Thread 16767419

Doesn't that mean that intelligence is not genetically determined

>Why is childhood the targeted age range for IQ testing? I don't get it.
It's just putting 1 and 1 together. I thought you said you tested well.

>>16767419 (OP)
Talib is a midwit btw.

>Your height can be significantly stunted by poor nutrition during youth, doesn't that mean that height is not genetically determined
No. Because it is hereditary to a statistically very significant degree. See pic related, if intelligence was completely nurture and not hereditary that would mean that people of lower intelligence would have grown up in absurdly horrendous environments of nutritional deficiency / starvation which obviously isn't the case in wealthy countries where we still see the differences.

You can measure human intelligence with almost any test / achievement / work, however all of these are also affected by effort, study, and hard work. Intelligence tests are designed such that the effects of everything but intelligence are minimized but they cannot be completely eliminated.

I think that what a lot of people get wrong about intelligence is that they think that it is somehow difficult to measure, when in fact it is extremely easy to measure. Just look at any personal achievements that require intelligence and compare to other people and you can make a statistically very good guess at a persons intelligence.

>>16767419 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

>>16767419 (OP)
>my iq is over 170
These faggots have no idea how IQ tests work. Like, at fucking all.

IQ is a proxy for intelligence used for measurement purposes. Being able to cheese the score is not the same as being able to increase your intelligence.
That's not to say environment doesn't play a role in intelligence. Just that the argument here is dumb.

>>16767419 (OP)
I hate /sci/ just spamming IQ threads as much as the next guy, but it is a solid metric and Taleb is completely off base

>>16767419 (OP)
IQ proponents are gonna handwave with some statistics they claim "proves" IQ correlates to g.

But the real tell is that they keep the way their tests are constructed secret. That's a piece of pure knowledge and knowing it - they openly admit - renders the test invalid. But if there is one such piece of knowledge, then there can be many other such pieces of knowledge that also renders the test invalid.

This is an infinitely stronger finding than "look at my statistical findings r>0.3", and IQtards are just hoping no one will notice

>>16767473
You could try shooting yourself mid exam. I'm pretty sure that invalidates the test.

The limit you can raise your iq test results to is also dependent on your iq,
Who would it be easier to train to score a 120; a guy who normally scores 80 or another who normally scores 100?

>>16767468
>solid metric
Possibly as a HR process psychometric together with other tools. HR is nothing but heuristics and guesswork anyway.

But when IQ proponents delude themselves it's "measuring g" it's anything but solid.

>>16767473
>But the real tell is that they keep the way their tests are constructed secret.
spatial reasoning tests seem quite straightforward?

>>16767476
it must be hard to have zero legit response beyond seething

>>16767419 (OP)
No, it means that IQ teats are a scam

>>16767480
answer this>>16767478

>>16767485
>nooo, you can't just insultingly propose another method of invalidating the test after I nebulously and erroneously claimed that one manner of invalidation indicates others!
Sometimes you have to think beyond the seethe, anon. The "seethe" was humor in the guise of bait.
You're not projecting, are you? I would pretend to feel bad if you were...

>>16767483
The full blueprint of which rules, in what combinations, at what difficulty levels, in which order is kept proprietary and restricted. The scoring is ALSO kept secret, because, so the justification goes, otherwise test-takers might tailor their strategy to maximize their score.

>>16767490
Would be more persuasive if you also had a legit response, at some point

>>16767497
>you must have a legitimate response to my invalid arguments
No I don't. You don't even acknowledge the primary purpose of IQ testing.

>>16767496
>The scoring is ALSO kept secret
source?

>>16767500
Sounds like I've been very rude. Please go on, explain how..

>>16767502
It's well known, but ok
>“A lot of proprietary tests don’t go into a lot of detail about their scoring because that’s something they’ve copywritten,” Elizabeth Dworak, Ph.D., research assistant professor of medical social sciences at Northwestern University, tells Popular Mechanics. Some current IQ tests include the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, and the Brief Cognitive Status Exam among others.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a43862561/why-iq-testing-is-biased
Also relevant: https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/9780935302356.pdf
Section 6.7

>>16767473
Do they correlate?
>but what about muh secrets
I asked, DO THEY CORRELATE?

