If someone denies the existence of IQ, is that a red flag that they’re retarded?

>Gee, who would have thought that biological variance would stop once it reaches the brain!

The only useful question about any test is always "who is being tested on what?"
Everything else is for NPCs.

>>16684599 (OP)
And yet nobody can even say what exactly IQ is measuring. It's astrology for men.

>>16684599 (OP)
Nobody denies the existence of IQ, but denying the existence of it being caused be skin color is the same thing to you

>>16684599 (OP)
It’s certainly an indicator.

>>16684628
Pattern recognition. High IQ = more patterns recognized and more quickly. Not that hard to define little bro.

>>16684599 (OP)
I'm so sick of you retards who treat some dumb test invented by some dumb 'psychologist' a century ago as some intrinsic human quality
>Gee, who would have thought that biological variance would stop once it reaches the brain!
This is such a stupid fucking talking point. Why hasn't biological variance reached the number of heads?

>>16685293
Found the angry midwit. IQ status?

>>16685295
Found the braindamaged poltard. IQ is a pseudoscientific grift by and for retards like you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lwFK1ImzcA

>>16685297
>IQ is a pseudoscientific grift
IQ is a great predictor for a bunch of things but I agree having a solid IQ test does not mean you are not retarded. Case in point: OP.

>>16685305
>IQ is a great predictor for a bunch of things
Oh really? Do tell us all these great predictions of IQ

>>16685293
How does a fag like you measure intelligence then?
>>16685295
If he's a midwit then you're below a retard.

>>16685322
>How does a fag like you measure intelligence then?
By interacting with the person, seeing how knowledgeable they are, and so on.

>>16685348
Nevermind. You too, are retarded. The first point you made was good, still. Even a broken clock.

>>16685352
I love how IQtards are completely incapable of rational thought

>>16685322
Those in the middle of the curve often have difficulty distinguishing which tail someone else is in. Many such cases!

>>16685293
There is variance in traits. Intelligence is a trait. Number of heads is not a trait.

>>16685373
>Number of heads is not a trait.
?? So you think the number of heads you have isn't determined by your dna? lmao

>>16685375
You don't know the definition of a trait.

>>16685385
You don't know how biology works

>>16684599 (OP)
the fact that you can be a turbo brainlet, and train IQ tests so you suddenly are mensa-tier IQ says something about IQ tests, doesn't it? I wonder how many "geniuses" have been cheating to begin with

>>16685293
>>16685373
>>16685375
kekek

>>16685414
>dumb iqtard posts irrelevant image in the hope that someone mistakes it for an intelligent creature

>>16684599 (OP)
Sure, it exists. It's just not as interesting or important as larpers seem to think. Let me tell you son, I did a phd in physics, and if you went around telling physicists your IQ they would think you were a god damned retard.

>Sci: 500 genders? Pffff, I don't believe in that made up nonsense.
>Also Sci: IQ? SO TRUE *SÖYFACE*

>>16684599 (OP)
Take them as being ignorant. I got a 1600 out of 2400 on the old sat, this is roughly the same as having a 115 iq, I did this without ever studying. I also got a degree in geophysics without cheating or using past exams or using chegg.

Now I'm self studying the textbooks for an undergraduate math major because it's interesting. I consider myself intelligent to say the least.

>>16685443
This is not the same thing and you know it.

>>16685291
By that logic, bees have a super high IQ because they can recognize flowers and honeycombs

>>16684599 (OP)
I mean it depends. Saying that IQ doesn't exist as a static objective unit is valid. It's always a relative value to compare individuals in a set.

>>16685611
Bees are indeed a very smart insect.

>>16685310
iq is a highly g-loaded number that very accurately predicts your intellectual abilities across a broad range of fields and tasks. everybody intuitively knows this - if you have a person iq 130 and a person iq 80, who do you think is going to understand a tax form more quickly? learn an instrument or foreign language faster? write a better essay? spell words better? do mental math more quickly? be able to comprehend a short story more deeply? accurately assess the risk:reward ratio of certain behaviors?

if you think iq is a myth and there'd be no statistical difference, congrats, you're the iq 80.

>>16685998
Fun fact; 100 years ago the average IQ of Americans was in the 70s (if compared to modern repeatedly renormalized scaling).

>>16684599 (OP)
Is there any more universally countersignalled measure than IQ? There isn't a single person who is really smart, in any field, anywhere, who talks about their IQ. But people who are really strong actually do talk about their max in various lifts. People who are really good at golf actually do talk about their handicaps. Something about IQ is just utterly embarrassing to smart people, in a way that no other measure is to any other group of people who do well by some measure.

>>16686002
Um. That’s wrong. That one 2013 study based on correlations between reaction times and traditional IQ measurements pointed to us losing roughly 15~ IQ points since the Victorian period.

