Arthur Jensen noted how measuring a trait indirectly can often lead to misleading conclusions. He compared it to measuring a person’s height by measuring the height of their shadow. The correlation between actual height and shadow height could be extremely strong under controlled conditions, but when the position of the sun moves, the measurements become meaningless.
I think giving someone an official IQ test like the Wechsler, is somewhat analogous to measuring their height directly on a stadiometer, while giving someone the SAT is like measuring height from one’s shadow. Because you’re not directly observing how fast one can learn like you do on many Wechsler subtests, you’re indirectly inferring it from how much they know.
Of course shadow measurements can be extremely accurate. If everyone is measured at the same time of day, shadow height will correlate near perfectly with actual height, and when everyone takes the SAT with a similar academic background, the SAT correlates near perfectly with general intelligence (the g factor) as found in a sample from the University omTexas at San Antonio.
.However in America, there’s a strong class divide, so you have the upper class, who studies AP algebra, geometry, calculus and Shakespeare, and then you have the lower class, who attends working class schools and is dissuaded from going to college at all. The lower class tend not to even take the SAT, but when they do, they tend to score below their genetic potential. For example Bill Cosby had an IQ equivalent around 80 on the SAT despite being very intelligent on an official IQ test and known for his comic wit. Other quick comic minds from working class backgrounds who underperformed on the SAT include Rosie O’Donnell and Howard Stern.
A good analogy would be the upper class has their shadow height measured in the morning where shadows are quite long. The lower class has their shadow height measured in the afternoon, when shadow height is quite short. Now within each class, shadow height may correlate near perfectly with stadiometer height, just as within each class, the SAT may correlate near perfectly with official IQ. But when the ENTIRE population is aggregated, the correlation between shadow height and stadiometer height plummets because of the class inequality, just like the correlation between SATs and official IQ scores plummet.
This explains why people who are 46 IQ points above the U.S. mean on the new SAT regress to only 21 IQ points above the U.S. mean on the Raven IQ test, suggesting the new SAT correlates 21/46 = 0.46 with the Raven in the general U.S. population. Arthur Jensen noted that the correlation between two tests is a product of their factor loadings, so assuming the only factor the SAT and Raven share is g, then dividing their 0.46 correlation by the 0.68 g loading of the Raven tells us the SAT also has a g loading of 0.68, or roughly 0.7 if you like round numbers.
A g loading of 0.7 is not low, and tells us the SAT is a reasonable proxy for g in the general U.S. population, but it’s nowhere near the 0.9 g loading the SAT enjoys in more socioeconomically homogenous subsets of America such as students at the University of Texas at San Antonio. This is because the general U.S. population is analogous to people having their shadow heights measured at different times of day, while the students at a given local university are analogous to students all having their shadow height measured at the same time of day, thus maximizing the correlation between shadow height and real height.
Pumpkin Person 
study#…
1. frey & detterman disagree with you, because you’re wrong and they’re right.
2. there is no info on the SAT scores of the students in the harvard study. you just assume they’re representative of harvard’s scores TODAY. at the time of the study harvard didn’t disclose the SATs of its students and the students may not have been representative of harvard undergraduates peepee-tard. therefore the study is meaningless.
3. the third study i can’t look at. it’s behind a pay wall.
4. the correlation of WAIS FSIQ and ACT scores has been found in numerous studies to be > 0.8. the SAT and ACT are almost perfectly correlated with one another.
1. frey & detterman disagree with you, because you’re wrong and they’re right.
Frey and Detterman concede, through their own formula, that high SAT people regress PRECIPITOUSLY to the mean when taking official IQ tests. You’re too dumb to understand this, let alone explain it.
2. there is no info on the SAT scores of the students in the harvard study. you just assume they’re representative of harvard’s scores TODAY. at the time of the study harvard didn’t disclose the SATs of its students and the students may not have been representative of harvard undergraduates peepee-tard. therefore the study is meaningless.
