutely ridiculous. Army did a study on this, minimum to be useful for any job they have is 85. Retard-level IQ starts at 75. Africans have an average IQ of 75, and American Blacks have an average IQ of 85. Stop being retarded, smoothbrain.

first of all, army is a bunch of racist fucks since republicans took over.
second, calling me retarded doesn't take away from me having my smooth brain, and it's okay for you to be angry about being wrong, but I'm asking you to please just realize you're wrong and stop spreading disinfo

>Retard-level IQ starts at 75
Depends on what you mean with "retard". Anyone with lower than 85 is going to be so noticeably dumber to the point where you wonder how they even function in their daily lives. There's a reason why there is a strong correlation between criminals and lower IQs, at least for crimes like robbery and theft and violent crimes, because many of those that commit them are people who seriously struggle to function in a daily life.

Which is obviously a fire torch, but could explain why so many blacks in the US are over-represented on criminal statistics.

> COPE: The Post
Listen faggotron, it's true. Facts are racist.

> Fuck niggers
> Fuck jannies
> Fuck faggots
> Fuck trannies

I mean the actual, scientific definition.

Also, I was wrong about the Army minimum, it's 81 according to law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/520

>tfw 93 IQ
feels good man

Idk, somewhere between 95 and 110? Some seedy internet test linked on /sci/ told me I have an IQ of 140 so suck it nerds

>professionally
90
>productively
120

Just by the way, the army has had that rule since the late 40s and Democrats held the office then.

89/100 is a pretty good score, but i'd say 90% is required for minimum productively.

>I mean the actual, scientific definition.
Well, I don't think the scientific definition is "retard" though. And I think anyone with an IQ below 85 is considered to have a form of cognitive impairment, at least in my country.

>Also, I was wrong about the Army minimum, it's 81 according to law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/520
Yikes

I'm 150~155 and I've been rejected for "insufficient computer science knowledge" on a job about glorified differential equations without a programming interview.
My GitHub is just meme dotfiles and gallery scraping scripts I wrote with one hand on the keyboard and thee other on my dick.

"Retarded" as a word has decades of medical history behind it. Any inference otherwise is due to politics and feelings, not science.

Unless you'd like to tell me a better alternative.

Mentally challenged? Brain damaged? Give me a break. I'd rather use the heuristic.

Apparently, an IQ beyond 135 actually starts to hinder your chances for job employment.

Also, what organization gave you the IQ test?

It was some free-IQ test online, they had shape multichoice questions.

kek

topkek

...
Those free online IQ tests are bullshit. I got a 150 on one of those.

An IQ of 115 is above average/superintelligent, an IQ of 135 is genius-tier.

Have you taken the ASVAB before? It's not a true measure of IQ, but it's at least reputable.

>"Retarded" as a word has decades of medical history behind it
It means held or pulled back, which is inaccurate.

>Unless you'd like to tell me a better alternative.
>Mentally challenged? Brain damaged? Give me a break. I'd rather use the heuristic.
I literally did in my post, cognitively impaired. It describes in what way they are impaired. Mentally challenged is not bad either, brain damaged is inaccurate because it implies damage (malformations or trauma), which isn't true for Africans.

>I'm 150~155
It's highly unlikely that you are beyond 3 standard deviations from the mean.

Or cognitive deficit in the case of low-IQ.

about 75% of intelligence is genetic, as in innate curiosity and drive for exploring and solving problems.
you can compensate for the rest of it but it's hard, like trying to become an NBA player when you're 5 feet tall, and you will always look like a tryhard idiot because smart people are doing smart things naturally while you're anxious and running on a treadmill to barely keep up with them.

high success is correlated with high IQ and discipline.

lazy&smart gives you the same opportunities as dumb&disciplined. as in shitty opportunities.

lazy&smart people usually are unreliable with no integrity and dont get things done

dumb&disciplined usually dont have the awareness to know they've said stupid things or went in a wrong direction like an autonomous car with a broken GPS they're all over the place.
I've seen this happen so many times where some idiot got a job as a developer and they were like
>this means I'm very smart
and turned into a literal cartoon character forgetting they got there through sheer grunt work cramming and crunching bang average interview questions and also the company was in the shitter and they needed as many people to throw at a project as they could get

Attached: brain.png (1132x878, 777K)

...

