For as long as I remember, Einstein has been the poster boy for Genius. “It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that out” was a common expression, and Time magazine named Einstein the most influential person of the 20th century, calling him the preeminent scientist in a century dominated by science, and largely crediting him with all the scientific developments that followed his ground-breaking theories.
Not being a hardcore intellectual (my interests are psychometrics and evolution, not super brainy stuff like physics) I never quite understood what the big deal about Einstein was because it was so abstract, but most people above 150 IQ seem to worship him, while the pseudo-intellectual crowd (IQ 120-150) all worshipped Marx and Chomsky (every student at the university I attended would start their sentences with “from a Marxist perspective”).
One thing I did find odd about Einstein though is despite his reputation as the greatest Genius to ever live, he was anything but a precocious todler (he learned to talk late) and his brain size at autopsy was somewhat small.
The two most Darwinian correlates of intelligence are brain size and income so I tend to admire people who symbolize these correlation (i.e. Bill Gates using his 170 IQ to become the World’s richest man, or Chris Langan’s stratospheric brain size making him “America’s smartest man”). Einstein was always a thorn in my side because every time I mentioned my beloved brain-size IQ correlation, someone would cite Einstein’s smallish brain as evidence against it. Of course a single individual proves little, but symbolically, Einstein’s lack of brain mass was devastating.
Thus I was intrigued to hear about a video claiming Einstein plagerized his theory and was not the super genius the media built him up to be. Of course the person trashing Einstein might have an extremist political agenda for discrediting Einstein, so keep that in mind when listening to the interview:
Pumpkin Person 
Suprised time didnt name Cheim Weizmann person of the century in line with their political affiliation.
Deal should do a joint guest post with me on ‘why white men are holding back women, gays, spider monkeys and hermaphrodites’. Its taken me a while, but now I see that I am ‘woke’ and now Im pissed white men have taken advanage of me all my life.
Why do all modern academic idologies lead back to ‘hate white men’.
BECAUSE WHITE MEN ARE EVIL.
GRRLLLL Power.
I mean Power.
There is no such thing as girls. La la la dee dee dee.
Grill??
Took NAC yesterday. About an hour later I started getting those feelings again. I had forgotten Id taken it.
If I took speed, I would go psychotic very easily.
This blog has more fruit loops than a bowl of cereal but I didn’t quite expect a drag act…
I am WOKE. I am sick and tired of the male patriarchy telling me what to do all the time. Why wont the patriarchy get off my back?
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion
go/pc-considered-harmful
James Damore – damore@
July 2017
Click to access Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Whitetard and jewishtrash are so boring, dumb and evil.
Damore raises unwittingly a question about whether women have the faculty to be given a vote. I used to dismiss this more extreme view in the alt right because. as like Niall Ferguson, I fall along the line that if youre taxed or under purview to be, you should vote…..but the judgement of women is much weaker than men.
Hahaha I am just joking. That is what a fascist like Hitler would say. I think men and women are the exact same and all the world would be best off if there was no borders .la la la dee dee dee.
Lets go volunteer and help refugees from countries where 60% of women are raped in their lifetime! La la la dee dee dee.
So does Jordan Peterson
4:20
Holy Shit he literally says “wired to be exploited by infants”
10:45
jordan penisson is mentally ill.
BINGO
Pumpkin! I’ve written before but I think you are missing a major key to the human brain.
You are missing how important brain architecture is. For example, given the same number of neurons and speed of connection, some people are able to very quickly process information but struggle to think deeply or notice distant concepts, while others are relatively slower at processing simple information but can think more deeply and notice more distant concepts. This is similar to deep learning, where some networks literally have more layers and less neurons per layer, and other networks have less layers but more neurons per layers. The extra layers help with abstraction but can lead to slower responses.
I think that Asians have a brain structure that has less layers and more neurons per layer than Caucasians, and this explains much of the lack of inventiveness in Asia vs Europe, despite the superior ability Asians have to learn. Of course, personality plays a part as well, but brain architecture differences among people are stunning. I have interviewed many people in my life and I can literally watch their brain architecture moving. People with flat networks are amazing at in-the-box thinking and are very fast, but they just cannot do certain types of problems.
Ironically tests of reaction time correlate better with power tests than speed tests
What makes a network capable of deep thinking is actually recurrency. Internal feedback loops that allows the brain to connect information in novel ways. I call this higher dimensional folding. Everything feeds into everything else. feedforward networks can be trained to match input to output, but they cannot generate information like a recurrent net can. My brain generates new information all the time because information is always going back and forth between the sheets of my cortex.