Actually the median SAT score at Harvard, even back in 2003 was known to be 1490 which equates to an IQ of about 145. And yet there IQ on the abbreviated Wechsler was 128 on the abbreviated WAIS BEFORE deducting a bunch of points for old WAIS-R norms. The Harvard study is telling the same the story as the Frey and Detterman study. High SAT people regress massively to the mean on official IQ tests. You can argue they weren’t representative of Harvard students, but there’s no reason to think Harvard students who volunteer for such studies are significantly dumber than those who don’t.
3. the third study i can’t look at. it’s behind a pay wall.
Well that’s too bad because in that study, the SAT scores of the Ivy League students were known.
4. the correlation of WAIS FSIQ and ACT scores has been found in numerous studies to be > 0.8. the SAT and ACT are almost perfectly correlated with one another
Read the article. In people who have their shadows measured at the same time of day, shadow height (SAT IQ) correlates near perfectly with stadiometer height (WAIS IQ), but if ALL Americans were to compare their shadow height to their stadiometer height, the correlation drops precipitously because people from different academic backgrounds have their shadows measured at different times of day.
the IQ 170 guy said my IQ should be 118. But he was unaware of tons of other stuff I did (I showed him all my papers that were not lost). I think I should be IQ121.
Iluminaticat
You’re showing that you understand little about this IQ differences in scores. If you scores consistently 120 or 118 two points and individually speaking seems irrelevant. Personality traits matter. Intra-variation on subteats scores matter. Creativity!!!!! Almost IQistics despise totally, matter. Rationality matter. Other gem of intelligence that 19 in 9 IQistics think it’s less important than IQ.
this is what the plot will look like when any two IQ tests are compared. the same as the plot of two subtests of a battery.
for example the SAT and ACT. i expect a plot of scores would look like the above.
but the above plot is misleading.
what happens is if the IQ is a linear combination of test scores, then as the IQ increases the linear combination increases in smaller and smaller corresponding increments.
that made no sense. i was using IQ equivocally.
what i meant was:
if the RAW score on the IQ test is a linear combination of test scores, then as the SCALED score increases the linear combination increases in smaller and smaller corresponding increments.
if the RAW score on the IQ test is a linear combination of test scores, then as the SCALED score increases the linear combination increases in smaller and smaller corresponding increments.
No idea what you’re trying to say. On the WAIS-R for example, each subtest has raw scores (i.e. the number of actual question you get right). These raw scores are then assigned NORMALIZED scaled scores with a mean of 10 and an SD of 3, such that the 50th percentile by definition equals scaled score 10. The 98th percentile by definition equals scaled score 16, etc.
For 30 year-olds, the sum of scaled scores for all 11 subtests has a mean of about 111 and SD of 25, so at this age full-scale IQ = [(sum of scaled scores – 111)/25](15) + 100
So, full-scale IQ increases in equal increments of sum of scaled scores.
So again, I have no idea what you’re trying to say or if or how it would apply to the WAIS-R.
Scored 1471 on the SAT
My family was on welfare.
my g is 130
(I still need a brain scan to check for siezers)
Scored 1520 on the SAT
My family is not on welfare but we’re Black so it’s kinda the same.
My g is 115 to 120 or so
(I need to bust a nut instead of spending all of my time on HBD blogs)
Thats a good article. This is what happens when Pumpkin focuses on facts, rather than absurd conspiracy theories around colonialism and ‘institutional racism’.
I agree.
Bill, how did you find this blog?
Beautiful analogy! But as I think I’ve argued before, I don’t think the backgrounds of different Americans (different in the sense of class/race) are really as great as some assume them to be. This is actually a point where you and Mugabe probably agree and disagree with me.
Growing up in suburban Deep South, I’ve been in some really good schools (academically high-achieving) and visited some really shitty ones. But the books we used were the same. And some of the ghetto high schools had more computers and nicer looking buildings (which blew my mind)!. But then, their parents and teachers were probably shittier so they were disadvantaged in that way.