>>16685998
>everybody intuitively knows this
>if you think iq is a myth and there'd be no statistical difference, congrats, you're the iq 80.
So that's your evidence? Lmao. Your retarded intimidation tactics won't work here.
>spell words better? do mental math more quickly?
If the iq test has many questions on spelling and mental math, clearly there would be some correlation when you test them separately for spelling or mental math. This doesn't measure any "innate, unchanging ability" called iq, it just measures your knowledge of mental math and your vocabulary. That's just a trivial observation, not a "great prediction" in the slightest lol.
>learn an instrument or foreign language faster?
>accurately assess the risk:reward ratio of certain behaviors?
There's no evidence for this at all and your intuition is just stupid and faulty as I demonstrated above. Try to come up with better arguments and evidence next time, iqtard.

>>16686184
80iq confirmed

>>16686187
Yet another iqtard demolished. I accept your concession.

>>16685611
>identify flowers
>make honeycombs
Those are patterns.
And those are absolutely patterns geneticaly passed on in intuitions, each individual bee does not "learn" how to do those things. They have 6 weeks at max, They simply don't have the time.

Even if you actually counted all the patterns a bee does, it doesn't need to "learn" very many next to the count a retarded human does in one day. Insects do a mass reproductive strategy so no individual needs to be that mentaly articulated.

>>16686184
You haven't ever taken an iq test. They don't use language, it's usualy symbols unique to the text.

>>16685432
Yes, social faux-pas are another pattern.
Going around and citing your iq constantly would be one.
In that case it would be about managing your and others emotions. People with unregulated emotions are colloquially called "retarded", but thats just shorthand for the instruction:"avoid them".

You can get any smart person to cite thier iq in the proper environment, without faux-pas and with thier enthusiasm.

>>16686082
Someone post the chocolate melting in a pot meme

>>16684599 (OP)
Yes

>>16686375
This is exactly how iq has become a forbidden topic, by mass manipluating peoples emotional responses when dealing with outsider groups.

Theres clearly some differences, and whatever you want to call intelligence is one of them.

>>16684628
IQ is a test created to diagnose mental retardation
It is valuable in the lower brackets but less so in the higher ones
>>16685291
Even so I've seen 80IQs who ponder the JQ and geniuses who vehemently deny it, and it's the most obvious pattern in our society

Of course someone could attribute it to fear, but this changes nothing, fear is the mindkiller, if you can't think freely your high IQ is worthless

>>16685518
>cmon bro they are two different FLAVORS of shit

>>16686404
Pellets, logs, diarrhea, nightsoil, tacobell, sweetcorn

>>16686394
I don't know what to tell you. You're not even wrong (if you think that's a compliment, you're low IQ)

>>16686184
>So that's your evidence? Lmao. Your retarded intimidation tactics won't work here.
Retard go read some studies. The only psychology studies which resemble actual science are the ones finding high correlation between iq and academic succes, salary, general success etc. Stop being a midwit. IQ doesn't need to define your life but it is a significant metric.

>>16686370
You are clueless and a simple google search will prove you wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelligence_Scales#Subtests_and_factors.

Even if they didn't test for vocabulary, your argument would still fail because then there would no longer be any correlations between iq scores and vocabulary skills.
>>16686437
What a ridiculous and cowardly way to defend yourself lol. "All the studies in this field are pseudoscience except for mine!! mine is actual science!!". You are a hack and fraud.

>>16686449
I don't think you know what a correlation is

>>16684599 (OP)
lolyep

>>16686023
>people who are really strong actually do talk about their max in various lifts
People good at lifting weights talk about their success at lifting weights.

>People who are really good at golf actually do talk about their handicaps
People good at golf talk about their success in golf

>IQ tests
People good at scoring high in standardized tests talk about their success in all things brain.

One of those is not like the others. Golfers do not engage in some non-golfing exercise to decide if they are good or bad at golfing. Mensa folks do talk about their IQs as a measure of their success in solving pattern-recognition puzzles, they are not ashamed of it and nobody minds it. IQ's utility was severely hampered by it's proponents overhyping the shit out of it by declaring it a "measure of intellect", when a single look at a typical high IQ savant is enough for anyone to start doubting this claim. They should've stuck to promoting it as a test for a particular skill and we would've gotten way more mileage out of it.

>>16687509
>One of those is not like the others.
Yes, golf is unlike the other two. It's a fair point about golf. But people who are really strong and good at football, for example, talk about both their success in football and the generic measure of weightlifting strength that contributes to, but doesn't predict, their success in football. While people who are really smart and good at math or business or building things, whatever, only talk about the specific things they're good at, not the generic measure of intelligence that also contributes to, but doesn't predict, their success in those things. In the Mensa example, the specific thing they're good at IS the generic measure, so it's a degenerate case.

>>16687543
>But people who are really strong and good at football, for example, talk about both their success in football and the generic measure of weightlifting strength that contributes to, but doesn't predict, their success in football.
You are reaching.

>generic measure
No such thing.

>>16687543
>- You manager check out the stats on this guy
>- Huh? His shots are awful, his effective passes are nonexistent, going by wins he was a massive burden on every team he played for
>- But man, check out his deadlift PR!
>- Wha... Oh God... I want his agent! NOW!
Yeah that's totally how it works.

