What is the consensus about IQ as a cognitive metric?
I can't take the it's meaningless/socially constructed as an argument seriously, it's like fat ladies trying to deny beauty, or a less athletic person trying to cop out of shortcomings.
Refrain from discussing ethnic group differences as they are presently extraneous.
It's nonsense.
If you can improve iq through training(and they've done this), then it's bullshit
It is a natural law that iq is an infallabke as a measure of intelligence and if you have a high iq your soul and mind are proven to be worth more
>>395458
/sci/ just circlejerks, as this is a social science item it is entirely more in line with the demographic
>>395465
psychometrics is more of a traditional science than a social science, anon
>>395454
but you then just obscuring the real score. the entire oh you can just learn it before defeats the whole purpose of testing general learning ability which is what it measures.
>>395454
Training for the test? Because otherwise you're saying that intelligence cannot be improved.
>>395485
How do you know "intelligence" as a baseline for human thought exists at all?
>>395465
IQ correlates with income, prestige of the job attained, how well the job is done and how long you'll live. Source is "Psychology: The Science of mind and behaviour" 4th edition by Passer and Smith, a modern introduction book on the subject.
This isn't really /sci/, however.
>>395458
>not trying to dismiss an iq thread
>>395495
intelligence in the context of IQ is very well defined, your post-structural word games aren't go to fly here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29
>>395495
Who claimed it was a baseline for human thought?
>>395523
but that isn't the case. It's the most empirical thing social science came up with and that is exactly why it is so anathema.
>>395527
>most empirical thing
How so? Because they give tests?
>>395495
Do you think problems just get solved at random?
>>395546
yes because it is replicable and produces reliable results. Unfalsifiable feels shit that revels in these departments are not science in anything but name if this threshold is not met.
>>395551
No
Libruls h8 it cos it proves nigs r dum
>>395455
>infallabke
>soul
Do you by any chance work in the food service industry or at an assembly plant?
is the book still the unstumped gold standard on the subject or did something better come along?
>>395574
More like autists love it because they want to suck themselves off.
>>395784
and normies love denying and shitting on it because it suggests most people are indeed normies and not special snowflakes
>>395436
Almost silly to try and quantify something abstract and complex like the human intellect, it's a fun puzzle game though.
>>395869
it's also silly to deny decades of research over your ideological biases as well. Tell me what the right side of history is like
>>395702
There are some criticisms of it
>William J. Matthews and Stephen Jay Gould (1994) find that the authors of The Bell Curve make four basic assumptions about intelligence:
Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
According to Gould, if any of these premises are false, then the entire argument disintegrates (Gould, 1994).[10]
Similarly, anthropologist C. Loring Brace suggests that The Bell Curve made six basic assumptions at the start and argued that there are faults in every one of these assumptions:[11]
>Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
IQ tests can measure this accurately.
IQ tests are not biased with regard to race, ethnic group or socioeconomic status.
>>395574
Liberals hate it cause it "proves" blacks are dumber than whites. Conservatives hate it cause it "proves" Asians are smarter than whites. No wait, actually, the Asians cheated! On IQ tests! Yeah! Whites are still #1 baby lmao
>>395882
Don't get me wrong I think it definitely shows who's better at solving picture puzzle games, I just don't think it has any implications to real life problems and decisions.
>>395436
iq iz racuuust
>>395890
You ever consider the opposite? That maybe conservatives love it too much because it "proves" things they want to hear?
>>395899
>gould
>pls
Make an actual point pls
>>395941
you're not even being a proper do gooder to your pets by denying what the evidence clearly suggests.Affirmative action is based on false assumptions and its prescriptions don't really advantage anyone except womyns.
>>395436
>attorney
>chemist
>executive
What kind of retarded ass graph is this?
>gathers, infers own information
This is literally a basic skill required in writing college papers.
>implying attorneys or executives do any of this
>>395979
yes there is noise but that doesn't change the evident signal, while the results may vary they ultimately converge and prove reliable.
>>395986
Never said otherwise. Just that the notion that the g factor is an immutable variable is wrong.
>>395954
>all these weird assumptions about me that aren't remotely correct
Jesus Christ dude this is borderline word salad. Either complete your transformation into insanity in a hole somewhere away, preferably in /pol/, or get help because you're in way too deep.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
/thread
now stop shit posting with your /pol/ agendas OP
>>395948
Gould is a hack who faked his results in his major work "the mismeasure of man". He was an open Marxist.
>>396006
take your tumblr agenda elsewhere
>>396006
Jesus, what a bunch of unscientific balderdash. The author clearly has no idea what IQ is. This line takes the cake :
"The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.
No one component, or IQ, explained everything. "
The fuck is he implying? IQ tests are highly g loaded and explicitly test memory, reasoning and verbal....
>>396030
His ideas are false. He is the equivalent of a flat earther. He denies plethora of proof showing the existence of g.
It's hard to dissociate his politics with his work because his work is inherently political. It's all the more important that he was caught faking data to suit his political agenda.
As for the other article, see my post above.