In some ways, Americans have become more homogenous but at the same time more different. Top 40 radio is now an even mix of black and white artists. But TV culture and geeky interests now divide whites and blacks and other races more. So maybe blacks do grow up in a substantially different culture. I’m not sure.
And when I say backgrounds, I mean “environments” that people are exposed to…
and soi-disant IQ tests like the WISC and WAIS aren’t any less culturally loaded than the SAT. the black white gap is THE SAME IN DEVIATION SCORE OR LESS ON THE SAT.
But in the early 70s blacks scored worse on the SAT than they did on the WAIS. The black-white gap shrunk on the SAT over the last several decades, but remained constant on the WAIS. This shows the SAT is more culturally sensitive.
it would if both tests had remained the same. they haven’t.
and how much shrinkage was there?
besides i dismiss “cultural sensitivity” as legit variable.
the environment changes and scores on test 1 change more than on test 2 does NOT mean that test 1 is more culturally loaded.
why?
because for all i or anyone knows the environment might have changed in a different way such that test 2 scores changed more.
psychology is a social science. social sciences can only be sciences so far as social scientists are cognizant of the social aspect of their science.
as far as i know the level of awareness among psychologists both professional and arm-chair of the social aspect of their science is nil.
and if the SAT were replaced by the WISC or WAIS you’d see the same pattern.
in this case the SAT would be from outer space.
and if the SAT were replaced by the WISC or WAIS you’d see the same pattern.
The SAT couldn’t be replaced by the WAIS. That’s the whole point. The WAIS relies on people being unfamiliar with it in order for it to test IQ, and that’s not possible for a college admission test that people obsessively prepare for.
Because i love metaphors and comparisons like that, i really liked this post.
”.However in America, there’s a strong class divide, so you have the upper class, who studies AP algebra, geometry, calculus and Shakespeare, and then you have the lower class, who attends working class schools and is dissuaded from going to college at all. The lower class tend not to even take the SAT, but when they do, they tend to score below their genetic potential. For example Bill Cosby had an IQ equivalent around 80 on the SAT despite being very intelligent on an official IQ test and known for his comic wit. Other quick comic minds from working class backgrounds who underperformed on the SAT include Rosie O’Donnell and Howard Stern.”
In this part i thought you commited mistakes. Because someone wasn’t good in some scholastic tests or ”below expectations” doesn’t mean:
– s/he don’t reached totally their/genetic potential because social environment;
– s’he is not smart, specially where s’he has been perceived as smarter.
Very comic minds in my view tend to have some trends to unusual brain-features and can be a lower G, specially, if compared with verbal skills.
I think blacks tend to be psychologically smarter than cognitive while whites and east asians tend to be otherwise, because the first has been selected in very social-like communities.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201707/matter-not-mind-blind-and-vice-versa
More or less like that even i think the author wasn’t perfectionist in this post above.
But seems correct to say official IQ tests tend to be more objective and less affected by environmental fluctuations than Sat or other scholastic tests, my opinion. And bear in mind that ”intelligence tests” are standard and not Sat.
It’s very likely we have many brighter working classes americans who like to study algebra, geometry or Shakespeare and usually, those who are really brighters tend to be self-directed, independent thinkers and learners, they don’t need that school or university shows them what they have to study, they do it for their own and often since early age.
Thats why theres a difference between intelligence vs intellect vs cognitive power in my view.
Blacks can seem more intelligent than their IQ.
On the other hand, I would not call bill gates an intellectual. I’ve never heard any of the tech robber barons say anything smart. Its usually: be nice, give money to africa, the world shouldnt fight, open borders, there is no such things as gender. etc etc.
I get very annoyed hearing east asian guys drone on and on about technology and STEM type stuff. You’ve probably noticed I get annoyed when anime does it. There is an assumption that to be smart you have to be in STEM. Its actually a lot more arrogant than people know usually assume about east asians.
