Thread 16784096

What is the hardcap for female IQ?

>>16784096 (OP)
There isn't one.

>>16784096 (OP)
lmao

Soft cap at 85, hard cap at 95

>>16784096 (OP)
around 115 seems about right. The most intelligent woman I ever knew was a solid midwit.

>>16784110
wasn't there an image showing that her git commits were just making it look pretty or something

>>16784436
so above 130 there are roughly twice as many men as women?

we are not tapping into the potential of male intelligence because young boys are absolutely feral in the classroom compared to girls. if we made school strict again we'd see a huge resurgence of innovation. problem is schools elevate female mediocrity and suppress male genius because boys are being allowed to outwit teachers and get away with being shits while girls complete their schoolwork

OPs pic is the perfect example of what level of intelligence all human experts are truly. There are no intellectuals apart from me on this planet. Fucking spastics on this board as well, all equal to Cult of Passion spam.

hardcap of female iq is whoever she mates with.

>>16784096 (OP)
daily reminder that IQ is normalized around 100 IQ by definition.

It DOES NOT measure intelligence
An Intelligence Quotient score is an approximation of one's position on the normalized Intelligence Quotient distribution curve.
There is no hard limit for how much a single statistic can deviate from the standard.

IQ measures IQ, get that through your heads.
And it adapts to your peers that you are being compared to, and the tests being used; it's not an absolute value.
It's like trying to compare wealth using different currencies in different regions across distant points in time. It's quite a different context.

I'd rather if my fellow humans had been gifted by chance and upbringing with intellectual curiosity and greater brainpower too, than be able to celebrate being ""superior"" in the context of vast slop. There are more ways to bring yourself up than by pushing others down
~
read:
Measure Theory
Central Limit Theory
human intelligence (undefined)

>>16784314
yes, but so what? she designed the algorithm, implementation was delegated to the codemonkeys

>>16784447
>OPs pic
I was just looking at name root meanings so here we go;
>"Yosha" has Sanskrit origins meaning "girl" or "young woman".
>In Hebrew origins it means "God saves" or "salvation".
I find it interesting that "young girl" would Evolve into "salvation/God saves" for Hebrew...mayhaps has something to do with Matrilinian descent.
>The surname "Iglesias" is Spanish and means "churches".

>all equal to Cult of Passion
Being the "Measure of Hue-Mankind"; All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

https://youtu.be/9sNCetw9kbk

>>16784096 (OP)
This is the weirdest /sci/ meme ever. Even ignoring historical accomplishments, surely most people in STEM have female classmates and professors that are definitely much much smarter than them.

If anything, there is no great black scientists or mathematicians.

>>16784096 (OP)
2.5-3× whatever the male hardcap is.
So, 212.5-255 or so.
Why?

>>16784516
No, every female on my courses is a fucking moron who can't do math (lecturers included)

>>16784587
Don’t go to mickey mouse university.

>>16784485
>It's like trying to compare wealth using different currencies in different regions across distant points in time. It's quite a different context.
economists do that all the time using the concept of purchasing power. stupid example.

>>16784589
NTA. I went to waterloo and uoft for undergrad and grad school and same story. Those schools are almost assuredly higher ranked and better than all but a few of the schools you have even heard of.

>>16784516
>This is the weirdest /sci/ meme ever.
Agreed. The smartest human I ever met was a young woman who could pick up any skill with ease. She knew history, poetry, calligraphy, picked up German in a month or two, in addition to doing a Physics postdoc. People like that are so far ahead you really wonder how it is possible.

There's no "hard cap", but their bell curve for PIQ has a much lower mean.

>>16784607
it's a /sci/ meme because at large women are simply not present at the highest levels. Exceptions exist and it's retarded to pull a midwit move and deny and reduce female accomplishement when it is real. Just as midwitted to look at an overwhelming trend of, lets say, asian women are short and then blog about how you know a 6' chinese woman and how could anyone be so dumb to think they are short. Reality is female achievment in science is feasible to catalog and count because it's so incredinly sparse to white european male achievement. Cope about it how you will.

>>16784101
>the Polgar sisters were homeschooled from the age of 3 to do nothing but excel at chess by their father, a chess teacher who was running a social experiment on his own children
>She is the only woman to be ranked in the world top 10 (and one of only three to make the top 100), the only woman to achieve a rating of over 2700, and the only woman to compete in the final stage of a World Chess Championship. [she finished last among 8, once]
And by the way, she's Ashkenazi, of course, like her fellow prodigy sisters.
Too bad Laszlo had no sons, it would have been funny to see how far that one would have gone.