>>16686023
People who are good at lifting weights talk about their skill to other weightlifters. People who score high on IQ tests like to preach to everyone who doesn't. The difference is that the former is sharing experience; the latter is status signalling.

>>16687555
>reaching
How so? Have you ever played a sport or been around people who do?
>No such thing
IQ questions are a generic measure of intelligence. Max lifts are a generic measure of strength. Go ahead and play a word game now to pretend you think they aren't, when we both know they are lol.
>>16687563
>retarded greentext
I don't know, maybe /b/ is more your speed.
>>16687568
>People who score high on IQ tests like to preach to everyone who doesn't.
No, they really don't. I've never experienced anything like this from anyone in real life.

>>16687590
>I've never experienced anything like this from anyone in real life.
The only people I've seen irl talking about IQ tests and their super high score are turbo autistic assholes with no social tact.

>>16687590
>IQ questions are a generic measure of intelligence
Good circular argument bro.

>>16687590
>Max lifts are a generic measure of strength.
You ever meet powerlifters? They take any easy way out they can. Equipment, reducing range of motion by variants of lifts, and even bloatmaxxing to be as fat as possible to lift more weight. Thor can't see do a pullup yet has records for deadlift. These are the analogs of the "high IQ" spergs who use any advantage they can to score high on IQ tests, then start bragging about how they're high IQ and then arguing they're intelligent lol

>>16687602
Yes, your example is the same degenerate case as Mensa: the specific thing they're good at IS the generic measure.
>>16687600
Your word game today was Agrippa's trilemma. Thanks for playing lol.

>>16684599 (OP)
I don't question the concept of intelligence and its variance. I question reliability of current testing methods. The mere fact that one can prepare for an IQ test by solving a lot of problems and score higher should make it obvious it's not a foolproof way of testing innate ability.

>>16686544
Such a lame response. IQ doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny apparently

Good thread. OP really triggered the dolts.

The IQ test is not really important, i did not look at how precise it is but it's fundamentally a tool made for measurement.
Measurement of intelligence.

Even if it's flawed it doesn't matter , we can clearly see in our day to day lives that people don't think nor in the same way (different priorities , different routes , different sensibilities, etc.) nor in the same intensity nor at the same speed.

And this is what's important, this is the heart of the controversy because intelligence is nowadays the most sought after quality. So much so that people are taking away parts of humanity to the disabled in those categories.

I hope even the simplest of us are capable of understanding more complex ideas and are not just simply barred from it, just too costly for them but not impossible.

IQ is a numerical value assigned to a proper trinary. You're either average/normal, an idiot, or a genius. Anything else is splitting hairs like high average or severe retardation. If all numerical values were rounded to the nearest 15, it'd be much more meaningful. Then you'd still have boneheads arguing it's not a high enough resolution.

>>16691081
It’s always going to be a problem. Same with overall productiveness of a given ethnicity or culture. It will never not be an issue. Humans have ego. They want worth.

>>16685406
You can also memorize the meta in chess, but making two naive players play it without meta knowledge is a good predictor of their relative intelligence.
The existence of benchmaxing doesn't mean that all benchmarks are worthless. Just don't cheat you fucking chink.

>>16691084
>Humans have ego. They want worth.
You say that as if that's a bad thing. Should we all just let retards run nuclear plants or burn down entire jungles to catch a few animals to eat, because it makes us the bigger person? That way lies modern radical leftism.
The ego psyop needs to end, it's brainworms from a 20th century hippie fad on eastern cults which - ironically - consistently attracted the vainest faggots the world has ever seen.

>>16691648
It’s bad when it involves the masses screaming in bloody denial over something so bloody basic.

>>16684599 (OP)
All IQ does is measure your knowledge (how much you have learned)

I remember reading somewhere that the central nervous system evolves slower than the rest of the body and there's less genetic variation relating to the brain, which would make sense, as in my opinion the human brain doesn't need to evolve much

>>16684599 (OP)
There is an idea of an IQ. Some kind of abstraction but there is no real IQ, only an entity, something illusory, and though IQ can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: IQ simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. IQ is fabricated, an aberration. IQ am a noncontingent human being. IQ's personality is sketchy and unformed, IQ's heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. IQ's conscience, IQ's pity, IQ's hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All IQ have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem IQ have caused and my utter indifference toward it, IQ have now surpassed. IQ still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. Yet IQ am blameless. Each model of human behavior must be assumed to have some validity. Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do? My pain is constant and sharp and IQ do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, IQ want my pain to be inflicted on others. IQ want no one to escape. But even after admitting this—and IQ have countless times, in just about every act IQ’ve committed—and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. IQ gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from IQ's telling. There has been no reason for IQ to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing...

>>16691843

>>16691782
It measures your familiarity with the problems given on IQ test

>>16685446
>. I got a 1600 out of 2400 on the old sat, this is roughly the same as having a 115 iq, I did this without ever studying. I also got a degree in geophysics without cheating or using past exams or using chegg.
This sounds like 115 is about right, then

>>16692576
>1600 out of 2400
>the old sat
Anon, I...