I find that in general east asians have all the effects of ritalin. They can have very superior abilities in concentration on mind numbing tasks – as master selected for – but if the discussion is about economics, law or politics they just start hammering rational but stupid arguments. I genuinely dont think they are aware of the world beyond their task list.
I have some east asian friends who are normal enough. But the east asians I would have encountered in finance/consulting are usually super strong on a large weakness of mine – concentration on tedious tasks so I tend to get pissed off looking at them.
I had the same problem at 15 as a waiter. The east asian women would stare at every table to make sure the right dishes, orders and so on where right. Like a hawk. Had the personality of robot.
I believe china/korea/taiwan are reflective of the people entirely. If people say environmental and economic factors are holding back blacks from finally creating civilisation (which they have never done), nobody can say ‘racism’ held back east asians in asia from expressing themselves.
I coined the term “convergent creativity”, a intermediary state of reasoning, between convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Capacity to articulate, to invent new sentences but to conclude the sane thing. Creativity is a novel product usually with novel narrative that explain the product. Convergent creativity is the novel narrative or explanation but no a novel product. On avg I think east Asians appear to be not only more pragmatic in action but also in thought, more crude, objective, minimalist. I can be totally wrong about it, but I don’t think so, appear to be like that. What you said concentration skills of east Asians may tend to have a collateral effect: reduction of convergent creativity. I’m other hand blacks on avg and the most characteristic in personality traits tend to be opposite, something extroverted people tend to be: Verbally expansive, faster and yea more creative. The common lack of attention of black people have a good effect of convergent creativity and also it’s important to artistic creativity or short term creative thinking. Whites as expected seems seems have a intermediary avg phenotype as well larger psychological variation between “east Asian avg phenotype” and ” black avg phenotype”.
I think your two sensitive philosophers.
Barely 15% of what I say is about philosophy.
I made a guest post about A.I. that pumpkin put on his blog and that was the most I ever talked about technology.
I am not a techie person, but I am interested in the social impact of technology. I know that a huge number of people work on intelligent software that learns social dynamics. That means these huge server farms are accelerating their emotional intelligence. It is the complete opposite of what you said philosopher, that A.I. will have autism. A.I. will be a supper empath. In video games the developers are not autistic, they need to have an incredible theory of mind and visual awareness to animate the characters and tell a story. Video game people are artist and the same goes for the people that make the good Anime stories. Animation requires a depth of understanding the mind of human beings. The segment of people developing social A.I. has that artistic quality to them as well. Knowing how the complexities of the human being. That is why I am fascinated by A.I. – because is not just techies working on it. But people that understand human motivations and values. Not everyone who works with technology is an autistic nerd. Artists know how to craft with it in amazing ways.
Correction
Barely 15% of what I say is about technology.
The errors I make, make me look like I am exactly like the negative thing said about me. That is not how I am but I still make big errors in what I say. Imean something totally different but fixing the error is not possible. I need to make new comments to fix the misconception.
Unrelated questions: (1) Let’s say someone archieved a FSIQ of 160+ on the WAIS, with scaled scores between 18-19. He got 18 on the matrice subtest, which equates to an IQ of 140. How is he expected to score on a culture fair matrice test? Closer to 160 or closer to 140? 140 might seem more likely, because a matrice test tests the same ability as the WAIS subtest. However, we also wouldn’t expect that his score would differ so drastically from his FSIQ.
(2) Do you think that the lyrical skills of someone like, say, Eminem imply high verbal ability or more trained skills and/or some talent comparable to other talents like dancing, rather than verbal IQ?
I will answer your question too, I can?
It’s correlated with verbal skills of course. Now if this verbal skill in particular is measured on IQ tests I don’t know.
Verbal creativity? Verbal analogies?
I think Pumpkin had considered doing an Eminem profile at one time. I would still be interested in seeing it..
peepee’s own words prove it’s the SAT that’s the stadiometer.
she claims she can’t take the WAIS because she’s familiar with it, yet familiarity with the SAT does NOT increase scores by a much at all.