>>396030
mismeasure of man was the work used as a common criticism of the bell curve. It's ideological charged and its scientific content is a forgery. It was panned by the community of experts. He's an equalitarian and an evolution popularizer AT THE SAME TIME.
>>395436
Left wing lunatics deny IQ because it conflicts with their egalitarian fairy tales. IQ scores are mostly heritable and IQ is correlated with success so it kinda puts their Marxist communist wet dreams down in the ground so they find any excuse to deny it.
>>396006
>IQ tests are flawed and don't mean anything
>but the cognitive tests used in the study are perfectly valid
>>396043
How exactly? It can be heritable, that doesnt mean it's caused by genes.
>>396062
go away lamarck
>>396062
The intrinsic nature of human cognitive development would tell me a lot of it is caused by genes
How did humans ever evolve higher sentience in the first place? It is a fundamental truth that enables our existence as higher order species.
Your only gripe at this point can be severity of the degree of genetic influence, and anyone who can make basic observations can see that some people are simply not cut from the same cloth.
the iq test is a fucking joke
if we used a 100 year old psychology test with no quantitative backing for anything people couldn't use jealously-related ad-hominems on it would deservingly be the laughing stock of the scientific community
>>396067
What are the assumptions we are talking about?
The tests are useful and they are revised every couple of years to stay up to date.
>>396067
Their "points" is that the bell curve's thesis is based on a few assumptions, such as the existence of g and the heritability of g. They're correct.
Notice that they don't actually attack those assumptions. Want to know why? Because those assumptions are supported by statistical data.
>>396029
Muh g
Here is a video of a literal chimp doing better than you at a memory test to put things into perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1-UhEFO8TY
I bet you also don't consider the well observed fact that children are better than anyone else at language acquisition, something not accounted for in IQ tests, to be pertinent to muh precious uncriticizable g either.
>>396081
Are you literally denying g?
>>396085
I am denying the person I am responding to's denial of the link by simply saying "nuh uh, but g. g!". I am denying the implied assertions that intelligence is not very multifaceted. I am denying that standardized tests, particularly as evidenced by the formal and fetishized IQ test, have an absolute for sure coverage of all aspects of what we would call intelligence. As such I am denying that this g, as I understand it, is an open and shut case for pure equivalence to all intelligence that matters that doesn't need rational defending to challenge beyond denials and name dropping.
>>396150
so you're playing keep away with goalposts. gotcha.
>>396169
Tough talk from someone that can't even use a shift key.
>>395436
It's one of many things in the social sciences that gets bastardised to be fair.
>>396174
The mere fact this HAS to be a point of contention probably suggests you have doubts raised by the collective evidence presented and leave no recourse but low hanging fruit. How's that like?
>>396169
I don't believe in intelligence but you're a moron
>>396333
With repeating digits this must not be false
>>395436
>cognitive
… answer contained in question.
>meaningless/socially constructed
These terms are not equivalent. Pedophilia is a social construct. We cannot help but view adult/child sexual relationships through the lens of this social construct. The social construct is highly meaningful.
Saying something is a "social construct" is to say that it actually exists in the social relations that occur PRIOR to individual cognition and that all of our relationships are conditioned through the "social construct," whether we will or no, whether we agree or reject.
For fucks sake, up your game cunt. You look like one of those americans with a shit stain running down the centre of their trouser arse.
>>396070
Underrated post
>>395436
>it's like fat ladies trying to deny beauty
It's not anything like this at all and anyone who actually believes it is is a huge moron desu
>>398520
believe that denial of IQ research and evidence originates primarily from ego, emotional and ideological conflicts than anything reasonable?
tall poppy syndrome is a bitch
I'm curious, does it increase with age? Because I am 18 now and about 2 years ago I took two tests and came out with 128
>>395436
> implying that psychology isn't totally subjective and about as scientific as reading tea leaves or sheep entrails
>>399019
maybe the rest of field
>>399033
>Stevie "Evolutionary Psychology is Totally Legit" Pinker
>>396150
That is a thing that many people want to be true. Howard Gardner became famous for his multiple intelligences theory. But data does not support this idea.
>>398941
>I'm curious, does it increase with age? Because I am 18 now and about 2 years ago I took two tests and came out with 128
Your IQ is based on how you compare with others on your cohort.
The average is 100. If you are 2 standard deviations above the mean, your IQ is 130. And so on. If you have an IQ of 128, that means you are smarter than 96,9% of the people and dumber than 3,1%.
Btw, that's why when people say they have IQs higher than 200, they are likely lying.
Take a look here:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
Someone with an IQ of 200 would be 1 in 76,017,176,740.
Someone with an IQ of 202 would be 1 in 190,057,377,928.
The number of human beings that has ever existed is approximately 100,000,000,000.
So, basically, to have an IQ of 200, you have to be the smartest human being that has ever existed. You have to beat Gauss, Einstein, Von Neumann, Aristotle, etc. Basically, only one person has ever had that IQ. And it is likely Gauss or Von Neumann.
>>395436
>What is the consensus on X
is this the new "now that the dust has settled"?