>>16691848
Where is your IQ now?

IQ *attempts* to measure something that is very real. It is the most *easily assessable* form or shape of intelligence. That’s it. One based on memory and reaction times. How is that so hard to understand? I don’t think we’ll ever be able to measure artistic IQ, for instance, beyond the intellectual sophistication of the method, I suppose?

For me it's Pascal's wager. If I believe IQ exists, no matter how unlikely it is to be true, if it is true then belief in IQ will increase my IQ sending me to heaven, and if I am wrong then I have only opened the door to schizophrenia, so to speak.

>>16685446
1600 on the SAT that had a 2400 point scale is near the 63rd percentile, which matches with 105-106 IQ. This isn't actually correct for two reasons. One that much of the left half of the bell curve doesn't take the SAT, meaning IQ should be higher. The second is that SAT scores stopped being well correlated with IQ in 2005 when it switched to the 2400 point scale and became more knowledge based than logic based.

>>16692701
Implying a lot of the same people that don't take the SAT do take the IQ test?

>>16692706
IQ test scores aren't based on who takes IQ tests.

>>16693020
So it's a manufactured curve? Lol.

>>16692653
This.

Crazy how much denial humans are stuck in when it comes to basic fucking biology eh

>>16695235
Crazy how morons who have no understanding of any biology shamelessly claim that their retarded dogma is biology eh

>>16695241
“Gender isn’t binary it’s bimodal!”

>>16695297
>immediately resorts to political slogan implanted into it by its programmers
You bots ruined this website

>>16684599 (OP)
IQ do not exist neither do lumen gauss or inches. Sure this site is too stupid to grasp the simple concept or can distinct between a measurement and real world phenomena. But funny how all you retards have the chutzpah to post your worthless meanings and think it is more than loud digestion.

>>16696278
What's a lumen? Expert mode: don't look it up.

>>16695316
It’s actually just ironic. Bi means binary. They think bimodal isn’t binary. It’s just funny.

>>16684599 (OP)
IQ isn't an indicator of intelligence. It's an indicator of how much someone prepared for an IQ test.

you could have two people be 120 IQ and one is a useless shitty fuck and the other is bright in the sense that he's willing to learn shit until his brain fucking hurts

>>16696599
The ability to actually be productive, to DO, is vital here. A genius can be stuck in his head for his entire life.

>>16696605
Yeah.

>>16684599 (OP)
Either that or they're just out of the loop. It'd kinda be like saying that different computers all have the same RAM, CPU, Disk, etc. specs. If they still insist even after understanding this, yeah they're retarded.

>>16684599 (OP)
Iq is highly correlated with memory, attention, and pattern recognition. High IQ can predict success in quantitative fields. Low enough IQ is defined as retardation. For everyone in the middle, there's hard work.

>>16684599 (OP)
You don't even try to reason with things like that, you don't want them close to you, you don't want to hire them.
Those parasites, they only mean problems, a massive waste of resources.

>>16696597
Is a perfect filter to hire useful people. You need to be either smart enough to find the solutions by yourself, or care enough to prepare for the test. Those who are filtered out are worthless.

>>16684748
Also some of us are individualists and don't believe in collective punishment based on statistical differences

It's not that biological variance doesn't match or mismatch, it is the fact that if shapes and numbers back the front is how you reason - then we think your shit at reasoning AND we shouldn't have to pass the test

Everyone knows reasoning is seeing when to let them slide

>>16699672
Simple.
To the point.
A good post indeed.

IQ is a great measure of pattern recognition. It's not the only measurement for smartness out there but it's useful for some stuff.

anecdotal source: I have an IQ of 83 and I borderline can't play pattern recognition games like dark souls or competitive games

>>16700428
It’s probably the simplest and most basic and thus most reliable type of test for a certain type of intelligence, one based on reaction times and memorization, pattern recognition, etc.

>all the anons itt who have no idea what an iq test measures, or what it predicts, or anything else about it but are 100 percent sure it’s bunk and useless
Lmao the irony is insane
>>16700431
It’s more then that, what’s important and what makes it the gold standard is its ability to predict outcomes of things we care about.

>>16700456
You're talking about two bell curves that mostly overlap

>>16700456
What sort of things can it predict that I couldn't predict by talking to someone for a few minutes?

>>16700428
>>16700431
>>16700456
They won’t ever want to acknowledge the points you’re making because you’re dealing with non-whites who have major self esteem issues.

>>16700456
>is its ability to predict outcomes of things we care about.
Yet another episode of iqtards lying about their pseudoscience I see

>>16684599 (OP)
Calling things red flags is a sign of being retarded

>>16701975
Not really
People with high quotients tend to more quickly or accurately identify systemic patterns in novel information and/or identify errors in their own problem solving
You can fake your scores by practising the test before taking it
At the same time a well practised idiot in a static field of expertise can just as well function usefully, but when presented a new problem a more "intelligent" person would statistically perform more efficiently.