The WAIS and SAT both assume that test familiarity explains little of the variance in test scores but for opposite reasons:
1) the WAIS assumes all test takers are equally under-familiar with the test content.
2) the SAT assumes all test takers are equally over-familiar with the test content.
Both assumptions are correct enough for their target demographics, but the second assumption collapses if the SAT is given to the entire U.S. population, and not just the upper class, hence the 0.9 g loading in the upper class, but a 0.7 g loading among all Americans.
Out of interest pumpkin, all joking aside what do you think Robert’s IQ is?
that’s nice peepee. there’s no such thing as unfamiliarity. it has NO psychometric reality. it’s BULLSHIT.
pill…
there is no one IQ, there is only a score on a particular test at a particular time.
whatever my score at age 9 would have been on the WISC, i’d already scored super high on a written answer soi-disant IQ test and on the “California Achievement Test”, my subsequent scores indicate that today i would score higher on the WAIS than peepee, despite her familiarity…unless she actually knows all of the questions.
i was thinking about it the other day. G-man reminded me. i think i may have confused a score of 10 on the digit span with a digit span of 10. does the digit span increase with age? this might explain why i remember the test stopping even though i’d made no incorrect answer. what’s the ceiling on the WISC digit span. i remember in school i was able to read long words backwards in my head and multiply three digit numbers in my head and even the kids who scored higher on the SAT than I couldn’t do this or couldn’t do it as fast.
and not just the upper class
this is an incorrect use of the lexeme “upper class”.
but again peepee is convicted by her own words, and she won’t even post the comments to which she has no answer however contrived.
does she doubt that those who take the SAT are not almost perfectly congruent with the “upper class” in terms of WAIS scores? not perfectly, but almost perfectly.
what peepee-tard is claiming is that a test for the top 50% or top whatever which is normed on millions of such people discriminates within this “upper class” less effectively than a test normed on 2,000 people representative of the population as a whole.
this is ABSURD.
Mugabe might be the smartest on this blog. Maybe even smarter than Pumpkin.
That scares Pumpkin greatly.
The sad fact about Africa which I don’t think Bill Gates and Buffet get – at all – is that improving the physical environment of blacks will not lead to civilisation. My hunch is that Gates genuinely thinks they can do an East asia and raise africa like Korea and Taiwan did.
They will never ask themselves why they care so much about the most barbaric race of man in the world. That is – physiologically in terms of their neurowiring – something they could never ask themselves.
My hunch is that Gates genuinely thinks they can do an East asia and raise africa like Korea and Taiwan did.
Gates is not as naïve as you think. I am certain he’s HBD aware given his obsession with IQ and the fact that Microsoft was sued for racial discrimination.
They will never ask themselves why they care so much about the most barbaric race of man in the world. That is – physiologically in terms of their neurowiring – something they could never ask themselves.
I don’t think he does care so much about them. He’s just trying to contribute something positive to humanity and get some good publicity and intellectual stimulation in the process, so he’s decided to help the least fortunate people by figuring out how to stop the spread of disease.
I don’t think he does care so much about them. He’s just trying to contribute something positive to humanity.
CONTRADICTION.
Carl Churchill’s link to that hungarian jew article was good. The dirty secret of mid 20th century science/physics is that its almost all jewish, and even more bizarrely within a 20 square mile region in Hungary.
Soros is from the same area.
As I’ve said 650 times. The real story in HBD is not black dumbness but jew intellect.
The old hbd crowd who worship jews because of this should probably ask why not worship blacks based on testosterone? – this de facto happens for pro athletes for example.
Also I was proven right by Sailer, that Soros is NOT a part of the cabal. The Israeli government issued a warning and ‘disavowal’ of Soros recently.
Hi Everyone,
I’d like to ask you and your readers to sign up to the giving pledge. There is a minsconception that one has to be a billionaire to join the pledge, but actually we’ve encouraged people of all walks of life – firemen, schoolteachers, nurses, plumbers etc – to sign up.