>>16767514
>generalmechanics
>Reliance on IQ tests can lead to race and class discrimination, but these intelligence quotient measurements are still routinely used to determine people’s educational opportunities. Some psychologists who study IQ acknowledge that the tests are not perfect, and our models of intelligence could be improved
>A new model for intelligence measurement might involve promoting people who make decisions that better their communities.
>Sternberg says current IQ tests are narrow and should be replaced with more socially responsible measures. “They don’t measure creative thinking. They don’t measure emotional maturity. They don’t measure emotional intelligence. They don’t measure musical or kinesthetic skills. They don’t measure practical thinking or common sense.

>this objective measure of reality hurts my feelings so we need to replace it with pseudoscientific bullshit so everyone gets an equally high score and it helps dem communities

>>16767419 (OP)
Taleb has spent years crying about IQ tests. Literally just look it up, this guy is not a good source on this subject.

>>16767468
I took a IQ test online and it was all pattern recognition visual puzzles bs, I find it hard to believe that stuff is a ''solid metric'' or a proxy for intelligence. Pattern recognition in a bunch of noisy visual puzzles = human intelligence. C'mon...

>>16767419 (OP)
If you play chess your short term memory will noticeably improve too. The brain is more flexible than anybody thinks.

>>16767550
That doesnt have anything to do with what we were talking about...

>>16767478
This isnt typically tested. It should be easy enough to test: just explain how the test works, give people ample study material, pay them to succeed, check results.

But typically IQ testing agencies resist doing that: they keep test mechanics confidential and instead they use statistical methods to try to show correlation to real world outcomes and apply statistical models to that to come to the conclusion that tests correlate with g with some r=x. It's all a huge scam.

>>16767551
Always thought Taleb was a huge faggot, my respect for him just went up a notch

>>16767588
surely some uni must have done a study like it though?

>people defending IQ tests and psychologists
>in the """Science & Math""" board
>even though the OP literally explains how to game IQ tests
lmao

>>16767602
>>people defending IQ tests and psychologists
psychologists are scum drug pushers but IQ is psychometrics.

>>16767602
>board full of people obsessed with intelligence
>made up metric to "prove" how intelligent you are
IQ tests are /sci/core

>>16767606
How do you measure a psyche?

>>16767593
Surely. You should be able to find it!

>>16767419 (OP)
If the point of this thread is that IQ tests are written and administered by retards, that's actually an interesting observation and true. Taleb had a really, really bad take on covid, so bad that you should never trust him about anything ever again, but it's a true and interesting observation.

>>16767615
>>board full of people obsessed with intelligence
/pol/tards and other tourists do not belong here

>>16767632
>If the point of this thread is that IQ tests are written and administered by retards
that's not what I got from the OP. read the fucking image. the point is that they basically target a set of skills that some people might be able to train for.

>>16767650
>Given that those designing IQ tests aren't geniuses,
And the rest is about recycling group actions in a way that any 100 IQ bureaucrat could do.

>>16767419 (OP)
you are a disgusting retarded piece of shit

>>16767659
He is but this one tweet is true and interesting. If a test is written and administered by retards, how can it predict nonretards?

>>16767419 (OP)
>If you exercise and eat a healthy diet and age more gracefully does that mean ageing is not genetically determined
based retard

>>16767677
Go back to India, we don't want you here.

>>16767677
That's not the same thing at all, you seem to be the based retard here

>>16767654
>learning to spot classes of patterns that every engineer out there is taught about = you're a genius
yeah, ok

>>16767679
>>16767686
cringe retards

>>16767756
It's the opposite of that.

>>16767761
Literally go back to India. No one cares what you have to say.

>>16767787
sure, but then, how do you know which causes which? that's the fucking problem. you can still train a retard to learn to find patterns. that won't stop them from being retarded, but might help them get better scores in tests

>>16767797
The interesting part is that a retard can't design a test that predicts nonretards.

>>16767800
ok, I think I'm starting to get your point, but this shit is supposed to determine if you are intelligent. why not just assume that it is practically impossible to do it with a single test? and what is intelligence anyway?

People will argue to death how trainable IQ is, but then refuse to actually prove it in standarized testing. Mensa only requires 130 to join, the test is cheap as shit. Prove it.