>>16784314
she only did 2.3% of the fucking work... even Grok will confirm this:

>In summary, Bouman's "actual % of changes" is approximately 2.33% based on lines added, aligning with the figure you mentioned—but this is widely regarded as an incomplete measure. Her true impact, per collaborators like Chael, was far greater, enabling the black hole image through innovative algorithms. For deeper dives, see the repo's contributor graph or EHT papers (e.g., Bouman et al., ApJ Letters, 2016).

Why Grok feels the need to sugarcoat this cold hard fact with 'muh everyone gets a trophy bullshit'? who the fuck knows.

>>16784441
If you consider 1.839:1 to be roughly double, yes.

>>16784598
I did not deny that this occurs, only that these are not true objective comparisons insofar as such a thing can exist. The farther apart in time and space, the less meaning those statements have.
Of course Foreign Exchange markets make use of such conparisons and they are USEFUL which is more important than anything else.
That is different than for example: putting a 2025 USD value on Shaka Zulu's empire.. It gets the idea across but don't mistake it for anything other than an approximate relative comparison

>needless insult
>appeal to the experts
if economists jumped off a bridge, wouldye change yer fate too?

>>16784598
CPI wasn't invented until the rise of the Federal Reserve. Everything you think you know about economics is a jew trick. It is not science. It is a lie. Look at those big numbers while your countries are mass invaded and communists are killing your whole nation.GDP GDP GDP UP. Now cut off your penis if you're not a chud.

>>16784314
>an image showing that her
it's all the usual tricks from the destroy-western-civilization playbook

>>16784314
if I remember,
her contributions included (but were not limited to) updating files containing large amounts of raw data or some such in .json files.. of course GitHub or whatever will show a larger amount of lines of code atrributed to her if she's the one being assigned to do that under he credentials.
Compare that to someone who works on the core logic of the application and may have less raw lines of code across their git commits

Lines of Code is not a great metric for representating productivity or individual impact, especially having no further context as to was assigned to do what in the team effort, and if commits do accurately represent physical work done by a single person or if perhaps some credentials were overloaded and used by multiple people (it's even easy to do by mistake). Nor is there enough information here to assert that it was done with the consideration of "making her look good", and consider whether that should even matter in the case that she had a tiny but significant impact being publicly amplified by commenters like (You) and I

>>16784096 (OP)
There has not been a recorded case of a female cognitive proficiency equivalent to those found in James sidis or Gauss as early prodigies, has there?

>>16784096 (OP)
>What is the hardcap for female IQ?
90 on a good day, it seems to me.
And we must be nearly that stupid because we let them vote.

>>16784788
>we let them vote
Only for the last 100 years which begs the question how and why did male simps gain the upper hand for the first time in the long history of our species around 1920? Our male elders knew what a retarded idea it was to give women the right vote for the last 100,000 - 300,000 years; wtf changed a 100 years ago? What gave male simps an evolutionary advantage for the first time our species' existence?

>>16784797
One consequence of our problem-solving ability is that we have made it a LOT easier for retards to survive and thrive whereas they used to die out while still quite young.

>>16784721
Emmy noether and Marie curie

>>16784618
he planned to adopt an African child and coach him in chess to the same extent. now THAT would have been something to see.

IQ isnt an ico

>>16784443
There's zero incentives for boys k-12. Girls thrive on the head pats from adults and good report cards.

If you want to motivate boys you'd have to give them something real in exchange for grades.

Money. Study from home privileges instead of having to come in. Access to better after school jobs. An extra month of summer break.

Something that gets him dates and makes him powerful or wealthy relative to the other boys.

Not something that gets him shoved in a locker for "sucking up" to the teacher. Just giving a boy good grades is actually a punishment in some circumstances.

>>16784096 (OP)
IQ isn't accurate in general, but it's especially inaccurate at the tails, by it's own admission. Talking about "IQ hardcap" anything is nonsense

>>16784608
The covariance of g is undefined for group comparisons

>>16784800
antibiotics and haber-bosch process are primary causes?

op posting about iq on sci just outted himself as a layman

>>16784802
Whether they can be put forth as proportional in pure cognitive capacity to James sidis and Gauss is in reasonable doubt, the data is affirming of an assymetry in distribution between men and women, when in consideration of IQ where male deviation from the mean is substantially higher.

>>16784622
She did the most important 2.3% though.