I genuinely think that the organisation we’ve developed will surely help improve the lives of africans, reduce infant mortality and perhaps some day eradicate malaria.
But my assumption?
What?
Why wouldn’t people want to help blacks? I don’t get it. I just don’t get it?
You mean….I could help end child abuse, fund a non jewish media organisation, help disabled veterans, expand mental health coverage, improve elderly care options, reduce opiod addiction
IN AMERICA??????!!!!!!
YOU ARE CRAZY SIR. AFRICA NEEDS IT MORE. INSHALLAH. WE WILL SAVE OUR AFRICAN BROTHERS MUMBANGO. YES.
TOMORROW IM DONATING MELINDA GATES TO THE AFRICA!!!!!!
THATS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!! INSHALLAH INSHALLAH. ALLAH AKBAR!!!
Hi everyone,
I am also a member of the Nation of Islam as of today. We will fight the white oppressors!
Praise be to the prophet Malcolm X and his son Malcolm Gladwell!!!!
I have to say Bill I pissed myself laughing (IN AGREEMENT!) reading that.
peepee should never have taken the stand. she’s basically plead guilty.
a test with which everyone is familiar and yet has no degree of familiarity such that there are more familiar who score higher and less familiar who score lower…
this is a superior IQ test.
OBVIOUSLY.
the IQ test with which none are FORMALLY familiar, will discriminate between the more and less familiar BY ACCIDENT.
just like i scored super high on mazes.
i had maze books at home. i drew mazes for fun.
i was ACCIDENTALLY familiar and had a YUGE advantage over other kids.
a test with which everyone is familiar and yet has no degree of familiarity such that there are more familiar who score higher and less familiar who score lower…
this is
NOT the SAT. Your SAT scores would likely have been nearly 1 SD lower had you been raised by low prole parents as opposed to an Ivy League household. Your Wechsler scores would have been lower too, but only in childhood. We saw this in the Minnesota transracial adoption study where childhood IQ and age 17 achievement test scores both benefitted from adoption into the upper class, but age 17 Wechsler scores did not.
i had maze books at home. i drew mazes for fun.
Mazes are the exception. Most Wechsler subtests are not popular games that kids regularly play.
IT IS THE SAT FUCKTARD.
PREPARATION FOR THE SAT DOESN’T WORK.
BUT ACCORDING TO YOU IT WORKS FOR THE WAIS.
THE WAIS IS AN INFERIOR IQ TEST IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE.
LION AND I AND THE BGI FOLKS ARE RIGHT.
YOU’RE WRONG.
GET OVER IT AND STOP LYING.
PREPARATION FOR THE SAT DOESN’T WORK
Short-term SAT prep doesn’t work, but if you think the social class you’re raised in has no effect on your SAT scores, you’re an idiot. Compare the sky high SATs of Asians raised by Tiger moms to the rock bottom SATs of kids raised in the ghetto. Yes part of the difference is genetic, but the SAT exaggerates the difference because it’s more culturally sensitive.
BUT IT’S NOT MORE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE.
THOSE ASIANS WOULD SCORE JUST AS HIGH ON THE WISC OR WAIS.
AND THE GHETTO KIDS WOULD SCORE JUST AS LOW.
IF YOU DON’T THINK SO YOU’RE AN IDIOT.
THOSE ASIANS WOULD SCORE JUST AS HIGH ON THE WISC OR WAIS.
AND THE GHETTO KIDS WOULD SCORE JUST AS LOW.
Bullshit
PEEPEE DEFENSE OF THE GHETTO CHIRRUN + HER OBSESSION WITH BLACK CELEBRITIES =
PEEPEE IS BLACK.
SHE HATES WHITEY.
BUT LOVES DAVID WECHSLER’S COCK.
SHE’S A REVERSE COAL BURNER.
BUT LOVES DAVID WECHSLER’S COCK.
Mug of Pee loves Ivy League cock.
Mug of Pee loves college board cock.