>>16767802
Why assume that a test could do that? All a test can do is assume a formula and ask you to fill in the blanks.

>>16767803
>Mensa
Literally. Go. Back. To. India. No. One. Cares.

>>16767419 (OP)
Many results in psychology are unreliable when the test subject is educated on those psychological findings.

>>16767816
Psychology isn't something that has results.

>>16767816
Which kind of proves that they're within the realm of things that are learnt

>>16767822
Sure, psychology studies things that are learnt, not things that aren't.

>>16767419 (OP)
>If you can train and get better at IQ tests
But can you?

For everyone that doesn't understand:
Metric for identifying outliers, hence the sigma evaluation.
Additionally...
>If I pretend to not understand IQ tests, people will believe me when I tell them I'm really, really smart
>If I act stupid, I can scam people into believing I'm smart

>>16767468
IQ tests has been /sci/'s main driver since forever.

>>16767419 (OP)
I recently found out I'm a 115 IQ midwit and it's just another nail in the blackpill coffin.

>>16767419 (OP)

Ok, then prove it. :)

Imma game dat IQ test aaiiiiight!

This is like when Kanye posted his 80-something IQ and was bragging about how "high" it was.

>>16767419 (OP)
IQ is genetic and largely stable over time. Sure, you can abuse someone and make their IQ go down, but there is no meaningful way to bring it up and keep it there, in the same way you can't eat your way to being taller. At a certain point, your genetics max out, and no amount of effort is going to change that.

This is why we use non-verbal tests for animals. They're the most pure forms of "reasoning" and "problem solving" a critter can perform.

This is also why schools have "Gifted Programs" that find "bright"(naturally high IQ) kids and give them special classes with way less bullshit.

Same as finding athletic talent at a young age. All coaches know you're either born with "it", or you're not. They can refine "it", but they can't created "it" out of thin air. If they could, they would.

>>16767419 (OP)
it means performance on IQ tests isn't genetically determined, which is obviously true.

>>16768403
>there is no meaningful way to bring it up and keep it there
IQ test organisations admit that there is, though

>>16768479
You can bring IQ stores up but not IQ.
Abusing the test is just that, abusing.

>>16768958
*scores

>>16768958
IQ is literally a score. If you bring up the score, you've brought up the IQ per se.

>>16768958
IQ Score is supposed to correlate to g (general intelligence) which is supposedly correlated to A (hereditary component)

But the proof for both is pretty shoddy

>>16767822
>proves that they're within the realm of things that are learnt
Partially. Always caveat.
I'd say it is closer to "default settings" that most people don't know exist, don't know can be changed, or don't try to change until they see how/that they can be used for/against them.

I do not think intelligence is hereditary but the ability to commit mental effort to acquire intelligence absolutely is. some people just can't fucking do it. see: those kids you remember from English class who would rather die than attempt to answer the question "but why didn't you like it?" with a more complete response than "I dunno I just didn't!"

>>16769050
>Partially
Proof? That's a strong claim.

The scaling law of LLMs shows that doubling the power of the "hardware" (model size etc) of an LLM yields only +5% performance improvement.

I think this actually is a big development that hugely undercuts the hypothesis that A is a major component of g for neurotypicals.

Doubling the "size of the brain" for the closest analogy of a brain that we have yields just the equivalent to 5% less wrong answers on an IQ test. That strongly implies that training, not hardware is the main factor of g variance.

ChatGPT would count as a superhuman genius as a human, and has a vastly smaller "brain" than a human. But it can train orders of magnitude faster.

>>16769101
No, it wouldn't.

>>16769124
Furthermore, it is known that IQ test scores fall for depressed people and anxious people. Just a couple of examples. But IQ proponents solve this problem by saying that it's just the "test scores that fall but IQ hasnt really changed".

How do they know? Well they just do. Are there any other test results that we should discard? Is there an objective measure for when an IQ test is valid and when it isnt? No

>>16767473
>>16767535
>r>0.3
It really just comes down to what Chudjak has been saying all along:
Psychology is not a Real Science

>>16767478
IQ is a seriously outdated metric.
If you release a new version of ChatGPT, does that constitute "training" or is the new version simply more "intelligent"?
Here's your Einstein IQ btw.