>>16784652
> does this look like the LinkedIn profile of someone who made a huge breakthrough algo?
Yes, absolutely. Academics don’t make much use of LinkedIn and tend to have a cursory presence there. What a dumb fucking image.

>>16784988
>the data is affirming of an assymetry in distribution between men and women, when in consideration of IQ where male deviation from the mean is substantially higher
that's nonsense, see >>16784866

>>16784436
It's that simple. Males have more variance. Also arguably females are less likely to be autistic/obsessed enough to be great at chess. In combination, these factors make it very unlikely a female will be the greatest chess player at any time, or even top 10.

>>16785452
>males have more variance
it's not just that, males are simply smarter too. If they were only higher variance but otherwise equal, you'd see males having a significantly higher ratio in the low IQ categories, but even at the >70 and >80 level the ratio is a mere rounding error away from equality, meanwhile the ratio is already over 1.2 in favor of males above 110 IQ.
It's not counted but the data implies 572,494 males at or below 70 IQ vs 511,123 females, a ~61k difference, but there are ~731k more men than women above 130 IQ at the other end of the curve.

>>16785478
OK, sure, the mean is slightly different too.

>>16785452
>>16785478
>>16785492
How many times do you retards need to have it hammered in? IQ test issuers literally state "buyer beware, not valid for measuring groups, only individuals, and preferably individuals close to IQ 100"

>>16785657
Then, how come there are millions of IQ studies on groups? Are the tens of thousands of researchers all incorrect, but you're right?

>>16785025
how's the weather in tel aviv?

>>16784503
>designed the algorithm
Synthetic aperture has been a thing for a while (1951)
What part of the algorithm was new? The use case was new, I guess. Synchronizing observations across the globe was the hardest part. Maybe atmospheric noise/distortion was a new ingredient. The AI shit that tagged along was strange.
If nothing was really new computationally and it was just an implementation feat, shouldn't the implementors get more credit?

They got their woman in STEM and a black hole "picture" for the woke news so who cares.

>>16785677
>woman in STEM

No hard cap, just lesser variance. An IQ (extremely high or low) that shows in in one in a million men will show up in one in several million women
>>16784622
The mere fact you defer to an AI on this (or any) subject in any way (on /sci/ of all places) is embarrassing

>>16784485
>you can't use a measurement along with known information to approximate a comparison
What?

>>16785662
>there are millions of IQ studies on groups
there are literally not millions
>Are the tens of thousands of researchers all incorrect, but you're right?
There are literally not tens of thousands, and the few there are (Lynn, Herrnstein, Murray, etc), are driven by faith ("I just know niggers are stupid"), not legitimate scientific pursuit.

>>16785885
>"I just know niggers are stupid"
Have you ever read one of their books or studies? What are you even basing anything you're writing on?

>>16785892
"Adversity cases" (children affected by poverty, malnutrition, trauma, unstable schooling, bad parenting, etc.) are filtered out by IQ test designers, because if they are left in then statistically the IQ tests show that environmental circumstances overpower and drown out "g". So when it is stated that g accounts for 30-50% of IQ test score variance, then that comes with the caveat that it effectively holds for normal middle class people with normal upbringings and no adversity.

Group comparison IQ studies do NOT filter out adversity, although we already know that this renders any inferrence about "g" invalid. Then they quote aforementioned 30-50% that are contingent on filtering out adversity cases as estimate of the "hereditary component of intelligence", which effectively amounts to lying and fraud.

>>16784443
rote memorization simply sucks. simple as. as a teenager i realized reading books about discoveries, how they were made, what they meant at the time and why the scientists cared so much, gave me a super in-depth understanding of shit. this worked for math and everything, i still remember most of the book i read on dna to this day. yet facts are presented in dry lists and simply meant to be memorized by boys with much more interesting things to do.

not every class can be a book, but fuck, at least give more context, make it more interesting in some way.

>>16785796
It's useful, it has utility, and yes, it can be done. Just be aware that it is not the same thing as comparing physical quantities of something

it is a relative dynamic value that is highly sensitive to what it is being measured against, not something set it stone.
Bragging about having high IQ also means you are bragging about being measured against lower skilled peers

(I think (You) understand this though, considering you called it an approximation)

>>16785764
>is embarrassing
your use of fallacy on /sci is embarrassing.. learn how to debate like an intelligent adult you cretin.