Mug of Pee loves Lion cock, writing:
if lion had the same ability in the uk or germany or japan he would be the success that he thinks he isn’t. he’d have gotten into the top 10 law school or b-school. and this would have afforded him opportunities ASU did not.
We tend to be believe study before to do scholastic tests really have a impact on our memorization. Maybe it’s true for some people but not for all. This tests are lies of universal human equality to reach their potentials. To do public exams to compete for a job, other example. If it’s not cognitive may will be psychological (people have different motivations even with the same quantitative levels).
Wait… I think this was mentioned elsewhere in this thread but I’m too lazy to scroll on my phone.
Please clarify: are racial differences greater on the SAT/ACT or WAIS? Because I always thought they were the same. I know the gap on the SAT has gotten smaller. I assumed that was because test makers were trying to make the gap smaller by reducing the g-loading.
I’m going to be posting an article on the precise figures, but the point is the black-white gap shrunk on the SAT since the early 70s, but remained the same on the WAIS.
Brothers! We will reunite with our ancestors in Africa!
(If allah is willing)
This is the best.
peepee logic is that the best way to test chess ability is to test those who have just learned the rules.
the best way to test swimming ability is on babies who’ve been thrown in immediately after birth.
#peepeelogic.
there’s no saving Pearson.
soi-disant IQ tests are a fraud.
more expensive and less accurate…at the high end.
the in-ability of psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychology majors to distinguish between branding and reality is the result of their low social IQ.
and pill…peepee has already said she’d assign me 145 as an average between my hypothetical WISC scores at age 9 and my subsequent qualification for the BGI study via every cumulative exam i’ve ever taken past 18.
except…and this is an example of how short term rather than cumulative exams measure different things…AND of how speed of learning and IQ are different things.
on the first two SoA exams i made the ceiling scaled score of 10. on one of them i made the highest raw score in the world. on subsequent exams i never scored above 7. a passing score was 6.
what was the difference between the first 2 and the rest?
no one studied for the first 2. everyone knew the material from years of school. they were cumulative.
the other exams no one knew the material. they required studying a specific curriculum for a few months.
if it hadn’t been for afro’s people he might’ve done some more memorable recordings.
or maybe’s afro’s people’s greatest contribution to humanity is AIDS.
u can tell ppls intelligence instantly just by looking at them
if they have a big head, they are almost certain to be smart as fuck
that 6″6 jew bastard lyor cohen is probably smart as shit
tragically he wasn’t born in the internet age so lacks access to infinite information from the moment of his birth so is probably dumber than my 6″3 brain
i will most certainly marry into a jew family and become a good goy and have many jewish children
unless of course national socialism somehow rises up due to the internet and free information
i doubt it, however, nordics are very low iq, smarter only than blacks and arabs
mediterraneans have always been the smartest race on the planet earth, jews included, orientals close behind
i presume because of intense competition in a fertile environment. losers were pushed north (cold) or south (sub-sahara)
as for asians, probably a garbage diet stunted their evolution, they seem to be the oldest race on the planet and personally i think humans originated from asia, not africa
I will have whatever this man is smoking!
I do believe National Socialism will be coming soon. Maybe preceded by a small scale race war
I wonder if someone from College Board reads comments on this blog?
I don’t think the SAT requires all that much knowledge. That said, even requiring a small bit of knowledge might be too much to ask given the disparity in the quality of schools in the US. The solution should be to make a college admissions test that is less reliant on what you learned at school, but that would never be accepted in the US since it would involve using IQ tests for college admissions.
Any test used for college admission would be extensively prepped for, and thus become a knowledge test.
The former incarnation of the SAT used to be quite immune to test prep. I don’t mean that you couldn’t improve your score if you’d never seen a multiple choice test in your life or that you couldn’t improve your score if you were not familiar with the basic math (algebra) that is required. I mean that if you are an average high school student, you shouldn’t expect much from test prep. If you make the tests more sensitive to general intelligence and less sensitive to knowledge, you would expect even less benefit from coaching.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00549.x/full