>>16767419 (OP)
>Doesn't that mean that intelligence is not genetically determined
No it means IQ is not a reliable metric for intelligence

>>16767419 (OP)
lmfao
let me answer this eloquently since I've been on a rampage of incoherent syntactically errored bullshit. Taleb doesnt know anything about IQ all psychometric data is kept public, ill give you an example sample any faggots on the street in a high income neighborhood youll soon realize barely any of them are even 100 FSIQ. why? because intelligent people want a masters or PhD to contribute 85-94 FSIQ faggots want money through jeeting the system. Taleb doesnt understand pattern recognition being "g" I put it in quotes because I need to differentiate the variable within the nomenclature of this sentence. Taleb claims to be 130 FSIQ, this is a complete lie anyone in the scientific and psychometric community that is satanic knows this is absolute bullshit since stephen hawking induced ALS to make his FSIQ 111-112 to make discoveries in physics. If you want to contribute you need a FSIQ of at least 110 (no im not lying nigga) all you 95-109 FSIQ niggas at ivys are wasting time

>>16771021
if iq tests didnt measure shit why does PRI have a near linear g loading? fucking retarded "phonecian" lmao

>>16767419 (OP)
Taleb might be the only case of 90 IQ person thinking he is 150 IQ

>>16769240
No, it means if you violate the conditions of a test, the test becomes invalid.

>>16771024
What is PRI?

>>16767419 (OP)
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm reading an article and thought this was interesting:
>As it evolved, IQ test construction came increasingly to mirror Spearman’s vision rather than Binet’s. Binet and Simon had famously declared that “one might almost say, ‘it matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous’” (1926: 329). Later IQ test constructors disagreed. Instead of continuing to test as many disparate mental abilities as possible, IQ tests were winnowed over the course of the 20th century to test for an ever more specific handful of abilities. In particular, the IQ tests, subtests, and test items that remain in circulation are those that correlate most strongly with each other (Block and Dworkin 1974). As Terman himself readily disclosed, during the iterative process of test construction “tests that had low correlation with the total were dropped even though they were satisfactory in other respects” (Terman & Merrill 1960: 33). In other words, psychologists consciously altered IQ tests to focus more precisely—and accordingly more narrowly—on a particular, highly positively intercorrelated constellation of capacities.

>>16773235
>As Richard Nisbett (2021: 198) puts it: “IQ tests do a good job of measuring people’s ability to solve problems that someone else poses for them, which generally have little intrinsic interest,
which are often quite abstract, and for which there is a single right answer” and (I would add) a single available route to finding that answer. Test items (and whole subtests) that don’t fit this
description have been culled from IQ tests over the decades because they turn out not to correlate highly with the test items that do fit the description. IQ testmakers have described this
winnowing as a process of making IQ tests purer measures of general intelligence (conceived of in a more or less Spearmanian way), principally by rendering them “culture free” or “culture fair” (Cattell & Cattell 1973). And they’ve claimed success in this endeavor, since IQ subtests and test items now correlate even more strongly with each other than ever before: supposed proof that they’re more precisely measuring g—general intelligence—as opposed to specific culturally bound abilities.

>>16773237
>This is a bad inference. Throwing out test items that are not highly correlated with the rest of the test has inevitably made the intercorrelations among the remaining test items higher on average. As a result of this rigorous scientific process, streamlined IQ tests such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices are homing in on a particular set of abilities to solve abstract puzzles with single right answers in scholastic (or quasi-scholastic) settings. They are homing in on a real pattern: the one Spearman labeled g. That pattern undoubtedly exists; psychometricians have discovered truths about the relationships between the relevant mental abilities. So, the concept of IQ does refer to a real mental phenomenon (which, in line with my second thesis, scientific psychology has introduced into folk psychological taxonomies via the winnowing and popularization of psychometric tests). However, as per my first thesis, the reality of g doesn’t guarantee that talking about IQ is the best way to talk about (general) intelligence. After all, Spearman’s label is a bit of a misnomer: the real pattern detected by IQ tests is an interesting constellation of analytical abilities which is perfectly worth of study, but it is not nearly as general as the abstract capacity for schoolwork that Binet set out to measure, much less the all-purpose mental energy that Spearman set out to measure. The g-factor is modestly correlated with measures of creativity, perspective, and judgment, and uncorrelated with measures of prudence, social intelligence, and self-regulation (Kretzschmar et al. 2022). And as Keith Stanovich (2009) has documented, it is only modestly correlated with most measures of rationality.