>about 75% of intelligence is genetic,
Completely made up statistic on your part. See twin studies, where two twins grow up in different environments. They turn out to have pretty much the same IQ as their twin siblings, regardless of what their guardians/caretakers and adopted siblings have.

idk but 89 is barely enough for smooth brain work like the military. You have to at least not be completely retarded.

But are their environments really that different? Whether they grow up with a similar sort of language, or even a language at all, or any exposure to arythmetic or problem solving, or social situations would make large impacts, at least to what we measure with IQ tests. Whether this is a real impact on "intelligence" or just an artefact of encountering a situation that IQ tests respond poorly to isn't something I'm qualified to judge.

Ah, so you mean people who are above 75 but below 85? Or do you mean people who are below 75 but don't have three chromosomes? Either way I think retarded is sufficient for laymen (us).

Not that guy, but I thought it was 85% inherited, 15% learned?

>same IQ

Why do brainlets love talking about IQ?

Daily reminder no one in this thread will ever accomplish anything great in their lives. You’re just human cattle.

Attached: C8C0743A-E242-4279-80D5-4E291C0F381A.jpg (960x720, 72K)

considering majority of software is low quality crap probably like 90 could fit you in. For state of art work you need much more though

>Whether they grow up with a similar sort of language, or even a language at all, or any exposure to arythmetic or problem solving, or social situations would make large impacts, at least to what we measure with IQ tests.
What makes you think people who don't learn language or math are relevant to anything?

too bad im retarded, web dev is boring

The fact you can think of asking this means you're fine

Now you're just being pedantic. The samples are randomized.

While it's obviously nearly impossible to conduct such twin studies on babies that are adopted abroad, the fact that the guardians'/adoptive parents' and adoptive siblings' IQ seems to have no influence whatsoever is pretty telling though.

> Whether they grow up with a similar sort of language, or even a language at all, or any exposure to arythmetic or problem solving, or social situations would make large impacts, at least to what we measure with IQ tests.
Not sure what you mean by this, IQ tests don't measure language skills, only logic skills. Sure, some criticisms against IQ tests is that you need to textually (or verbally) understand the task, but that's pretty much about it. As for intelligence, learning a language and its syntax obviously touch on the same centers in the brain for dealing with logic, but not in the same degree.

As for whether or not IQ tests are a good indicator of intelligence, that's an entirely different debate. I'd say it at least is the best we currently have for measuring (a certain kind of) intelligence, being logic. Other forms of intelligence, is too subjective and vaguely defined IMHO to be accurately measured.

If we define minimum as "can do the job well"

Depends on what you're doing. If you're just a front end software developer, 110 seems to be enough. If you're building/architecting complex distributed systems an IQ of 125 would be the minimum. If you're building trading algorithms - 3sds higher than the median

Attached: 1520729785552.jpg (514x719, 68K)

>Ah, so you mean people who are above 75 but below 85?
Yes

>Either way I think retarded is sufficient for laymen
It obviously is, but people use their own subjective meaning of the word, hence why I asked you what you meant in my initial post (to which you responded scientific definition).
>Not that guy, but I thought it was 85% inherited, 15% learned?
I would like to see source for this number, my understanding is that genetics is pretty much responsible for it all.

>does this chart support nature or nurture
Made by someone who doesn't understand correlation, I suppose. Just look at the difference between Identical twins reared together and reared apart (around 0.1), and then compare that to the unrelated individuals reared together (0.4 in difference)

Whatever mine is.

online IQ tests don't mean anything. But if you're good at raven matrices that is a good indicator you might do well on a real one.

>first of all, army is a bunch of racist fucks since republicans took over.
Imagine being this low IQ.

What's that case where the child grew up without any contact with the outside world, not learning language? Their mental age remained the same, I'd bet an IQ test would show such a person as having very poor pattern-finding capabilities. Learning a language and mathematics involves a lot of pattern finding, so it wouldn't be surprising if it is relevant to an IQ score.

>Now you're just being pedantic
I was putting out an extreme case for the sake of argument. Obviously it's not going to be perfectly 100% as that guy said, if only because of random error.