Don’t confuse deep thinking, a kind of creativity with ”deep memorization skills”.
I didn’t
I don’t said it only to you.
more HBD.
van niekerk finishes second to a caucasian.
the winner was born in azerbaijan like garry kasparov and runs for turkey but has a russian name.
so he may be ethnically russian just like kasparov’s father was ethnically ashkenazi. his surname was weinstein.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2017/aug/10/world-athletics-championships-mens-200m-final-and-more-live#img-1
so 5 guys are pure black african. 1 is half ghanaian half japanese. but gold and silver go to a caucasian and a cape coloured respectively.
it seems that when caucasians are motivated by poverty their performance is closer to that of black africans. thus the success of eastern europeans in boxing and ufc.
What are you supposed to do if a girl asks you to have her babies and her IQ is 10 points higher than yours?
She wants to do the oobily-doobily with you??? Can you support the babies financially?
If you can’t support them financially (including any medical expenses they may need), don’t have them.
Im starting to think 70-80% of journalists in msm written media is jewish.
“Ideally one should only consider scores on tests with g loadings of 0.9+ but given how hard this data is to come by, I don’t have that luxury.”
–> No, Pumpkin, I believe you’re not right here. I’ve read only one chapter of Jensen so I may be wrong (but I doubt it).
If you take g as the factor construct, it’s the sum of G “loadedness” that counts. So 20 scores of very low G loaded tests (like rote memory) would be better than the two most G loaded tests (raven and vocabulary) if you get a total of 2 for the 20 tests and 1.7 for the most loaded one.
It means that even a very high loaded test isn’t “per se” a reflection of what g is, because of the definition of g in itself. It looks counter-intuitive but then it makes no sense to discriminate againts poorly g loaded tests except if you have a constraint (like consider only 3 tests). The only thing is to maximize the total number adding the g factor of each test.
PS :
– it’s amusing to read comments from this blog while I’m in a tiny island in Baleares where there is nothing to do except sunbathing, eating, drinking …. and reading 🙂
– Lion, is obviously straight. In fact, he doesn’t lile gays very much and he hates transexual … (or more precisely, he thinks there are crazy that shouldn’t be listened to. Note that I know some gays who thinks like Lion). So not really a liberal jewish. I like him a lot though. I like very much, even more, a certain Yakovn even if he is far more conservative than I am. He is so humble despite having a very good comon sense ability.
But one reason tests like the WAIS are so g loaded is it has so many different subtests. The raven is much less g loaded because it’s a unidimensional test
The fact that the WAIS score is made by many different sub-tests covering different aspects of mental process certainly contributes to its g loaded level. But it is the total that counts for g, independlty of the nature and number or complexity of the items covered. Just the total.
However, if you want to get a better idea of someone’s “intelligence” considering low-order factors, under the g level, we can call specific- loaded then certainly, it’s interesting to get scores that covers a variety of sub-factors (verbal, arithmetic, spatial, processing speed, short term memory etc. )
So you could say the highest g-loaded tests, let’s say WAIS, are the one who covers the most variety of sub-g factors, and then are the best to consider (for evaluating g and sub-g factors). But i don’t know if it is the case even if it seems highly probable.
Another way of looking at this – to generalize the problem – is to say you shouldn’t go from characterizing the test to “g ” evaluation but the other way around because of the nature of mathematical construct of g.
For example, and it’s amusing, g loadedness could help you characterize a skill as mental or physical. Imagine you find that shooting rifle is +0.1 g loaded, then it’s a mental activity. But let’s say that running is -0.1g loaded, then it’s a physical activity.
All and only mental activity entails a positive correlation with “g” wich is the factor that explains the individual differences in all of them. Sub-factors (say s) explains the remaining differences for sub-skills. And the rest would be the error (but it’s less than 1%) and what can’t be explained by a general aptitude. For mental tests, it happens to be very small wich is a big argument in favour of believing that g is not only a mathematic constructs but that it corresponds to something real (I believe Jensen uses the gravity as an example of a math constructs who does correspond to something in the real world).
The most G loaded tests are the most inter-correlated ones*
Would be interesting to think in G-less levels starting from G itself.
The most G loaded ”test” [or real-skill] is those that are more ”pattern recognition-like”, purely speaking, than those that need cultural aquisition.
just thinking, no tomatoes or rocks,
danke uuuuu!!1!1