A high intelligence scoring person who never learns anything is obviously useless compared to a well trained idiot, but of two equally trained and experienced people, the one with a higher intelligence quotient would be faster at addressing certain/most problems

All the cope about intelligence correlating with personality difficulties and proneness to mental illness or substance abuse does not conflict with this simple fact at surface level

If however we are splitting hairs, yes, an arrogant person of low sociability but high intelligence will more likely fail with an idiot of high sociability will succeed, because people are egotistical, and do not like feeling inferior.

This is why idiots sabotage geniuses, and HR departments tend to hire people that fall towards median intelligence, but also people of middling intelligence tend to prioritise social skills and are more successful in convincing others of their "genuineness", and are more likeable.

High iq people are also often difficult to discipline and so on.

None of this changes the fact that iq has measurable effects on complex task solving.

Even so, like the indians that become chess champions, having a large repertoire of tools to address situations- ie having good memory- can be a substitute for raw intelligence.
Often these indians are morons with such good memory that they can deploy from a large set of prelearned schemas to reach solutions (copying), but then when given a problem they haven't learned a solution for, they are perplexed.

>>16703089
No one asked for your pseudoscientific theories you retard. Post evidence of iq making real, significant predictions or kill yourself.

>>16703099
I think I was pretty fair
Thankyou for admitting that you're a retard

>>16703101
So you can't post any evidence. Thanks for letting everyone know you're just a retarded racist fucktard.

>>16685291
Except it isn't remotely an empirical measure of pattern recognition at all. Therefore it is not adequate as an objective indicator of intelligence, this shit is like 100 years old and we've barely iterated on it. The truth is, we SHOULD have an infallible and empirical way to measure intelligence by now but we don't. I blame you fags for continuing to buy into this so much.

Astrology for men indeed.

>>16684599 (OP)
Someone far smarter and more capable than he denies the importance of IQ, saying it would make zero differnce if their child's IQ was 50 as opposed to 200 (hypothetically). It's so asinine it makes my blood boil, but it's the only retarded thing they think so I tolerate it.

>>16691848
Diddy blud never watched American Psycho

>>16703129
>opposed to 200
IQ worshippers are so fucking retarded they don't even understand their own retarded religion

>take two different IQ tests
>don't receive the same score

>take IQ test without sleeping for 48 hours
>receive lower score

>take IQ test in second language
>receive lower score

>take IQ test after traumatic event
>receive lower score

>take IQ test after studying IQ tests rigorously
>receive higher score

>>16684599 (OP)
Mentioning IQ for almost any reason is a red flag, and that includes making this thread.

>>16703106
You reek of reddit.

>>16703136
You, or anyone else itt that’s trying to shit on iq tests. What research have you done to inform your opinion? Surely if you are positive iq tests are bunk, you must know a lot about them right? Because if you don’t, your response should be more like “well I’m skeptical of the concept but I know almost nothing about these tests so I can’t have an informed opinion”. Second, if iq tests suck, name a better one. If you can’t, you admit it’s the best test we have. Btw I already know the answers to my questions, I mentioned the predictive abilities of iq tests earlier and not one person seemed to even know what those are to refute them. Anyone who’s studied tests in general would immediately know, nevermind iq tests.

>>16684599 (OP)
No is like using metric instead of royal, iq is a meassuring test designed by a quack

>casually bring up iq
>”YOU JUST WORSHIP IQ EHH YOU THINK YOU ARE SOOOO MUCH SMARTER AND BETTER EHHH???”
Every time

>>16684599 (OP)
My father has a high IQ and rejects the concept of IQ.

>>16704398
Your father is a high functioning retard.

Brilliant Chinese mathematicians have shrines to Mao in their bathrooms. You can have a high capacity and be an idiot.

>>16704383
>I mentioned the predictive abilities of iq tests earlier
And you failed to describe anything an IQ test can predict that I couldn't predict by talking to someone for a few minutes.

>>16703266
Why do we assign so much importance to a test that is fallible

>>16684599 (OP)
redflag that they are mentally ill/retarded yes.

>>16704720
NTA but I assume it's a large organization admin thing. The owner doesn't have time to do thousands of interviews. So you have retards in HR departments who need to hire smart people in other departments. A retard can't tell if a smart person is smart by talking to them but a retard can usually tell whether a number is bigger or smaller than another number.

>>16684599 (OP)
>denies the existence of IQ
How do you "deny the existence" of a thing whose definition is "a number derived from test results"? What you're probably thinking is whether or not the g factor is a true measure of intelligence. You can argue that it's indicative given its predictive power in education and job performance, but claiming that a statistical construct is literally intelligence is a bold fucking claim. Especially when you consider how, the farther you get from the mean, the less accurate it becomes. It is the most useful intelligence estimate we have, but it ultimately fails at properly quantizing intelligence in a way that lets you truly ascertain who's more or less intelligence after a certain point. 145 vs 155 will tell you very little.