>the fact that the guardians'/adoptive parents' and adoptive siblings' IQ seems to have no influence whatsoever is pretty telling
Yes, that is relatively easy to control for, and saying there's no statistically significant causality there is likely a sound judgement to make. However, judging that it's 100% genetic is a subtly different claim to make, because establishing concrete causality through genetics would be near impossible. I'd also like to see when these tests were made, whether the children had just been brought up by their parents, or if they'd started going to school at this point, because the curriculums would likely be more similar than their caregivers.

>89 iq
Isn't that like down syndrome level? What is his life like compared to someone with a normal brain?

> to which you responded scientific definition
Ah, fuck, I did, didn't I?

Fuck it, it's my arbitrary opinion, then, I'm retarded.

> I would like to see source for this number, my understanding is that genetics is pretty much responsible for it all.
Sorry about this one too, I can't remember where I got that source from. Feel free to disregard what I've said so far.

based

Well, having an IQ > 110 sure help because after all, programming is problem solving. But I'm sure you can manage to learn and write code with 89 IQ. It will be just a little bit harder. Like everything in your life already is.

>skipped every page I didn't understand until I reached the en and understood nothing
Even with an IQ of 300 that would be retarded. There's clearly a larger issue at play here.

>What's that case where the child grew up without any contact with the outside world, not learning language? Their mental age remained the same, I'd bet an IQ test would show such a person as having very poor pattern-finding capabilities. Learning a language and mathematics involves a lot of pattern finding, so it wouldn't be surprising if it is relevant to an IQ score.
It probably is, like how burning your cake is relevant to it's taste. Doesn't mean the ingredients your cake is made of are not important.
That is above the average of most races that are not white or east asian.

>saying there's no statistically significant causality there is likely a sound judgement to make. However, judging that it's 100% genetic is a subtly different claim to make
I agree. I'm only referring to these studies from memory, and I don't know what their conclusion was. My original point which was lost somewhere down the line is that the "85% genes and 15% learning" figures sound blatantly made up, at least to me.

>I'd also like to see when these tests were made, whether the children had just been brought up by their parents, or if they'd started going to school at this point, because the curriculums would likely be more similar than their caregivers.
There are a couple of different studies done in different countries. I know there have been done studies on this in the US, but the one's I'm referring to are the ones done over a 30 year period here in Norway. All the adopted children where adopted while they were toddlers (before 2 years old) and most of them were brought up by different foster parents (but in some cases one of them were brought up by one or two parents). I'll see if I can find it again.

> I'd bet an IQ test would show such a person as having very poor pattern-finding capabilities.
Maybe so, but that's pure conjecture. Do you have any evidence to support you?

> Obviously it's not going to be perfectly 100% as that guy said, if only because of random error.
Alright, but it's still pedantic. Correlations like the ones posted are significant enough that I'd think they would outweigh random error.

> nigger-tier intellect
Imagine being this dumb. It must be sad.

how is that against what I said?
at least 75% of it is inherited, ofcourse proven by twin studies
perhaps I should have mentioned "at least"

>They turn out to have pretty much the same IQ
not quite, you should be more careful when reading scientific studies, the correlation was .6 or .7, that's a really strong definitive correlation for a practical study yet it's far from "everyone had the same iq as his twin".

the correct conclusion is "up to 70% of individuals exhibited the same IQ trait as their twin within a certain error"

anyone can learn to code, you bigots
t. ruby code ninja

Attached: kodewithkarlie.png (1920x1080, 2.49M)

I think I might be retarded.
>Looking at basic algo
>It has the example of an answer
>Still dont understand it
I dont have the problem when I think about how I would solve it but example answers do go over my head.

Attached: 1439499921337.png (721x777, 310K)

IQ *clap* IS A *clap* SOCIAL *clap* CONSTRUCT *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

On which fucking planet is "showing that 75% of individuals exhibited the same IQ trait as their twin" the same as "75% of intelligence is inherited" ?

>you can compensate for the rest of it but it's hard, like trying to become an NBA player when you're 5 feet tall, and you will always look like a tryhard idiot because smart people are doing smart things naturally while you're anxious and running on a treadmill to barely keep up with them.
This so so much

This is a misunderstanding of heritability. You can't decouple nature and nurture this way in an individual.

For example, say you have a cow and it weighs 1200lbs. What percent of it's weight is genetic compared to environmental? Well if it were a genetically different animal, like a cat, in the same environment, it's weight would be vastly different so clearly it's mostly genetic. But if the same cow had been in an environment with no food, then it's weight would also be vastly different so it's mostly environmental. So you can't really measure what percent of your traits are genetic.