>>16786009
>learn how to debate like an intelligent adult
rebut the claims being made then.
btw debates serve to persuade others, not to dissect truths. Although of course each human speaker and listener has their own personal canon for the meaning of words in their mind at each given moment.
The point being, I prefer to think of them as discussions..it leads to a less combative outlook and less antagonizing of others

(Im not the anon being replied to)

>>16786009
I'm not debating anything, I wasn't even who you were replying to. I was just saying that mentioning what an AI said like it meant anything was embarrassing, because it is.

>>16784101
E x p a n d e d f a c i a l p l a n e s

>>16784800
It's this
The environment became MUCH more confortable over the past couple of centuries.
The natural state is for half of all humans to die in infancy. This is true across races, cultures and time periods, except for a very recent period. The reader should ponder the implications.

>>16786048
The genetic fallacy occurs when someone dismisses information or conclusions based on their origin, source, or the method by which they were obtained, rather than evaluating the actual merit or accuracy of the information itself.

A closely related fallacy is ad hominem circumstantial, which attacks the circumstances, motives, or methods surrounding how someone arrived at their position rather than addressing the substance of their argument or evidence.

For example, dismissing github statistical data because it was derived using AI, or rejecting medical research because of how the study was designed, without actually examining whether the data itself is accurate or the methodology was sound.

The key characteristic is that the attack focuses on the "how" or "where" the information came from rather than engaging with the actual content, validity, or truth value of the data presented.

TLDR - you are bad faith cretin packing 2 fallacies into 1 trolling post

>>16786576
>The natural state is for half of all humans to die in infancy.

The Haber-Bosch process and antibiotics are primary causes?

>>16786624
>A closely related fallacy is ad hominem circumstantial
>...
>you are bad faith cretin

>dismissing github statistical data
Lines of Code count?
That is not a very good indicator of the amount of work done

anyway this is a good opportunity to practice letting go of negative emotions

>>16784110
Kek. Peak /sci

>>16786964
>Lines of Code count?
YES they count... and if you want to refute it then that burden of proof is on you. Also Grok was actually being super generous giving her 2.3%. When analyzed without cherry picking her contribution actually drops to 0.3% of the project 's GitHub commits.

Playing devil's advocate let's say you actually refute the % of commits are not a good contribution indicator with bullet proof logic (we'll be waiting on that). Where the hell is the proof that her breakthrough algorithm was something she alone created? Surely anyone creating something that novel would have copious documentation proving they created it.

and after you've done this due diligence let your brain simply do what it knows is correct... Trust your damn eyes, LOOK at her goofy, low-IQ, giddy-ass, girly picture >16784110, and remember you don't make the stereotypes; you just see them.

>There are more average girls than average boys
>dumbest guy is dumber than the dumbest girl
>smartest guy is smarter than the smartest girl
This is all you need to know

>>16784101
>>16784618
It seems like only yesterday they were winning their first grandmaster chess tournaments.
Oh wait, no female has ever won the grandmaster tournament.
Not one.
Ever.

>>16787607
Judit has won several tournaments.
https://2700chess.com/players/polgar_judit

>>16787808
Young Judit was cute. Is she Jewish?

>>16784609
>it's a /sci/ meme because at large women are simply not present at the highest levels.
At large /sci/ is simply not present at the highest levels. Medium levels either. We have /scg/ for people who just barely make it into the lowest level and then have meltdowns about not keeping up even there.

Really makes you think.

>>16784607
>picked up German in a month or two
No she didn't, unless by "picked up" you mean being able to understand and speak some very common phrases, with no ability to comfortably read complex sentences or a book in German.

>>16784096 (OP)
>nobody:
>poltard: TRANNIES

>>16784609
Sure but observing X, and inferring it's because of Y might still be a stretch. An equally feasible reason for X could, for example, be
>women are highly vulnerable during before and after pregnancy
>women are largely sidelined in warfare and leadership due to being "out" and needing protection for 20+ prime years (for the average 10-child mum of 50,000BCE)
>specialization escalates and women are specialized as mums and men as worker bees, soldiers and kings
>X (women are under-represented in Science)

Note how intelligence didnt need to be a factor and IQ didnt have to be a legit science (it isnt)

>>16784485
>IQ measures IQ, get that through your heads.
>BMI just measures BMI, I'm not fat!!!

>>16788142
>everyone can see we're in love, and the Love Meter confirmed it!

>>16784609
"highest level" is a meme generated from academia because almost all labor is interchangeable, and any idea worth its salt could be independently discovered by any number of people

>>16784485
shit bro sends me after he crashes out of college (it was his 3rd attempt)

>>16784485
and in addition to that, whatever IQ tests measures, apparently it peaks at 18