>>16773240
[skipping a bit]
>IQ also strongly correlates with more specific culturally valued outcomes: MIT reinstated their SAT/ACT requirement after the COVID-19 pandemic because data about applicants’ scores “significantly improved” their admissions office’s “ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT” in particular (Schmill 2022). Here’s the rub: it’s not an accident that the g-factor reliably predicts success, at MIT or on the job market in post-industrial nations. IQ tests, subtests, and test items have historically been winnowed based on their correlations with measures of success in life, in addition to their correlations with each other. As Ned Block and Gerald Dworkin report, “the history of IQ testing right up to the present is littered with the corpses of tests which were dropped because they failed to correlate sufficiently with measures of success (e.g. the Cattell-Wisler tests and the Davis-Eels games)” (1974: 374). IQ tests have thus been refined, not to home in on any old constellation of intellectual abilities, but to home in on a particular constellation of analytical abilities that reliably predicts success at prestigious universities and white-collar jobs.

>>16773241
>For another thing, most evidence of the positive correlations between IQ and success was collected after IQ tests had been seamlessly incorporated into the hierarchical structure of society. (Gottfredson cites research from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.) Want to take challenging classes in middle school? You’d better get marked “gifted and talented” thanks to your performance on Raven’s Progressive Matrices in elementary school. Want to get into MIT? You’d better have a top-notch SAT score. Want to land a white-collar job in Japan? You’d better ace the IQ test required by most application processes. In short, there are very strong incentives to get good at taking IQ tests in post-industrial societies, where the institutions that largely dictate individuals’ success select for the narrow variety of analytic intelligence measured by IQ tests, and indeed often explicitly select for high IQ scores themselves. The same ambitious folks who are driven by the desire to “succeed in life” in these societies—or to maximize their children’s chances of making a so-called “good living”—are therefore also very likely to strive to cultivate the specific set of skills required to perform as well as possible on IQ tests.

Source is: "On IQ and other sciencey descriptions of minds" - Devin Sanchez Curr

Well, /sci/sisters, what do we think?

>>16767419 (OP)
>without becoming suddenly more "intelligent"
How does he know without testing it somehow

>>16773235
"Intelligence" is what you might call a folk term, like "love". It has no clearly defined scientific meaning. It has a lot of different meaning in common language. Fundamentally it's another taxonomy of behavior. "Intelligent" is showing the most prudent behavior for the situation or at least knowing what the prudent behavior is.

When intelligence testing got off the ground with Binet, back then they were testing all kinds of questions you might imagine as signs of intelligence.

But there was always a camp who believed that "intelligence" is innate, for various reasons. That camp were embarrassed by the fact that early intelligence test didnt show any sign of anything that could be passed off as innate ability. So they sifted through all the test questions and results in pursuit of questions where the results most lent themselves to a hereditary argument, using factor analysis.

What they found was timed ravens matrices. So they made up a term "fluid intelligence" and claimed ravens matrices measure that, and that it's expandable to problem solving and creativity in general.

All other measures of intelligence went out the window. So the IQ tests that exist today are basically the result of hereditarians cooking the books and designing tests that only or mostly (depending on the test) asks question that give them maximum support for arguing heritability.

A side effect is that "intelligence" now is defined to peak at around age 18, make of it what you will.

Even so, after all those efforts, redefining intelligence to only cover the area with most promise for inheritence, even the claim that Ravens Matrix ability and "fluid intelligence" are from genetics is on shaky ground, because the well known Flynn effect actually applies specifically to "fluid intelligence" testing.

>>16773275
>Even so, after all those efforts, redefining intelligence to only cover the area with most promise for inheritence, even the claim that Ravens Matrix ability and "fluid intelligence" are from genetics is on shaky ground, because the well known Flynn effect actually applies specifically to "fluid intelligence" testing.
Well, obviously the answer is that hereditary elements are being continuously affected on a population scale by... erhm... the... the somethingamajig erhm yeah.

>>16773229
perceptual reasoning index, its the entireity of gf which is fluid