What you can do, and what heritability does, is measure variance between populations. So if you have two cows that are identical twins, you can say that the variance between their weight is entirely environmental. And if you have two genetically dissimilar cows raised equally in the same environment, you can say the variance is genetic.

Now, you could say that a certain percent of the variance is genetic, but only in context to the populations you're measuring. It still wouldn't apply to the individual.

You are an utter waste of human life.

>For example, say you have a cow and it weighs 1200lbs. What percent of it's weight is genetic compared to environmental?
Unlike intelligence, weight has been demonstrated to correlate with food intake vs. energy output. That being said, your metabolism at different activity levels is actually genetically determined.

COMMUNISM *clap* HAS *clap* *clap* NEVER *clap* BEEN TRIED *clap* *clap* *clap*

This is Jow Forums, if you want to find people with high IQ look somewhere else

but hasnt it been tried, there was russia and china

shh sweaty the adults are talking

Attached: 1564197886206.jpg (503x511, 121K)

bolshevism and maoism aren't communism.
and china is taking over the world anyway

oh hey its that short yelling dude, how does he relate to communism though

He's an example of the population average height on a communist diet, just like north koreans are demonstratively shorter on average than south koreans.

Attached: 1564204720818.jpg (794x1204, 132K)

but isn't he an incel not korean

Depends on the language. Around 70 for Python or Javascript. Forbsomething more challenging like C maybe around 81/82

>high-level problem solving with abstract concepts and high-level languages requires less intelligence than glorified portable assembly aka telling the computer what to do instruction by instruction

Weight has also been demonstrated to correlate to genetics, see every animal species on the planet having a known weight distribution. The point is that when you're comparing populations, you're only comparing the genetic and environmental variance between those populations.

For example, say you have identical twins, one is raised normally, but one is raised in the most IQ retarding environment possible, sort of like Genie the feral child. No language, no visual or auditory stimulation, diet that only meets the bare minimum nutrients for survival, constant physical abuse. The IQ variance between those two will probably be much higher than an ordinary twin study but that doesn't mean that it shows that IQ is less heritable than previously thought, because heritability is only concerned with relevant populations.

How does it feel to be smart? I personally had to study for uni and highschool artithmetics which as a pain when other people got straight As while doing nothing

Attached: 1448988388117.jpg (219x187, 11K)

If you think an "online IQ test" is gives you meaningful data, then you truly are fucking retarded.

i wish i knew, i consider dropping out of uni, i put in too much effort for shit grade while everyone around me spends 1/5th of the time or already knew how to do the stuff in the course

>minimum IQ does not exist. that's like minimum height
>IQ, it's a social construct
Oh, is height a social construct?

Online IQ tests do give you meaningful data. You just have to subtract 30 points to get an accurate result.

You misunderstand me, your point is a good point, but your example was bad because weight is trivially correlated with excess energy intake, whereas the environmental effects that condition intelligence is neither understood or even known. Of course, language and stimulation as well as nutrition is necessary for the development of the brain, just like consuming sustenance is necessary for maintaining a certain weight, but, as you said yourself, what matters is the entire distribution.

African-Americans have an upbringing and childhood development that's very similar to white Americans (when we compare that upbringing to that in Africa), but yet there is a significant gap in IQ scores that doubtfully can be explained by environmental differences alone.

could just be a dumb white person, they do exist.

>army is a bunch of racist fucks since republicans took over.
Believe it or not the $CURRENT elected government had nothing to do with any of that.
How about not being some ass blasted tranny?

Feels like cumming inside a 10/10 grill while receiving the nobel prize in mathematics and bombing a terrorist using an AI wrote
amazing

Height in relativistic terms is a social construct. Someone being 6'2 is factual. But 6'2 being tall is determined by society.

fuck that puts me in retard range

yes it is. white average is 100. between 85 to 115 is pretty much normal.

Amusing quip, but unfortunately not true. There are no accurate self-administered or online IQ tests, they simply don't exist. Anybody claiming to provide one is defrauding you.

You are objectively a manlet.

That might be average in South Africa if there are any whites there left.

das amahzin

Attached: amahzin.jpg (1000x1294, 978K)