>>16684599 (OP)
>more verbal questions were added to inflate womens scores
>iq test topics change overtime
>people can train for them by doing a bunch of them
>the score isn't absolute and the score of 100 is pegged to the global average iq

>>16703089
>indians that become chess champions
I hope you're not talking about Gukesh because Magnus specifically said that he's better than him at calculating/analyzing new positions. Magnus on the other has arguably the best memory in chess right now going by the challenge videos chesscom makes with GMs.

>>16684599 (OP)
Using red flags is a red flag, who'dve thought. Someone shows an indicator of something, you're going to stop talking to them instead of confirming that thing? I mean I'm not going to scold you for being a dick though.

IQ is significant but it's not everything. There are a lot of moving parts going on in your head. You could have a better hippocampus but a smaller weaker cerebellum, a solid prefrontal cortex every other part of your cerebral cortex kinda sucks. You could have a pretty sick brain in almost every way but your amygdala gets set off for whatever reason when you're taking an IQ test or you just happen to be too disinterested in it. You could also realize the inferences the test wants you to make are kind of subjective, there could've been multiple answers that seemed to be functional patterns that aren't contradictory. You could be more good at thinking about things over time and compounding your thoughts, this is what tends to make people self aware and capable of counterinintuitive logical analysis. You could have a lower spatial IQ but a higher general score across stuff like working memory. Being intelligent is an ever growing concept. Even among firm believers that your IQ as it's currently understood is the end all be all of intelligence, There's debate over whether IQ is accurate or even means anything over a high number like 130. And to top it all off, it's controversial research that incentivizes bias.

>>16684628
>BMI has no correlation with fatness

>>16686449
80iq confirmed, probably a leftie too
>>16686023
Even if we lived in a “right wing” centrered culture, IQ/intelligence would still be a taboo subject as nobody likes hearing about how they’re hamstringed by their genetics. But with the current socialist culture we have, being the lowest form of life on earth is deified. Tax the rich to feed the welfare queens. Theres more nuance but i cant be arsed to go into it.

>>16687509
He said
> There isn't a single person who is really smart, in any field, anywhere, who talks about their IQ.
I dont think he means “really smart person” as defined by their IQ; he means they’re proven smart by their excellence in their field, and go on to discuss intelligence and IQ.

>>16689697
Good enough for large groups; most people arent going to prepare for an IQ test to game the system.

>>16704751
They deny the biological variance IQ tests attempt to measure.

People cannot separate the test from the biological reality.

>>16684599 (OP)
Yes it is. It’s overwhelmingly basic. You’d have to be emotionally compromised to not agree with it. Humans don’t want to entertain the idea that some are “better” than others, even when that is itself an oversimplification. Humans are allowed to be distinct. Why assume they’re not?

>>16684599 (OP)
yes lol

>>16708217

>>16705275
What size groups are we talking about here? Like how many people in the world have ever even taken a real IQ test?

>>16703178
I think this is the real reason for IQ denialism. The people doing it aren't necessarily retarded, they're just very attuned to social hierarchies and how to climb them. Signaling belief in the validity of IQ doesn't help. These people just manage to convince themselves about these untruths instead of just cynically lying.

>>16684599 (OP)
>denies the existence of IQ
IQ is an abstraction and like all platonic forms, no, it doesn't exist. Anyone who doesn't deny the existence of IQ is a schizophrenic retard and that includes well over half of the posters in this thread.

>>16710310
Coping sadcat poster kek

You can take issue with the test, but you can’t take issue with what it’s attempting to measure.

I keep saying this but for some reason it’s upsetting so many. They can’t separate a test from reality?

IQ is easily testable if it’s based on speed or critical ability to think on the spot. It’s a correlation between reaction times. That’s the easiest kind of intelligence to test.

>>16712774
>I keep saying this but for some reason it’s upsetting so many.
Weird. The only people I ever see getting upset about IQ tests, bumping dead threads to vent their emotions again and again, starting new threads when many others already exist, and so on, are those who've invested a lot of time in researching the results of IQ tests and advocating that other people should share their interest. Where are you finding the opposite?

>>16684599 (OP)
MAJOR red flag, yes. Very big flag. Very red.

>>16684599 (OP)
>muh made up intelligence numbers

>>16685432
You did a PhD in physics? What are you, retarded? You did all that work just to end up at the same McDonald's job as you would have had before the degree?

>>16684599 (OP)
>If you don't believe in racist pseudo-science you are le dumb
Fuck off

>>16715798
>raising a dog as a human baby dons it with human intellect
>the ear size of red foxes and fennec foxes have nothing to do with the selection pressures of their environment
Blacks are dumber than whites.

>>16687509
These aren't comparable equivalents. Lifting weights and playing golf are more akin to education, not intelligence. An IQ test measures your predicted intellectual ability, basically what your born with. If you play sports or study frequently you will become better. If a young man is naturally very tall he has a predicted ability to excel at basketball.

>>16686023
>Something about IQ is just utterly embarrassing to smart people
Decades of massive buck breaking by normies, people don't like hearing that they're defective so they respond with aggression.
Also, people are aggressive towards any displays of talent even if no actual IQ measurements are involved.

>>16691642
their intelligence for what exactly? playing chess?

>>16715798
How is evolutionary variety a pseudo science? Are you retarded? That’s just fucking biology. Fucking idiot.

This is why IQ-deniers are so dumb. You cannot separate hating the test from the biological reality that is evolution.

>>16718534
>muh iq pseudoscience is reeaalll bcuz... evolution!
What a retarded fucking statement. You should be killed for eugenic purposes.

>>16718540
>believes in eugenics
>doesn’t believe in iq
Trollololol

>poltards: iq is real bcuz libruls believe variation stops at the brain or something!
>also poltards: noooo there is no variation in human sexes!! it stops there because... it just does ok?

>>16718549
dumb iqtard is too dumb to detect sarcasm

>>16718550
IQ is a trait. Sex is not. Do you know what a trait is?

Am honestly not interested in endless discussions of IQ. You know what is never discussed? The application of latent intellectual ability. Having a high IQ or latent intellectual ability, if that is what it truly succeeds in measuring, is completely useless if it is not applied.

Similarly, a deficiency in latent intellectual ability, if we can even understand what this means as we do not, is overcome by persistent effort. It is completely useless to be inherently intelligent if said intelligence is never applied.

You could have an extremely high IQ and never apply it in a disciplined manner. I do not think you need a genius level IQ to be a scientist, which is arguably one of the most intellectual demanding roles in human civilization. You do not even need literacy to survive, I have made a living doing unskilled labor. It is very physically difficult yet never demanded even literacy.

I believe that whatever gaps in latent intellectual ability exist can be overcome by sheer strenuous intellectual effort and time commitment, and that the development of Artificial Super Intelligence will surpass anything any human being can do. I believe the most intelligent way to develop an ASI is by the application of neuroevolution in genetic algorithms to build an ENN that evolves itself beyond the physical limits of the human mind.

>>16718571
Are you fucking retarded?

>>16718550
Except at the root there is no variation in sexes. It’s just gametes. One or the other.

Outliers aren’t the norm, and the development of men and women is even antagonistic. You can’t truly have or be both. It’s impossible. You always lean to one or the other.

It’s like pretending ‘bimodal’ isn’t ‘binary’, even though ‘bi’ is in the name.

>>16718589
>It’s just gametes. One or the other.
Why didn't biological variation reach the gametes you moron?

>>16718578

>I do not think you need a genius level IQ to be a scientist, which is arguably one of the most intellectually demanding roles in human civilization.

The most intellectually demanding fields in science are the hard sciences that deal with higher level math such as pure mathematics and theoretical physics. Field biologists, for example, do not need to deal with these sorts of concepts yet play an important role in science.

If it takes one man an hour to grap a concept and another man four hours to grasp the same concept, a 4x magnitude different in latent intellectual ability which the IQ models does not even account for, then it is entire possible for both to achieve the same level of understanding given sufficient time.

It is this application of time, a limited biological resource for human beings, that makes the difference. Yet even a 2x magnitude difference in latent intelligence according to the IQ model spans medical mental retardation and genius. Most fall between this, and the model itself is not a definitive measure of human intelligence according to neuroscientists which admit that we do not understand the nature of intelligence and consciousness. This veers into philosophy and remains a mystery, so to say we can reliably quantify intelligence is simply not true.

>>16718591
Because the human brain is a whole lot more than singular cells that dictate the multicellular lead up.

>>16718594
What does your babbling about brains have to do with my post?

>>16718583
No, are you?

>>16718608
So you are retarded.

>>16718591
Is this bait?

>>16718550
>>16718591
That’s not the same and you know it.

>>16718621
What's wrong iqtard? Having problems understanding the question?

>>16718622
>n-no!! stop demonstrating the fallacies in my argument!! u know ure wrong!!
Lol!

>>16718624
>>16718625
Don’t make me get Richard Dawkins on your ass.

>>16718632
*yawn* Your evasiveness already demonstrated your retardation well.

>>16685291
Actual retard. Monkey recognize enemies far faster than humans do (look up the memory test) yet we're smarter than them, how do you explain that?

>>16718676
humans dumber than monkeys. you think monkeys cry themselves to sleep every night musing over the futility of life before slitting their wrists?

>>16718591
I dont get what variation in gametes you’re suggesting that would prove your point that theres infinity sexes or something like that.
I get there will be something like sperm tail length variation, or ovum diameter variation. But how is this proving your point? I can only see a devolution into semantics.

I think you shouldn’t judge a person just based on their IQ. Yes, there is probably a correlation between how fast your brain can process things and IQ. But there are other factors you have to consider like emotional intelligence or soft character traits. I view people arguing about IQ to be pointless.

>>16685611
Lmfao, where do I begin nigga.
Patterns that are constituents of “g” within the g factor are confined by pattern recognition in matrix reasoning form not flowers idiot it’s testing spatial ability


Bees are programmed like automatons

>>16719210
bees actually do have some learning and puzzle-solving ability, more than you would expect from insects. But yeah, not intelligent to anywhere near a vertebrate level.

>>16684599 (OP)
I got infinite IQ on my own test. It is very real

Its made up
>the topics were made up
>you can train for them
>knowing the difference 2 words could just mean someone has a good memory or read more books
>Binet did not believe that his psychometric instruments could be used to measure a single, permanent, and inborn level of intelligence. Instead, he suggested that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with one number.
>Binet insisted that intelligence is complex in that it is influenced by many factors.
>He also believed IQ changes over time and can only be compared in children with similar backgrounds.

Knowing the quadratic formula makes you more effective at finding roots just as learning long division makes you more effective at division or learning memory mastery techniques can have a journalist become a memory champion.

Brains are all the same OKAY??? Stop questioning the science, chud.

>>16684599 (OP)
>hm I wonder what /sci/ is like. never been there
>visit
>its all race science and iq threads
ah. don't know why I expected something cool

>>16721894
Yeah!

>>16686394
being able to hold an opinion that goes against social norms depends on personality, not intelligence

Why is this board obsessed with IQ

>>16723991
they assume theirs is high. it makes them feel superior

>>16684599 (OP)
Intelligent people notice intelligence differences amongst people it’s quite apparent lol

>>16724037
Or maybe you just assume they assume their IQ to be high, since you hate this topic so much you have to project your own feelings on to the people who merely vouch for there being biological variety.

>low score: this is shit anyway it's not real
>good enough score: hmm...there might be something to this
>high score: this is extremely objective and real

>>16721930
/pol/turds have taken over this board around 5 years ago. Before that it was at least entertaining. Now most posters are genuine retards. Genuine retards aren't interesting.

>>16725427
/thread

Humans are an emotionally driven race.

>>16725427
why did my comment to this get deleted

>>16684599 (OP)
>If someone denies the existence of IQ, is that a red flag that they’re retarded?
the idea of "a way to measure intelligence" is at least a good way to learn a lot about other people based on their takes on the concept itself

most tests are absolute bs though

anyone that knows about IFF and XOR is guaranteed to score at least 130±10

>>16684599 (OP)
I find it irking that they can't put two and two together.

>>16684599 (OP)
one thing I've noticed is that in many ai companies attempts to make a truly general ai they've benchmarked it across a domain of tasks until they get to a certain threshold, then they do the same thing again making them superhuman in narrow domains a kinda of jagged intelligence. again we see this in chess grandmasters who can only play chess, savants who typically have one miraculous ability with many disabilities in return, and even solomon shrevsky who had fivefold synesthesia and remarkable memory abilities had trouble recognizing or remembering faces. people who have gone deep into math or sports seem to separate into specialized positions or subjects it doesn't seem like there is a general person best at everything even einstein while great imaginative abilities the daydreaming gave him the inability to drive or store daily monotonous survival information it wasn't what he cared about. all in all iq from my perspective is not a full encompassing measure of intelligence but an indirect correlation sensing test of it. people good across many subjects and mini tests/variables are good across all of them but it doesn't tell you anything apart from there brain efficiency/health. It seems that when people are actually marked as intelligent across history and such it has a lot to do with the work they produced instead and the feats they were able to accomplish in comparison to their peers. what many of the older/ established people had seen across many many years across generations of people and seen different in this one or group of people. what I'm saying here is that if you want to zone in on iq because you think it allows you to create some separation line between you and others or that it does some weird gattaca eugenics experiment you are sorely wrong. whether you breed the extremes of any beneficial trait you will still get the mean or far below it. you will still get disabled and sick people. people with genetic diseases.

>>16684599 (OP)
not only that not only will deletrious or disastrous/worse traits not be taken out of the gene pool they will reappear again due to recombination we don't reproduce by fission like bacteria we don't make exact copies of our selves. then if you were in a forest and needed to be guided through the tribes people of 80 iq would be far more valuable then the mensa graduate because there pictures of this is dangerous in aguidebook don't stand up to the experience of the tribes people to survive that environment with knowledge of all its paths and dangers. not only that there are many jobs and things that seem benign that even if you wanted to get help from the mensa/iq person they would be practically useless repairing your phone, doing plumbing or electrician work etc.. of course they have the potential to learn it but its to help you discard this full generality opinion you imagine intelligent people to have? in ways there are many many tradeoffs and we see this across many people we admire to be great. there is no perfect human being and there is no perfect test. it should tell you how special we are if the main tests/benchmarks have not evolved to be more difficult we aren't robots just human some good some bad. if you want eugenics due to iq you'd be the first eugenised.

>>16684599 (OP)
>If someone denies the existence of IQ, is that a red flag that they’re retarded?
Yes, but bragging about IQ is worse.

>>16684599 (OP)
Truke: Iq is a specialized knowledge test

>>16731104
Believing that all brains are different is indistinguishable from bragging about (the existence of) IQ.

>>16732023
IQ exists, IQ can be trained, you can turn the most drooling retard as mensa IQ "genius", what does that mean to you?